The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Norman Finkelstein ArchiveBlogview
Norman Finkelstein on Sanders, the First Intifada, BDS, and Ten Years of Unemployment
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
NormanFinkelstein
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

We interviewed Norman Finkelstein, the noted scholar of the Israel/Palestine conflict, in Brooklyn on April 8 and followed up with email exchanges. The following text contains both oral and written responses to our questions.

PART 1: SANDERS

Q. You’ve been canvassing for Bernie Sanders. Tell us why you’re so excited.

I’ve witnessed three great social movements in my lifetime, the Civil Rights Movement, the Antiwar Movement and this is the third. Bernie’s campaign took the Occupy movement, which was localized, and he elevated it to the national level. I don’t know what will come next. I doubt anyone knows. But it’s exhilarating to be part of it.

If you asked me one year ago whether young people would come out in these numbers, I would have laughed. My impression was that they were hooked on internet chatter and antidepressants. But the young folks in the campaign are so serious, so intelligent; they remind me of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) folks from the early 1960s. I went on a bus ride to Massachusetts to campaign for Bernie. I was one of five in the alte kaker brigade. The rest were young people. It struck me that on the way home, there were no drugs, no one smoking marijuana, no alcohol. We got home at midnight or 1 am. It was a kind of moral austerity. Like, this is serious stuff, we’re not going to diminish it.

I have to say, it made me feel proud, for once, to be an American. On the other hand, these young people have good reason to be serious. They’re struggling for their future. If nothing comes of this, it’s really a black hole for them, a futureless future. They’re attending colleges with astronomical tuitions, coming out strapped with astronomical debt, then they have to pay astronomical interest rates, and—the worst is—there are no jobs out there. So they have a real (as we used to say) material interest in the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Q. If Bernie loses, something could still come of this?

Hopefully, the young folks will figure out the next step. It’s telling how easily and intelligently they made the transition from the Occupy movement. Occupy had a lot of cultist elements. That open mic thing—I felt as if I was at a Moonie wedding. And the consensus politics, it just didn’t work. When Bernie keeps being asked, reasonably, how do you expect to push a radical program through Congress, he keeps saying the same thing, I can’t do anything on my own, there’s got to be millions of people in the streets. He never says, organize within the Democratic Party. He just says, organize, organize, organize. How can anyone calling themselves radical disagree with this message?

This is the opportunity of a lifetime. Bernie has a national platform. Day in and day out, he’s hammering away at Wall Street, he’s naming Goldman Sachs, he’s indicting the Walton family—one family—for hoarding more wealth than 40 percent of our society. He says it over and over again. To the point that even his supporters are complaining. But Bernie grasps that he must keep repeating the message if it’s going to get traction. His devout supporters might have heard his stump speech a thousand times already, but most people hear it just once. For them, it’s not tedious, it’s a revelation. Still, you’d never know what he’s saying from the mainstream media. You wouldn’t know that he’s saying that one tenth of one percent owns more wealth than 90 percent. That’s a simple statement, he keeps repeating it. But the New York Times never reports it. However, it also never disputes it. It’s just whited out. Instead, when Sanders started campaigning in New York, the Times ran a puff piece on Goldman Sachs, saying how cool and hip the place was because its chief information officer was a gay Latino. For all anyone knows, so was Dracula; but he’s still a vampire.

Hillary keeps saying, “We have to build on Obama.” But what did Obama actually do that we are supposed to build on? Did he reduce college tuition or student debt? Did he create real 9 to 5, 40-hour-per-week jobs at a decent wage? Did he reduce income inequality? If his term of office was such a resounding success—which power-hungry grovelers like Paul Krugman now proclaim—can you tell me why so many people are rallying behind Trump and Sanders? Have you ever in your lifetime seen such mass disaffection from the political establishment and the system it represents?

Q. Do you see real economic reform flowing from the campaign?

Not in the short term. The one percent is tenacious; a lot is at stake for them. Former NYC mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg might be reduced to owning only ten homes. Even if Bernie did win the nomination, the political establishment, and the billionaires who control it, will try to destroy him. The “deep state” (as Egyptians call it) will do everything they can to wreck him, so as to teach the people a lesson, Don’t mess with the system. The Republican establishment would prefer Hillary to win if Trump is nominated and the Democratic establishment would prefer Trump to win if Sanders is nominated. The apparatchiks in both parties are trembling because power is slipping from them. “How did this happen?” To them, the party has been hijacked. Their vehicle to power has been hijacked. The serfs are stealing their fiefdom from under their feet. The whole top is united because the whole bottom is shaking the rafters. Each party would rather lose one election than lose control of their respective apparatus.

Q. Isn’t it possible the Democratic Party will blow up just like the Republicans?

A lot depends on Sanders. A pivotal moment in my own generation’s political memory is the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. Hubert Humphrey was the nominee, he was Lyndon Johnson’s vice-president. A lot of people blamed the antiwar protests and so-called riots outside the convention, and the ensuing disaffection from the Democratic Party, for causing Humphrey’s defeat and ushering Richard Nixon into power. Now, there’s a real question: if Sanders were to say, we want one million people outside the Democratic convention making their feelings felt, that could be quite dramatic. But he’s going to be under a lot of pressure not to repeat the ‘68 convention.

Q. Can you imagine Bernie campaigning for Hillary Clinton?

Yeah, it’s hard to conceive. Noam Chomsky has said that of course he’ll vote for Clinton if she’s the Democratic nominee. Because, although the policy differences between the candidates might be tiny, when you wield so much power, even a tiny difference translates into life and death for many people. That’s a compelling argument. Trump has also released ugly latent impulses that, even as they exist in many if not all of us, should be kept bottled up, and he’s legitimized street violence and hooliganism. Will these arguments persuade me? I can’t yet say. But I doubt they’ll persuade most young people. They don’t feel a stake in a Clinton victory; it just represents more of the same.

Q. You mention Occupy. What about Black Lives Matter as a factor?

The African-American vote has been the bulwark of reaction in this election. It’s sinking Bernie and buoying Hillary. However inspiring their courage and conviction, and however successful they’ve been in raising public consciousness, I can’t agree with Black Lives Matter activists who say that they’re above or beyond electoral politics. It’s radical posturing, posing and preening. They say that Sanders doesn’t speak to—the new buzzword is intersectionality. Tell me, which is the group of people in America today that stand to benefit most from a jobs program, universal health care and free college education? The buzzword obscures the basic fact that African-Americans are suffering most from our economic system and would benefit most if the Sanders platform were implemented. I was a radical in my youth, and I emphatically remain one. But I have come to see that I was wrong about many things. It’s a regrettable aspect not only of mainstream but also radical history that it focuses on the glamorous, chic, photogenic personalities who are often not the ones who effected real, concrete change. You take the case of the different phases of the Civil Rights Movement. The phase that really changed the face of America wasn’t the Black Power movement. It was the early phase of SNCC, the freedom rides, sit-ins, and voter registration drives, the period from the beginning of the Montgomery bus boycott to the passage of the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts. If you look at who were the grassroots heroes, people who were just breathtaking in their courage, intelligence, maturity and earnestness—Bob Moses, Diane Nash, James Forman, James Bevel, Fanny Lou Hamer—most of them nobody has heard of. But everyone knows Eldridge Cleaver, Bobby Seale, Huey Newton and Angela Davis. (Though I don’t want to be hard on Angela, she’s a uniquely impressive figure.) Everyone knows the Panthers, but who knows SNCC? The Civil Rights Movement was perhaps the most inspirational chapter in American history. But today’s activists are focusing on the wrong phase of it. Like myself, they’ve been seduced by style at the expense of substance.

Q. What about the courage you’ve seen in Palestine?

I personally witnessed a lot of courage during the first intifada. It was a kind of cognitive dissonance. These were nondescript, ordinary people, and yet at the same time each of them in his or her own way was displaying a kind of heroism that I was totally incapable of. I remember sitting in the kitchen of the house where I lived. It had a picture window. Every time a shot was fired outside, I wanted to dive for cover. But everyone else just went about their business as if nothing was happening. Everyone was involved, everyone showed awe-inspiring bravery. A grandmother—if a soldier started abusing a kid—she confronted the soldier, she was not afraid. She would go right up to the soldier and say, God is stronger than you.

The first intifada was not unlike the Civil Rights Movement. The most obvious question when you’re using nonviolence is, Who are you trying to reach with this tactic? That’s actually a complex question. Are you trying to convert the white Southerners, are you trying to reach white Northerners, are you trying to get the Federal government to act? It was quite clear from early on, the Movement realized, white Southerners? Forget it, they’re not going to be shaken by pictures of black (or white) people getting beaten. That’s not going to touch them. They were like the overwhelming majority of Israelis today, who are dug in, morally brutalized. They won’t be moved by pity. There’s no possibility that you’re going to reach Israelis by scenes of Palestinian suffering; on the contrary, they seem to relish it. So, if you choose as your audience, so to speak, the wrong target, you could be wasting your time. But the Civil Rights Movement understood early on, Our target is not white Southerners, our target is Northern whites, liberals and the Federal government. They carry on pretending to be a democracy, so we’re going to embarrass them into doing something about voter disenfranchisement and segregation.

These sorts of questions were not clearly sorted out when it came to the first intifada. It was too short-lived. It’s usually dated from December 1987 to Oslo in September 1993, but the first intifada was already over by 1990. Which was why the Palestinians cheered Saddam Hussein and the Scud missiles he fired at Israel. They were back trying to be liberated by someone from above or outside them. The whole idea of the first intifada was, We’re going to emancipate ourselves. But it was already over by the time of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, when they were looking to him as a savior.

Q. What about Sanders’s stance on Israel/Palestine?

Initially I avoided reading his statements. I knew they would make me cringe. I don’t think even he believed a lot of what he was saying. His brother Larry is in the Green Party in the UK, he supports BDS. Bernie must know what’s going on is egregiously wrong. And actually, his recent statements have not been terrible. The formal policy statement he issued at the time of the AIPAC convention (which he didn’t attend) wasn’t bad. He explicitly called for lifting the blockade of Gaza. If Gazans organized a mass, nonviolent demonstration to breach the blockade, they could have Bernie on their side. The UN Human Rights Council report on Operation Protective Edge (2014) was horrible, it was a disgrace, but there was one redeeming paragraph. It did call for lifting the blockade immediately and unconditionally. That’s now been joined by Bernie’s unequivocal endorsement. It signals that the possibility exists of winning over him and his mass constituency, as well as large swaths of international public opinion, to end the illegal and inhuman blockade. His call during the New York debate with Hillary for an evenhanded US policy that recognized Palestinian humanity was unprecedented in a Democratic primary. Despite all the local pressures, and everything that was riding on the New York primary, he didn’t back down. Incidentally, the 74-year-old Jew from Brooklyn lost the Jewish vote in the primary, but everywhere he’s been sweeping the Muslim vote. Who could have predicted that?! It has to touch you—I am Jewish—when Bernie keeps winning the Muslim vote. Ask yourself, Would American Jews in their majority vote for a Muslim? Never. Impossible. But Muslim Americans are rallying behind Sanders, even as he supports recognition of Israel and its right to live in peace. Why? Because he comes across as a fair and decent guy. That’s so moving, so wonderful, so inspiring. It gives hope that a better world is possible.

PART 2: PALESTINE

Q. What wouldn’t you have predicted about where we’re at today in the conflict, ten years ago?

There are multiple dimensions to this question, each of which has witnessed significant shifts: the Palestinians, the region, the international community, and the Jewish diaspora. Some of these changes could have been anticipated, others came as a complete surprise.

On the Palestinian front, the salient development has been the successful conversion of the West Bank into a mini-Jordan. The Israelis made a calculation in 1993. Why can’t we create a little Jordan in the occupied Palestinian territories? We’ll just pay off enough VIPs in the PLO, and the US or Jordan will train the security services. The PLO will then do all the torture, they’ll do all the dirty work, and we’ll be relieved of the two biggest headaches inflicted on us by the first intifada: the public relations catastrophe, caused by media images of soldiers with Uzis beating children with stones, and the burden of having to mobilise the reserves to suppress a mass uprising.

The Oslo accord was designed to rid Israel of these two headaches. Number one, we’ll let Palestinians do all the dirty work. These liberals and human rights groups won’t be on our backs anymore because we won’t be doing the torture. It worked. I can’t think of a single report in the past decade by a major human rights organization, such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch (HRW), on the West Bank. Occasionally, local Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations issue reports. But, however valuable, they’re not high-profile; they don’t garner media attention. It’s Arabs torturing Arabs, so who cares? And now, when there’s an Israeli massacre in Gaza, the PA represses demonstrations in the West Bank, so far fewer Israeli soldiers are required, and they don’t need to call up the reservists. The PA protects Israel’s rear. It’s the same right now with the so-called third intifada. It’s the PA that’s repressing the rebellion at Israel’s bidding.

Here’s another telling detail. The magnitude of the devastation Israel wreaked in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge beggars the imagination. In Operation Cast Lead (2008-9), 6,300 homes were destroyed. But, do you know how many homes were destroyed in Protective Edge? 19,000. 350 kids were killed in Cast Lead, 550 in Protective Edge. But here’s the thing. As many as 300 human rights reports were issued after Cast Lead, documenting Israel’s carnage. But after Protective Edge, there was dead silence. The only major human rights organization that published reports on Protective Edge was Amnesty, and Amnesty’s reports were horrible. The silence was partly because nothing came of the human rights reports after Cast Lead. The US, acting in cahoots with the PA, impeded any action. The reports just collected dust, so the organizations ceased caring. It was also because the international community has grown inured to Israeli atrocities and Israel’s lunatic prime minister. But the biggest reason was the cowardice—or, if you prefer, prudence—of the human rights community after Richard Goldstone’s crucifixion. I can’t prove it, I want to emphasize that, but in my opinion, based on a lot of circumstantial evidence, Israel dug up dirt on Goldstone and forced him to capitulate. So, first it was Goldstone. The next victim was Christian Tomuschat, a German jurist. He got kicked off one of the Human Rights Council follow-up committees on Cast Lead by the Israel lobby. Then it was William Schabas, a prominent fixture in the human rights community. He got ousted from the UN Human Rights Council investigation into Protective Edge by the Israel lobby. It was obvious that you’d better not have any skeletons in your closet if you go after Israel. Human Rights Watch published five substantial reports after Cast Lead, some of them quite good—such as Rain of Fire, on the white phosphorus. But it said practically nothing on Protective Edge, even as that operation was by far the most destructive. The human rights organizations, they just sat it out or, in the case of Amnesty, regressed to churning out apologetics. The UN Human Rights Council was an even bigger disaster. Mary McGowan Davis, this New York state judge who replaced Schabas, was a veritable horror story.

The only chink in Israel’s armor after Protective Edge was Breaking the Silence. Otherwise, Israel had intimidated everyone into passivity. There was nothing you could quote against the official Israeli—I know it’s called narrative, I call it propaganda. I couldn’t cite anything. Human rights organizations are still scrupulously correct in the collection of facts. Where all the distortion sets in is the legal interpretation of the facts. That’s where you see the hand of people like HRW’s Ken Roth. He used to—I don’t know if it’s true anymore—personally edit the HRW reports on Israel/Palestine—they were the only ones he personally edited—because that’s when you get into the law. You are allowed to describe ghastly things, but then in the legal section, maybe you can say that it was indiscriminate, maybe you can say that it was disproportionate, but the one thing you stay away from, is saying that an attack was deliberate, as in the deliberate targeting of civilians. So, in the Human Rights Council report, they’re describing over and over and over again deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, but you’ll never see that in the legal conclusion. That’s where Mary McGowan Davis entered the picture. She shamelessly whitewashed Israeli atrocities, just as HRW’s legal expert did back in 2006, in its reports on Israel’s use of cluster submunitions in south Lebanon.

Except for pointing up the discrepancy between the factual findings and the legal interpretations in the Human Rights Council and Amnesty reports, there wasn’t much I could say about Israeli atrocities during Protective Edge. There was no documentation from “neutral” human rights organizations that I could cite. I could quote Palestinian human rights organizations, which are, of course, reputable and reliable but, unfortunately and unfairly, they lack credibility among the broad public. The only thing I had left and what I constantly resorted to in a new book I’m writing on Gaza, was Breaking the Silence. It’s an unimpeachable source and its eyewitness testimonies demolished the official propaganda. If Israel can silence Breaking the Silence, if Israel can break Breaking the Silence, then the next time it’s just going to be Israel’s word against the Palestinians. That’s a disaster waiting to happen. I notice some “radical” Palestinians in the West have been given to disparaging Breaking the Silence. That’s unfathomable idiocy.

So, Israel’s calculation in 1993 turned out to be more successful than anyone could have conceived. The PA security services started out as a rinky-dink operation. Now, they’re a very professional organization, trained by the CIA and by Jordan. Maybe, if a mass Palestinian uprising erupted, the PA security services would collapse. But, for now, they have proven very effective. This level of collaboration and cooperation between the PA and Israel—would I have predicted it? No. The PA sabotaged the Goldstone report, it prayed for Israel’s victory in Protective Edge, it has acted as a conveyor belt for Israel’s torture regime.

The next dimension is the regional one. I would not have predicted that, while Israel was massacring Gazans during Protective Edge, Egypt would openly support Israel, Saudi Arabia would openly support Israel, the Arab League would openly support Israel. The Arab League met once during Protective Edge, and it supported el-Sisi’s cynical cease-fire proposal. If Israel was able to carry out an unprecedented massacre in Gaza, it was partly because it had not just the tacit but the vocal backing of so many Arab states. As for Western public opinion, the Holocaust blackmail still works at the state level but not among ordinary people. Fully seven decades have elapsed since the end of World War 2, while the Holocaust has been used like a shmatte—a multipurpose rag. It’s been drained of its emotional resonance; it no longer has the capacity to silence Europeans, at any rate, the younger generation.

On the other hand, I was perhaps the first one to take notice of the shifting currents among American Jewry. I used to lecture at about 40 colleges a year. It became clear from speaking to these audiences that Israel was losing the battle for public opinion. In 2007, I gave a public lecture on this topic at the Judson Memorial Church near NYU. I said that young American Jews are not going to defend Israel’s criminal conduct. Israel dropped as many as four million cluster submunitions on south Lebanon in 2006 in the last 72 hours of the war, when it was already over. It dropped white phosphorus, which reaches a temperature of 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit, on hospitals and a school during Cast Lead. If you’re a young American Jew, you’re probably liberal and idealistic, you’re not going to defend that sort of stuff. You may not come out swinging against Israel, but you’re going to lower your head in embarrassment and shame. I was slowly registering this metamorphosis. Something’s happening here. Younger Jews are changing. Some older Jews too—but not the majority.

Q. What about the intifada of knives?

It’s a misnomer to call it an intifada. When the first intifada was expiring, there were all these stabbings, in Jerusalem and elsewhere. They were not a sign of hope, but a manifestation of despair. This so-called third intifada, it began with stabbings; it began on a note of hopelessness, which is what an impulsive, random stabbing is. The first intifada began spontaneously, but within days all the mass organizations got involved, they formed the Unified National Command of all the political parties (except Hamas at the beginning). They were distributing leaflets every week. It was professionally done. There were bulletins telling you what to do. This day’s a strike day, this day we should be doing this, this day we should be doing that. It may have begun spontaneously. But there was a network of mass organizations ready to jump in. There is no organization now.

That points to one of the myths propagated by the BDS leadership. It claims to represent nearly 200 Palestinian civil-society organizations. If there were 20—forget about 200, just 20—such organizations with a real constituency in Palestine, would the third intifada eight months later still have no organizational form? If the organizations BDS claims to represent actually exist, they would have jumped into the void, just as the mass organizations did in the first intifada. And in the first intifada, everyone deferred to them, because they belonged to them. That’s civil society. In fact, the salient feature of this so-called third intifada is that it is organization-less. Have you ever heard of a genuine people’s uprising that consisted entirely of random knifings and running down people in the street? The truth is,“Palestinian civil society” is an illusion. It’s just foreign-financed NGOs—one or two-person outfits—dotting Ramallah’s privileged landscape.

In general, there’s a lot of romanticizing of “oppressed people.” We see it here in the US. Who would have predicted that African-Americans would sink the most radical presidential candidate in living memory? In my youth, black people were said to be the “Vanguard of The Revolution,” but in this election cycle they turned out to be the vanguard of reaction. Look at John Lewis. He was a genuine hero of the Civil Rights Movement, no question about it. But now he’s a pathetic flunkey for the racist Clinton machine. He grotesquely maligned Bernie’s record in the Civil Rights Movement and delivered up a clean bill of health for the Clintons. Likewise, because the Palestinians have been romanticized, it hasn’t sunk in that at this moment—I’m not going to predict tomorrow, I learned that from the Sanders campaign—Palestinians are a defeated people. The causes and symptoms of this include a cynicism about politics after so much sacrifice and hope yielded the bitter fruits of continued occupation and more settlements; a collaborationist leadership; the daily struggle for survival; the rejection of collective struggle in favor of every man for himself; the absence of popular organizations. I don’t know who in the West dreamt it up, but one clever tactic was to take any Palestinian who had talent, any Palestinian who was articulate, any Palestinian who might be radicalized, and give them an NGO in Ramallah, give them a computer terminal and give them an office, double or triple their salary, and then make it plain that if you get too far out of line, you’ll be out in the cold. It worked like a charm. The types of folks who once staffed the mass, popular organizations now sit in a Ramallah office writing quarterly reports on the Palestinian economy, even as the Palestinian economy is non-existent. This critical sector of future leaders has been pacified.

Q. But maybe, if Palestinians in the occupied territories are a defeated people, BDS is something that’s happening in the diaspora, which is undefeated.

Defeated people, for the moment. I don’t know what will come next. Look how wrong I was about young people in the US! The ruling elite in the West is very smart. It makes errors, obviously, but one shouldn’t underestimate its cleverness. One reason white South Africa abolished Apartheid was because it looked at the United States in the post-Civil Rights era and it dawned on them that you can get rid of the formal, legal discrimination and still control the economy. That was what happened here in the US. There was no redistribution of wealth between blacks and whites, except the creation of a new, post-Civil Rights era black bourgeoisie. Palestine is a tiny place. It was overwhelmed by the big powers that calculated and conspired how to neutralize it. The Europeans supply the largesse to keep the PA afloat while the CIA torturers train the security services. It would have taken superhuman fortitude to resist the temptation and the torture. I can’t say I’m shocked at the defeat that was inflicted. But we should be honest that the situation is hopeless, for now. It doesn’t mean we should give up. I’m not giving up. But we also shouldn’t nurture illusions. When the bubble bursts, it just breeds yet more despondency and despair.

PART 3: POLITICS

Q. You said that Breaking the Silence is effective, and sure enough, all the Israeli leaders at the New Israel Fund conference last December were attacking Breaking the Silence. But the same is happening with BDS. You cannot go to a speech by a leader on this issue without them attacking BDS. They’re not wasting their words. And so people of conscience hear that and say, Go BDS.

In fact, BDS has proven to be a bonanza for Israel. First, if you look at the genesis of Israel’s current BDS hysteria, it’s illuminating to pinpoint exactly when it began. It started right after Netanyahu was defeated on the Iran issue. Netanyahu and his cronies thrive on conjuring up enemies who allegedly want to destroy Israel. So they manufactured this hysteria about Iran, but it didn’t work because the West wanted to cut a deal. I wasn’t surprised it didn’t work. I’ve said many times, when it comes to critical US foreign policy interests, the Israel lobby is impotent. On Iran, the lobby couldn’t even count on the African-American senator from New Jersey, Cory Booker, who was a darling of the lobby and one of the founders of Yale’s Jewish society. When Iran was off the agenda, Netanyahu needed a new Great Satan that was bent on Israel’s destruction. So he grasped at BDS. It became the new pretext for Israel to play victim.

Second, Israel was getting nervous as international public opinion turned against it. What did it do? It claimed that all criticism of Israel was at heart BDS, and that BDS was about destroying Israel. By inflating the threat posed by BDS; and by redefining BDS to encompass all opposition to it, including European Union and church initiatives wholly divorced from BDS; and by subsuming under the rubric of BDS the campaigns in the West that only targeted the settlements and the occupation—by exaggerating the reach and potency of BDS, Israel could delegitimize even its most tepid but also most ominous critics. It could now allege that even they were really, whatever they might avow, seeking Israel’s destruction. The irony is, while Netanyahu wails that BDS wants to delegitimize Israel, in fact, he is manipulating BDS to delegitimize principled criticism of the occupation and settlements.

Third, once Israel began to lose Western public opinion, it had one strategy: change the subject. If it talked about human rights, it couldn’t win. It’s not going to win on human rights, it’s not going to win on the occupation. So, whenever you talk about human rights, Israel wants to talk about anti-Semitism. Whenever you talk about the occupation, it wants to talk about double standards—What about Darfur, What about Syria? Keep changing the subject. That’s its strategy. Now with BDS, it’s been really brilliant. You have to give credit where credit is due. Nobody talks about the blockade of Gaza anymore, it’s all about BDS: Is BDS anti-Semitic? Does BDS want to destroy Israel? It gets to play the victim card again. It has succeeded in changing the subject. But it must also be said that BDS made it very easy for Israel, by refusing to recognize its legality as a state within the pre-June 1967 borders. BDS enabled Israel to wrap itself in the cloak of victimhood. When the New York Times opens its columns to debates on Zionism, Mondoweiss says it’s a historic breakthrough. But the Israelis actually relish it. Let’s talk about Zionism. Let’s talk about BDS. Let’s talk about everything, everything—except what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.

Q. Wait. In October 2012, you asserted we can’t discuss Zionism because for Americans it might as well be a hairspray. But that’s exactly what we’re discussing now.

You’re confusing an intra-Jewish debate with broad public opinion. If there’s a new recipe for knishes in Sao Paulo, it’s a front-page story in the New York Times.

Q. But you were the one who said American Jews are a critical constituency. So this is a conversation inside the Jewish community about Zionism, and about time.

If you want to reach a broad public, you have to focus on things like Israel’s human rights record, the occupation, the settlements and the blockade, which a lot of liberal Jewish opinion also opposes. But if you switch the conversation to Zionism and anti-Zionism, a lot of Jews get queasy. What exactly does anti-Zionism mean? If it denotes the dissolution of Israel, it’s a nonstarter for the vast majority of Jews, and public opinion generally. Such a conversation also doesn’t go anywhere. The difference between Zionism and Apartheid—which clearly became a term of opprobrium—is that there was never a quarrel about what Apartheid signified. Everyone understood it meant separate and effectively unequal development. It had a clear, unambiguous meaning. So the debate was not subtle. It was actually pretty straightforward, and in the West no one tried to defend Apartheid on ideological grounds, because it was so antithetical to the dominant ethos of the post-Civil Rights era, which had just repudiated the separate-and-unequal doctrine. But Zionism doesn’t have a clear-cut definition, that’s why both Chomsky and Netanyahu can call themselves Zionists. It’s a much more elastic term. Historically, it contained within it many competing currents, some of which were not awful, although the dominant tendency, which won out, was obviously noxious. So, once you get into a conversation about Zionism, you’re talking about an elusive phenomenon, which might be useful to parse in a graduate school seminar, but I don’t think it has much to do with politics. It’s just a distraction, which is why Israel loves to talk about it.

Q. You spoke about a world consensus supporting the two-state solution, back in 2012. Well, there’s been a shift in that consensus. Tom Friedman even says, get ready for the era of one state.

The global consensus has not weakened a jot. Look at the critical venues, the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, human rights organizations—what might be called the political horizon of progressive public opinion. If you look at all these venues, there’s no indication of a crack in the consensus. The only venue where one state is taken seriously is the humanities faculty of academia, among tenured radicals. When they’re not convening conferences on “The Black Body” and “Transgressing Transgenders” (or is it “Transgendered Transgressions”?), they circulate petitions supporting one state in Palestine. (God forbid any of them should get involved in the Bernie Sanders campaign; he’s so passé.) I also can’t attach significance to what Tom Friedman says. His pronouncements are politically inconsequential. He just says it and moves on. That’s not serious politics. We are involved in a protracted, uphill battle, we don’t tweet or write a disposable column and then it’s on to something else. That’s not serious, it’s not serious. We have to think through what we’re saying, what are the consequences, implications, repercussions, ramifications. Thomas Friedman just gets up in the morning, he sits in front of the computer screen, and the first question that pops into his head is, How do I get the buzz going about me? He’s hooked on “like” and “share.” That’s his raison d’etre.

Q. Secretary of State John Kerry and US ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro, also said we want to avoid the one-state reality.

Tzipi Livni also says it: If we don’t solve the conflict, we’ll have to deal with BDS/one state. They use BDS/one state as scare tactics to get Netanyahu to withdraw to the Wall. If you don’t withdraw now, we’ll have to deal with BDS/one state later. Incidentally, I was clearly wrong about the Kerry peace process. I thought the US was going to exert enough pressure on Israel to get a deal. No, the Israelis are very dug in, I was mistaken. The self-styled radical intellectual, Perry Anderson—he’s the leading Bolshevik in UCLA’s faculty cafeteria—speaks highly of BDS. He says it’s “the one campaign against the status quo with a real edge.” But Anderson also concedes, “after a decade of actions, its practical impact has been close to zero.” Facts are stubborn things, as Lenin used to say. “Close to zero.” When I read a posting on Mondoweiss by a BDS leader that said Israel is facing “imminent collapse” due to BDS, I had to wonder about his grip on reality. Israel is exploiting BDS. It’s doing with BDS exactly what it does with Hamas “missiles.” There are no Hamas missiles. It’s a complete fabrication. They’re enhanced fireworks. According to UN figures, Hamas fired 5000 missiles and 2000 mortar shells during Protective Edge. Israel’s official number is that Iron Dome deflected 740 of the Hamas missiles. That still leaves 4200 missiles that weren’t disabled. But, according to Israeli reports, only one Israeli house was destroyed during Protective Edge. You can perhaps argue that so few Israeli civilians were killed because Israel has a sophisticated early warning/shelter system. But houses don’t take cover in shelters. How can it be that only one house was destroyed? Because they weren’t missiles, they’re enhanced fireworks or, as one expert put it, “bottle rockets.” And Israel is not the only party that perpetuates this fiction. Hamas also perpetuates it. It said, You see, armed resistance does work, look at how afraid they are of our missiles. Now, both Israeli leaders and BDS leaders pretend that Israel is facing an imminent catastrophe because of BDS. It’s a mutually convenient fiction.

I’m right now writing a history of Israel’s massacres in Gaza. The biggest personal revelation while doing the research has been, everything we’re told about the conflict is a fantasy. There are no Hamas missiles. Iron Dome is also a fantasy; it probably saved zero lives. MIT missile specialist Theodore Postol put its effectiveness at five percent. That means it successfully intercepted all of 40 Hamas rockets. “Terror tunnels” is also a fantasy. The UN Human Rights Council report pointed out that, although Hamas militants did cross into Israel via the tunnels, they never once targeted Israeli civilians, only IDF combatants. In fact, Israelis themselves have conceded this. It finally sunk in on Hamas: Israel only cares if you kill or capture combatants. Israel’s a Sparta-like society, which mourns first and foremost the death of its fallen soldiers. I know BDS activists won’t like me for saying it, but in my opinion BDS is just one more of those hasbara contrivances, like the Iranian “existential” threat, Hamas missiles, terror tunnels and Iron Dome.

Q. What are the eventualities in your view?

Next year, 2017, marks a double anniversary. It’s the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration and it’s the 50th anniversary of the 1967 war and ensuing occupation. Which anniversary activists hone in on will be indicative of their politics. If you hone in on Balfour, then you want to undo Israel. The Balfour Declaration culminated in Israel’s creation. If you hone in on the 50th anniversary, then you want to undo the occupation, and find some kind of—as the current terminology has it—“just” solution of the refugee question. You have to choose: which anniversary are you going to focus on?

I’m focusing on the 50th anniversary. Why? Well, in 50 years, Palestinians haven’t been able to force an Israeli withdrawal from one square inch of the occupied territories, even as the whole international community considers the occupation illegal. That’s a mantra: The settlements are illegal, or in the US terminology, “unhelpful.” (Where they dreamt up that locution, only God knows. Someone in the State Department must have taught kindergarten. “That’s very unhelpful, Johnny.”) So they haven’t been able to “liberate” a square inch of Palestine even though all of international opinion formally stands behind them. How, then, can Palestinians hope to undo a reality that’s been entrenched not for a half-century but a full century, and commands complete international legitimacy? It doesn’t make logical sense. How can you hope to turn back the clock a full century and undo Israel, if you can’t undo a reality that’s endured for half as long and enjoys zero legitimacy?

Or, to put it in current terms, I earlier used the expression, the political horizon of progressive public opinion. At this moment in time in the US, this horizon is represented by the Sanders campaign. It represents the political limit, beyond which you fall off the cliff and into a cult. If you read Bernie’s statements, he always begins by insisting on Israel’s recognition. He then goes on to say that the Gaza blockade must be lifted, the occupation is illegal, the settlements must go. Do you want to win Bernie Sanders and the constituency he represents to our campaign? I do. I want him to be part of our movement, I think it would be a huge boon to have someone of his current stature as part of our movement. But if you’re going to equivocate on the question of Israel, then you’re going to lose him. Then we’re back in the ghetto. We have a chance to reach broad public opinion. I don’t want to go back to where I was 40 years ago. But I see that happening all the time now. In the 1970s, we used to chant, From the river to the sea,/Palestine will be free. That mindlessness and idiocy has now resurfaced. We’re starting all over again. Some people call it progress. But it’s regress. You think the idea of a secular democratic state came out of nowhere? It was the PLO platform in the 1970s. From the river to the sea,/Palestine will be free. We’re going backwards—and most definitely not into the future.

Q. So you’re being pragmatic?

I’m a political person. I can’t breathe on ideas alone. I want to make the world a better place. That’s what radical politics is about. I want to achieve something before I pass into the non-next world. One of the oddest questions I’ve ever heard is, Are you for one state or two states?, as if it’s a personal preference, like I’ll take one from Column A and one from Column B on a Chinese menu. What, pray tell, does that have to do with politics? I remain a communist: the free development of each is the precondition for the free development of all; from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Obviously, these ideals are not now on the historical agenda. So you proceed on the basis not of what you desire, but on the basis of what’s possible, while not contradicting your ultimate ideal. You have to soberly assess and weigh up the current balance of political forces, seek out realistic possibilities, and then effectively and creatively exploit them. Of course, you don’t only look at the surface. You also assess the subterranean, incipient forces at play. But I don’t see a consequential subterranean, incipient force calling for Israel’s elimination. I scrutinize what Sanders says. He keeps saying that recognition of Israel is a prerequisite. There was some regression in his New York Daily News interview. He was asked whether Israel had to be recognized as a Jewish state? He replied a little evasively—“of course…that’s the status quo”—as if to say, Yes, although it’s not necessarily my conviction. That was regrettable. But if you pressed Sanders, it’s doubtful he’d sanction a state in which Arabs were discriminated against. How do you reconcile that with a Jewish state? Well, that’s a conundrum for him—and everyone else who supports a “Jewish, democratic” state. By the way, we’re in fact heading towards a third anniversary. 2017 will also mark the 10th anniversary of the Gaza siege. On that, Bernie’s already on board. Ending the blockade is a winnable goal, if we get our act together. Ending the occupation is a winnable goal in the medium term. Ending Israel as a state with a Jewish majority is not. The advocacy of such a goal just makes an already arduous struggle harder. It’s as if, in the middle of a struggle to organize a trade union in a reactionary company town, you put out leaflets calling for Communist Revolution. That’s what provocateurs do, to wreck the struggle. Do I want to lose Bernie? Do I want to get into an argument with him about Zionism? I’m not going there. It’s self-defeating, pointless and stupid.

Q. If I [Scott Roth] were to distil my disagreement, it’s, How do you know what reality is today? Isn’t it always in flux now?

That’s wishful thinking. The consensus is actually now stronger than ever before. Where do you see flux on Israel’s existence as a state, except among self-styled radical academics? In fact, as a political matter, it hardly makes a difference what BDS says, because there’s no leadership in Palestine and in the absence of a movement there, we’re in a holding pattern. The notion that BDS can liberate Palestine from the outside, it’s also a fantasy. Could the anti-Apartheid sanctions movement have ended Apartheid in the absence of a mass movement inside South Africa? It has to begin there, and right now, there’s nothing. If and when a movement emerges there, it’s going to call for two states. How do I know? Look at the history. The PLO called for one state, that’s the Palestine National Charter. However, the precondition for Arafat speaking at the UN in 1974—the “gun and olive branch” speech—was, he had to support two states. Hamas also wanted to liberate all of Palestine. But when it won the elections in 2006, it was no longer accountable only to its constituency in Palestine. It was now operating on the world stage. So, Hamas started issuing statements effectively calling for two states. The moment Palestinian leaders start acting in the arena of international politics, the exigencies of that reality make themselves felt. If and when a new leadership emerges in Palestine, it will call for two states. The BDS platform will become a historical artifact. I was in the West Bank when Arafat called for two states in 1988 in Algiers. It was a heart-wrenching moment for Palestinians, to relinquish their claim to the whole of Palestine. But they understood, this is what’s on the table. The question was not what they as Palestinians desired, but what was politically feasible.

If I had my way, I would abolish all states. At this point in time, states are totally irrational. The world is a grain of sand spinning on its axis in an infinite universe. All the major challenges currently confronting humanity—climate change, economic inequality and dysfunction—can only be solved on a global level. But how many people support the abolition of states? The fact that it’s a rational solution doesn’t necessarily make it a politically feasible one. But would I support a Palestinian state where Israel keeps the major settlement blocs and everything else (including the crucial water resources) behind the Wall? No. A better settlement can still be won. A consensus has not yet hardened according to which Israel gets to keep everything it wants in the West Bank, leaving Palestinians the junk.

Q. But those in Israeli society who oppose two states don’t care about the international consensus, and their dreams have become real.

But they still face the obstacle, which thus far remains insuperable, of lacking international legitimacy. The international community still does not accept the settlements or the occupation. Have they done much about it? Of course not. I am perfectly aware of that. But it’s a potential weapon. It’s like the US Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling. By 1960, only about 5 percent of schools were desegregated; it had barely any impact on the ground. But it was a weapon. The Civil Rights Movement latched onto that decision and the 14th “equal protection” amendment to the Constitution. The Movement said, All we want is that the Federal and state governments implement the law of the land. They exploited the latent power of the law as a political weapon. The fact that the occupation still lacks legitimacy signals that a Palestinian-led mass, nonviolent movement can use international law as a weapon. Israel has always been very smart about this. Why does anyone remember the Balfour Declaration or the Partition Resolution? Because the Zionists and then Israel made sure they weren’t forgotten. As Abba Eban said, the Partition Resolution was Israel’s birth certificate, its certificate of legitimacy. It certified that Israel was not a bastard child of the international system, but a legitimate offspring. The Zionists understood the power of public opinion and how important the Balfour Declaration, then the Partition Resolution, could be in mobilizing public opinion.

Q. Balfour was the product of colonial edifices.

Yes. So was the partition of Africa into states. Does that mean all the African states can or should be dismantled?

Q. Would you agree that if the partition plan was voted on in the modern UN—

It would never have passed in today’s United Nations. But I don’t see any evidence of a concerted, even nascent, commitment to undoing partition. You can say, justifiably, that the Israelis cynically exploited the Nazi holocaust in order to justify Israel’s existence as a refuge or safe haven for Jews. But, still, the exploitation succeeded. It has entrenched the legitimacy of a post-Holocaust Jewish state.

Q. Forget the positive action of eliminating or undoing, what about something different, if Israel implodes?

Yes, and if grandma had wheels, she’d be a baby carriage. I don’t see any evidence for your if. To quote Perry Anderson, Israel “has posted growth rates consistently higher than comparators in the OECD. After the longest sustained expansion in the country’s history, from 2003 to 2007, Israel has weathered the financial crisis of 2008 better than any of the economies of Western Europe and North America, and has continued to outperform them since.” Does that sound like a country on the verge of implosion?

Q. There’s a lot of internal contradictions in that society, I [Roth] don’t think it’s a recipe for success.

Every society is riven by internal conflicts. True, Israel has huge inequalities in the distribution of wealth, but the inequality is more acute in the US, and the US isn’t about to implode. Of course, Israel also fabricates Great Satans to mute its internal conflicts.

Q. It could take 30 years.

It’s not possible to predict what will happen 30 years from now. If you said in 1988 that the Soviet empire was going to disintegrate in a year’s time, you’d have been written off as a madman. Syria was for a long time the most robust state in the Middle East. It appeared to be a rock under Hafez el-Assad. If you had said even five years ago, Syria would soon implode, people would have laughed. It’s pointless to predict what will happen three decades from now.

I can’t counsel Palestinians, Hang in there, things might look up in 30 years’ time. I just got this email from the son of an old Palestinian friend: “I am now in the process of searching for a short-term opportunity to travel. I would like to try the feeling of riding a plane and see the sea up close. I became 24 years old and did not see the sea yet because I am forbidden from visiting the Palestinian cities of the coast.” What should I tell him—that he might get to see the ocean when he’s 55? Isn’t it more sensible, isn’t it more humane, to try to end the occupation, so that he can experience a little of life’s offerings before he’s an old man, if even then?

Q. I’m speaking hypothetically.

I have no stake in being dogmatic. What do I gain from it? You, of course, know that I’ve taken political positions in recent years that, on a personal level, have been somewhat costly. I used to live for my teaching. I loved to be in a classroom. Since being denied tenure a decade ago, I’ve been unemployed, except for a nine-month teaching stint in Turkey. Ten years of unemployment, out of a classroom, without a paycheck—it’s not been terrific. But that’s honestly not the part that bothers me the most. If you put a polygraph to my wrist it wouldn’t skip a beat. What bothers me is, I’ve invested about 35 years, my entire adult life, to this cause. It’s pretty much all I read about, it’s a very boring life. I know a lot—I’d better after so many years. But because of political differences, I’m locked out. I’m no longer asked to speak. Even Democracy Now! no longer has me on. A month ago, Mehdi Hasan’s program Up Front contacted me. They wanted me to join a debate on BDS. But the BDS leaders refused to appear on the program. It’s happened more times than I care to remember. One BDS leader told Democracy Now!, “Why debate Finkelstein? He’s not important. We should debate important people.” I used to give 40 talks a year. Now I give maybe four. I know the number because of those 1099 slips I have to submit to my accountant. Three years ago, before the BDS thing exploded, I gave him 40 slips. Last year I gave him four. He said to me, I think there’s a mistake here, how can it be only four? Now I’m debating in my head, Am I going to explain BDS to this accountant? No, forget it. So, I told him, well, you know, I’m getting old and people like fresh faces on the lecture circuit.

It’s frustrating. I no longer have an audience. I basically write for History. So my accumulated knowledge is, politically, going to waste. Gazans themselves don’t need me. They know the truth from real life. They call Hamas rockets “belly dancers,” because they swivel in their trajectory when they go up in the air. Everyone there knows they are a joke. The notion of armed resistance is just a fantasy. Hamas has had three major armed confrontations with Israel during the past eight years: Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense, Protective Edge. Each time Hamas fought with one goal in mind: to lift the blockade. Each operation ended with an Israeli promise to end the siege. But the blockade continues. Armed resistance is just not working. It’s not a question of whether or not Hamas has the right to use violent force. Of course, it has that right. But there’s a difference between whether you have the right—which they do—and whether it’s a politically prudent tactic. If it’s not producing results, then, shouldn’t you reconsider your strategy? But they’re so obstinate. The fixation on armed resistance is a regrettable feature of their political culture. Hamas can’t conceive the idea of nonviolent resistance, even though their own intifada was so successful. It’s strange. That whole glorious period has been effaced from memory. Everyone reckons it a failure, because it culminated in Oslo. It wasn’t a failure, it was a remarkable success.

It’s a tragedy, really, how the most extraordinary chapter in the history of the Palestinian struggle has been forgotten, or dismissed as a failure.

(Republished from MondoWeiss by permission of author or representative)
 
    []
  1. “Trump has also released ugly latent impulses that, even as they exist in many if not all of us, should be kept bottled up, and he’s legitimized street violence and hooliganism.”

    As opposed to, per Finkelstein:

    SANDERS has released BEAUTIFUL latent impulses that, even as they exist in many if not all of us, should NOT be kept bottled up, and he’s legitimized street violence and hooliganism.

    I stopped reading at this point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    As did I.
    , @woodNfish
    "I stopped reading at this point."

    As did I. Finkelstein is just another delusional leftist who can't see past the lies generated by his own comrades and lapdogs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /nfinkelstein/norman-finkelstein-on-sanders-the-first-intifada-bds-and-ten-years-of-unemployment/#comment-1402528
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Rehmat says:

    Many readers of Dr. Finkelstein don’t know that he has many common traits with Se. Bernie Sanders.

    1. Both deny that Israel is an apartheid entity.
    2. Both have criticized BDS.
    3. Both believe Israel has nothing to do with 9/11.
    4. Both believe the European Jews have G-d-given rights to colonize pre-1967 Palestine.
    5. Both have been victims of the Organized Jewry.

    Thus both are “closet Zionists”.

    “Nasrallah is the only Arab leader, who is intelligent and has the political awareness – and courage to understand Israel’s evil agenda and challenges it,” – Dr. Finkelstein, January 15, 2009.

    “I don’t care what Torah or Qur’an or the Old Testament or the New Testament says about Palestine. The truth is Palestine is an occupied land,” – Dr. Finkelstein, January 15, 2009.

    https://rehmat1.com/2009/01/16/an-evening-with-dr-finkelstein/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    3 days ago, in Rehmat's home town of Karachi, a 20-year old man slit his 16-year-old sister's throat IN PUBLIC..... because he saw her talking to a boy. The neighbors did nothing Give me a moment, i'll get back with the details. Made all the papers in Pakistan.

    Deafening silence from Rehmat.


    PS: does Norman Finkelstein have a job?

  3. Killary Hitlery is DE FACTO the fascist, by having started wars and massmurders of Arabs.

    Killary has done AIPAC’s holocausts for greater Israël.

    Any US democrat claiming Trump’s a fascist, I will tell: look at Hitleries holocausts in Libya and Syria.

    And she’s planning to obliterate Iran, 80 million Arabs, and then pitting Russia against EU, to start nucleair WWIII. Killary will cackle and smile: they all died!

    To save the USA from God’s vengeance, please do not vote Killary!

    Any way, if Sanders breaks up the BIG banks, Goldman Sachs crime cartel, then he’s is my hero.

    Read More
  4. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Finkelstein looks like he could be Ron Unz’s brother.

    Read More
  5. Ace says:
    @Brás Cubas
    "Trump has also released ugly latent impulses that, even as they exist in many if not all of us, should be kept bottled up, and he’s legitimized street violence and hooliganism."

    As opposed to, per Finkelstein:

    SANDERS has released BEAUTIFUL latent impulses that, even as they exist in many if not all of us, should NOT be kept bottled up, and he’s legitimized street violence and hooliganism.

    I stopped reading at this point.

    As did I.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Ditto.

    Such "thinking" is how the relatively thoughtful sheep are herded. This time around, it is just more obvious -- vote for Ms. Clinton to save the country from a caricatured Mr. Trump.

    Which may be exactly why Mr. Clinton encouraged him to run.
  6. I like reading Finkelstein because he thinks politically, unlike most pro- or anti-Israel pundits and activists. He gets a lot right and a lot wrong, some of it obviously wrong (like Hamas missiles and Iron Dome). Here’s a comment on where I think he’s wrong, but less obviously so.

    Pace Finkelstein, the big worry for Israel is still its legitimacy, its perceived right to exist. Criticisms about the post-1967 occupation, etc. are important, but they’re not a serious threat in themselves (more about that below). What is a threat is that US public opinion could change radically against Israel’s existence as a Jewish “ethnostate” over the next decades. As Finkelstein points out, opinion is moving in that direction among elite American students, including Jewish students.

    That’s why the BDS movement is a lot more serious than Finkelstein believes. The goal is to change American opinion, to get Americans to believe that it’s cool to oppose Israel’s existence, that Israel has cooties. If the movement can get lots of cool people (pop stars, etc.) to sign on, then it might really influence opinion against Israel.

    Finkelstein distinguishes between the 50th and 100th anniversaries of 1967 and 1917, but that distinction is already pretty fuzzy. When Arabs talk about “the occupation,” they often mean the 1948 or, so to speak, the 1917 occupation: that is, the State of Israel. They rely on the ambiguity that in the West, “the occupation” means 1967. Similarly with “the settlers.” Tel Aviv is described as a “settlement,” and when a Jew in Tel Aviv gets killed by terrorists, Palestinian media describe him as a “settler”. Those words have different meanings in the West, and Arabs exploit that fact.

    And beyond just terminology, more and more in the last few years you see criticism of the (1967) occupation as an implicit criticism of Zionism, of Israel’s right to exist. You see this especially in anti-Zionist propaganda produced by Israeli Jews. There’s a strategy, I don’t know whether it’s conscious or unconscious, to conflate the two occupations, the 1967 occupation and the 1948 occupation (Israel). If the 1967 occupation is illegitimate, then implicitly – never explicitly – so is Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.

    So I think Finkelstein’s wrong on some things there. Criticism of Israel’s existence is a real threat, as Netanyahu correctly perceives, not something that Israel can just turn to its advantage. And the BDS movement in particular is a threat, not an unwitting ally of Israel, in that it has the potential to change public opinion against Israel itself, as opposed to what Israel does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    I actually think the de-whitening of America is probably the biggest threat to Israel/hope for BDS.

    Despite the intense antisemitism of most white nationalists, lots of white Americans look at Israel, see whiter people fighting off browner people (on average--I know there are Ethiopian Jews), and feel sympathetic. (Tzipi Livni could change her name to Tina Lane and not look out of place in most middle American neighborhoods, though people would hear her accent and keep asking her if she was from France.) Black and brown Americans see a bunch of overprivileged white people stealing land from brown people.
  7. After reading all those thousands of words, I’m still wondering why I should give a damn about the Palestinians. The world is full of conflicts, it is full of dispossessed people’s that no one cares about. And yet we should all really, really care about the Palestinians. For some reason.

    No. Sod them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag
    This.

    It gets to be a "damned by over-praise" situation.

    , @WJ
    Funny , I was thinking the same thing about Israel. That sh...ty little country is a tiny fraction of the world's population yet it garners half the words in this post. On top of that, the religion of said sh...ty little country then garners another fourth of this post. Why should I care about this bloggers' religion?
    , @iffen
    The world is full of conflicts, it is full of dispossessed people’s that no one cares about.

    Excellent and accurate observation! Out of the hundreds (if not thousands) of possible pet victims, why Palestinians? An objective observer notices the grossly disparate share of "concern" for the Palestinians over other worthy victim groups. The Palestinians punch way above their weight in garnering a share of the support available for victims. Why is that?
    , @Daniel Williams

    I’m still wondering why I should give a damn about the Palestinians.
     
    I feel that. Can't the Palestinians and the Israelis both lose?
  8. SFG says:
    @Aaron Gross
    I like reading Finkelstein because he thinks politically, unlike most pro- or anti-Israel pundits and activists. He gets a lot right and a lot wrong, some of it obviously wrong (like Hamas missiles and Iron Dome). Here's a comment on where I think he's wrong, but less obviously so.

    Pace Finkelstein, the big worry for Israel is still its legitimacy, its perceived right to exist. Criticisms about the post-1967 occupation, etc. are important, but they're not a serious threat in themselves (more about that below). What is a threat is that US public opinion could change radically against Israel's existence as a Jewish "ethnostate" over the next decades. As Finkelstein points out, opinion is moving in that direction among elite American students, including Jewish students.

    That's why the BDS movement is a lot more serious than Finkelstein believes. The goal is to change American opinion, to get Americans to believe that it's cool to oppose Israel's existence, that Israel has cooties. If the movement can get lots of cool people (pop stars, etc.) to sign on, then it might really influence opinion against Israel.

    Finkelstein distinguishes between the 50th and 100th anniversaries of 1967 and 1917, but that distinction is already pretty fuzzy. When Arabs talk about "the occupation," they often mean the 1948 or, so to speak, the 1917 occupation: that is, the State of Israel. They rely on the ambiguity that in the West, "the occupation" means 1967. Similarly with "the settlers." Tel Aviv is described as a "settlement," and when a Jew in Tel Aviv gets killed by terrorists, Palestinian media describe him as a "settler". Those words have different meanings in the West, and Arabs exploit that fact.

    And beyond just terminology, more and more in the last few years you see criticism of the (1967) occupation as an implicit criticism of Zionism, of Israel's right to exist. You see this especially in anti-Zionist propaganda produced by Israeli Jews. There's a strategy, I don't know whether it's conscious or unconscious, to conflate the two occupations, the 1967 occupation and the 1948 occupation (Israel). If the 1967 occupation is illegitimate, then implicitly - never explicitly - so is Israel's existence as a Jewish state.

    So I think Finkelstein's wrong on some things there. Criticism of Israel's existence is a real threat, as Netanyahu correctly perceives, not something that Israel can just turn to its advantage. And the BDS movement in particular is a threat, not an unwitting ally of Israel, in that it has the potential to change public opinion against Israel itself, as opposed to what Israel does.

    I actually think the de-whitening of America is probably the biggest threat to Israel/hope for BDS.

    Despite the intense antisemitism of most white nationalists, lots of white Americans look at Israel, see whiter people fighting off browner people (on average–I know there are Ethiopian Jews), and feel sympathetic. (Tzipi Livni could change her name to Tina Lane and not look out of place in most middle American neighborhoods, though people would hear her accent and keep asking her if she was from France.) Black and brown Americans see a bunch of overprivileged white people stealing land from brown people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    I agree with you that the "de-whitening of America" ain't gonna be good for Israel. And I agree with you on the main cause of anti-Israelism on the left: when leftists (whether white or non-white) see white people fighting brown people, their natural sympathy is with the brown people against the white people. I agree on all that.

    Where I disagree is how important this de-whitening will be. First of all, whites will continue to hold a disproportionate amount of political power in America, even after they're a minority. That's due largely to their disproportionate wealth. More importantly, it isn't so much that non-whites are less sympathetic to Israel - they are - as that they just don't really care that much about Israel/Palestine or any other Good vs. Evil morality play being staged overseas. Caring about brown people getting oppressed is a SWPL thing, except of course where the brown people happen to be one's own people.

    So I think the non-whites will gladly trade away that kind of foreign policy decision to the SWPL whites - the ones in the elite universities today - in exchange for greater say in domestic policy. While I mostly agree with you, I still think it's the whites, including both the secular elite and Christians who are (for now) Zionist, who'll determine US policy towards Israel in the future.
  9. geokat62 says:

    This article recently appeared on Mondoweiss and I posted the following comment:

    I had the pleasure of attending a conference that took place a few years ago in which Prof. Finkelstein was the guest speaker. The conference was entitled Gaza and Egypt Intertwined and since the audience was permitted to ask questions at the end of the conference, I put the following question to Prof. Finkelstein:

    I just wanted to get a better understanding about your refusal to support the BDS movement. I believe it all turns on which solution is more viable – the 2SS or 1SS. At a recent book tour you indicated that the 2SS is twice as dead as the 1SS. My question is a simple one: How many more cycles of violence (commonly referred to as “mowing the lawn”) must the Palestinians endure before you are prepared to embrace BDS. What the Palestinians need more of is people of your stature and influence to breathe life into the BDS movement, which will finally lead to a liberated Palestine.

    Here is how Prof. Finkelstein responded (it is not verbatim):

    But what’s your (BDS movement) stance on Israel? They say they don’t take a stance on Israel…
    So if you say you want the enforcement of international law, you can’t then say we take no position on Israel. That’s the law, Israel is a state. If there’s an answer to that, I’m curious to hear it.. but I have not heard it so far…

    But when I hear people from BDS, there’s no discussion about the politics, it’s just: This is what we want! It’s like a child having a rattle and the rattle says “One State.” And you keep shaking the rattle. Where is the political force supporting One State? There are 195 countries or so now in the UN. Is there one state in the world that currently supports One State in Palestine? They all support two states. Is there a single human rights organization that supports One State? There’s no political support for it in the world! So even if it is in principle correct, … that is not what political people do. They don’t hold to political principles at the expense of assessing political forces – what’s possible, what’s not possible. Because at the end of the day, isn’t the goal to improve people’s lives, to make the situation better… or do you want to just sit here in the comfort of the West and hug your political principles while the suffering continues over there? That doesn’t make sense to me… and that’s my problem with the BDS. (emphasis added)

    I didn’t get the opportunity to respond to his response but if I had, I would have simply said that your response sounded like a paean to political expediency! While it’s true there is little support for the 1SS today, this doesn’t mean it will always remain so. How politically viable did a liberated South Africa, an independent America, the abolition of slavery, or even the establishment of a Jewish Homeland for that matter, appear in the early stages of their development?

    But what you fail to recognize is something the great Nelson Mandela once said: “It always seems impossible until its done.”

    That’s why I still call upon you to do the right thing and endorse BDS.

    - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/norman-finkelstein-on-sanders-the-first-intifada-bds-and-ten-years-of-unemployment/#sthash.C9ip7a6F.dpuf

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    How politically viable did a liberated South Africa, an independent America, the abolition of slavery, or even the establishment of a Jewish Homeland for that matter, appear in the early stages of their development?
     
    There are problematic aspects to all these. A one-state solution would be a civilizational step backward.
    , @Aaron Gross
    I agree with Finkelstein's reply to you. I mean, there's impossible and then there's impossible. And he didn't even mention one of the main obstacles to a one-state solution: unless it includes ethnic cleansing of the Jews and thus a Judenrein state, a one-state solution would be a disaster for the Palestinians. It would be very bad for the Jews, too, but incomparably worse for the Palestinians. And worst of all for the Palestinian leadership, who'd go from being quasi-statesmen to the leaders of some minority faction in some backwater Middle-Eastern parliament.

    Even an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and a two-state solution would be a nightmare for Fatah. They'd last about five minutes after Israel withdrew and allowed the Palestinian people to rule themselves (ha ha). Hamas wouldn't mind a two-state "agreement" as long as they didn't have to agree themselves, because they'd just overthrow Fatah, tear up the agreement, and continue their war to liberate all of Palestine from the river to the sea.

    Yes, the masses want independence, but they also know that after independence their state will be a shit-hole compared to how it is now. Bottom line: Fatah can survive only in the status quo. Without Israeli protection they'd be crushed by Hamas. And Hamas enjoys the luxury of being the no-compromise party of purity, of being able to promise everything and deliver nothing. There's no way the Palestinian leadership would accept even a two-state solution now, much less a one-state solution.
  10. bomag says:
    @C H Ingoldby
    After reading all those thousands of words, I'm still wondering why I should give a damn about the Palestinians. The world is full of conflicts, it is full of dispossessed people's that no one cares about. And yet we should all really, really care about the Palestinians. For some reason.

    No. Sod them.

    This.

    It gets to be a “damned by over-praise” situation.

    Read More
  11. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Bernie Sanders+Norman Finklestien+Noam Chomsky+Occupy Wall Street=Demographic extermination of The Historic Native Born White American Majority via mass nonwhite Legal Immigration=Lots of scab labor for the White Liberal Greedy Cheating Mega-Ceo Class.

    But for Norman and Noam, Israel shall remain Jew Pure!!!!!

    Of course, The Historic Native Born White American Working Class is under no obligation to go along with Norman’s…Noam’s….and Bernie’s plan for demographic extermination…

    Read More
  12. bomag says:
    @geokat62
    This article recently appeared on Mondoweiss and I posted the following comment:

    I had the pleasure of attending a conference that took place a few years ago in which Prof. Finkelstein was the guest speaker. The conference was entitled Gaza and Egypt Intertwined and since the audience was permitted to ask questions at the end of the conference, I put the following question to Prof. Finkelstein:

    I just wanted to get a better understanding about your refusal to support the BDS movement. I believe it all turns on which solution is more viable – the 2SS or 1SS. At a recent book tour you indicated that the 2SS is twice as dead as the 1SS. My question is a simple one: How many more cycles of violence (commonly referred to as “mowing the lawn”) must the Palestinians endure before you are prepared to embrace BDS. What the Palestinians need more of is people of your stature and influence to breathe life into the BDS movement, which will finally lead to a liberated Palestine.

    Here is how Prof. Finkelstein responded (it is not verbatim):

    But what’s your (BDS movement) stance on Israel? They say they don’t take a stance on Israel…
    So if you say you want the enforcement of international law, you can’t then say we take no position on Israel. That’s the law, Israel is a state. If there’s an answer to that, I’m curious to hear it.. but I have not heard it so far…

    But when I hear people from BDS, there’s no discussion about the politics, it’s just: This is what we want! It’s like a child having a rattle and the rattle says “One State.” And you keep shaking the rattle. Where is the political force supporting One State? There are 195 countries or so now in the UN. Is there one state in the world that currently supports One State in Palestine? They all support two states. Is there a single human rights organization that supports One State? There’s no political support for it in the world! So even if it is in principle correct, … that is not what political people do. They don’t hold to political principles at the expense of assessing political forces – what’s possible, what’s not possible. Because at the end of the day, isn’t the goal to improve people’s lives, to make the situation better… or do you want to just sit here in the comfort of the West and hug your political principles while the suffering continues over there? That doesn’t make sense to me… and that’s my problem with the BDS. (emphasis added)
     
    I didn’t get the opportunity to respond to his response but if I had, I would have simply said that your response sounded like a paean to political expediency! While it’s true there is little support for the 1SS today, this doesn’t mean it will always remain so. How politically viable did a liberated South Africa, an independent America, the abolition of slavery, or even the establishment of a Jewish Homeland for that matter, appear in the early stages of their development?

    But what you fail to recognize is something the great Nelson Mandela once said: “It always seems impossible until its done.”

    That’s why I still call upon you to do the right thing and endorse BDS.

    - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/norman-finkelstein-on-sanders-the-first-intifada-bds-and-ten-years-of-unemployment/#sthash.C9ip7a6F.dpuf
     

    How politically viable did a liberated South Africa, an independent America, the abolition of slavery, or even the establishment of a Jewish Homeland for that matter, appear in the early stages of their development?

    There are problematic aspects to all these. A one-state solution would be a civilizational step backward.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    There are problematic aspects to all these.
     
    The perfect is the enemy of the good.

    A one-state solution would be a civilizational step backward.
     
    A one-state solution would be better than apartheid.
  13. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Ace
    As did I.

    Ditto.

    Such “thinking” is how the relatively thoughtful sheep are herded. This time around, it is just more obvious — vote for Ms. Clinton to save the country from a caricatured Mr. Trump.

    Which may be exactly why Mr. Clinton encouraged him to run.

    Read More
  14. “Trump has … legitimized street violence and hooliganism.”

    Excuse me. All the violence I’ve seen has been perpetrated by those protesting against Trump, going so far as to mount the dais and attempt an assault on Trump as he was starting a speech. Since then on multiple occasions we have seen anti-Trump brown shirts riot, commit violence against police and bystanders, and seriously inconvenience masses of people, e.g., by causing massive and completely unnecessary traffic jams.

    And Finkelstein is not embarrassed to write this!!!

    This reads exactly like Nazi excuses for similar intimidation and violence: Jews and Communists are entirely responsible for the violence we see today in Germany. The mere existence of these people has so enraged our noble Aryan souls that we are compelled to riot and attack them.

    Read More
  15. bondo says:

    dear prof norman frankenstein

    be brave.

    you have millions of dollars adl strong armed from depaul univ for your benefit (and for adl). so, just say what is in your heart, deceivingly black as it is, “israel has no right to exist. and that every israeli and the supporters of israel, overt/covert, must be quickly executed.”

    also,

    i know you want to apologize to professor steven salaita for stabbing him in the back for his being exact, truthful, honest regarding your beloved, israel.

    go ahead, use the space ron unz has provided you for an apology.

    Read More
  16. Che Guava says:

    I appreciate much of what Mr. Finkelstein has said at times, and some of the things in this interview.

    However, to accuse Trump supporters of being violent is to turn reality on its head, truly delusional. Who? Whom?

    I have never heard of Trump supporters rioting to silence Sanders or Mrs. Pantsuit.

    The reverse seems to be a regular event, and some even get pretty good pocket money for it.

    False consciousness much?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yeah, his criticism of Trump and his supporters is bizarre. Like something he gathered from watching Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes. Disappointing to say the least.
    , @Bill Jones
    Agree.
    What A disillusional twat Finkelstein is.
  17. WJ says:
    @C H Ingoldby
    After reading all those thousands of words, I'm still wondering why I should give a damn about the Palestinians. The world is full of conflicts, it is full of dispossessed people's that no one cares about. And yet we should all really, really care about the Palestinians. For some reason.

    No. Sod them.

    Funny , I was thinking the same thing about Israel. That sh…ty little country is a tiny fraction of the world’s population yet it garners half the words in this post. On top of that, the religion of said sh…ty little country then garners another fourth of this post. Why should I care about this bloggers’ religion?

    Read More
  18. iffen says:
    @C H Ingoldby
    After reading all those thousands of words, I'm still wondering why I should give a damn about the Palestinians. The world is full of conflicts, it is full of dispossessed people's that no one cares about. And yet we should all really, really care about the Palestinians. For some reason.

    No. Sod them.

    The world is full of conflicts, it is full of dispossessed people’s that no one cares about.

    Excellent and accurate observation! Out of the hundreds (if not thousands) of possible pet victims, why Palestinians? An objective observer notices the grossly disparate share of “concern” for the Palestinians over other worthy victim groups. The Palestinians punch way above their weight in garnering a share of the support available for victims. Why is that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    Why disproportionate concern with Palestinians?

    On the left: post-colonial white guilt.

    On the right: anti-Semitism.

    Among Arabs and other Third Worlders: post-colonial resentment.

    Among Jews: special responsibility to address your own people's wrongdoings.
  19. @SFG
    I actually think the de-whitening of America is probably the biggest threat to Israel/hope for BDS.

    Despite the intense antisemitism of most white nationalists, lots of white Americans look at Israel, see whiter people fighting off browner people (on average--I know there are Ethiopian Jews), and feel sympathetic. (Tzipi Livni could change her name to Tina Lane and not look out of place in most middle American neighborhoods, though people would hear her accent and keep asking her if she was from France.) Black and brown Americans see a bunch of overprivileged white people stealing land from brown people.

    I agree with you that the “de-whitening of America” ain’t gonna be good for Israel. And I agree with you on the main cause of anti-Israelism on the left: when leftists (whether white or non-white) see white people fighting brown people, their natural sympathy is with the brown people against the white people. I agree on all that.

    Where I disagree is how important this de-whitening will be. First of all, whites will continue to hold a disproportionate amount of political power in America, even after they’re a minority. That’s due largely to their disproportionate wealth. More importantly, it isn’t so much that non-whites are less sympathetic to Israel – they are – as that they just don’t really care that much about Israel/Palestine or any other Good vs. Evil morality play being staged overseas. Caring about brown people getting oppressed is a SWPL thing, except of course where the brown people happen to be one’s own people.

    So I think the non-whites will gladly trade away that kind of foreign policy decision to the SWPL whites – the ones in the elite universities today – in exchange for greater say in domestic policy. While I mostly agree with you, I still think it’s the whites, including both the secular elite and Christians who are (for now) Zionist, who’ll determine US policy towards Israel in the future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...

    "...Where I disagree is how important this de-whitening will be...."
     
    Let's apply your reasoning to a gradual de-Ashkenazi-Judaizing/de-Whitening of the European colony called Israel:

    Tear down that wall Mr. Netanyahu! Let those Ethiopian Jews in! Let anyone who wants freely convert to Judaism and let them in! None of this matters since Aaron Gross is sure that Ashkenaz Jews will still maintain control of the levers of power.
  20. @geokat62
    This article recently appeared on Mondoweiss and I posted the following comment:

    I had the pleasure of attending a conference that took place a few years ago in which Prof. Finkelstein was the guest speaker. The conference was entitled Gaza and Egypt Intertwined and since the audience was permitted to ask questions at the end of the conference, I put the following question to Prof. Finkelstein:

    I just wanted to get a better understanding about your refusal to support the BDS movement. I believe it all turns on which solution is more viable – the 2SS or 1SS. At a recent book tour you indicated that the 2SS is twice as dead as the 1SS. My question is a simple one: How many more cycles of violence (commonly referred to as “mowing the lawn”) must the Palestinians endure before you are prepared to embrace BDS. What the Palestinians need more of is people of your stature and influence to breathe life into the BDS movement, which will finally lead to a liberated Palestine.

    Here is how Prof. Finkelstein responded (it is not verbatim):

    But what’s your (BDS movement) stance on Israel? They say they don’t take a stance on Israel…
    So if you say you want the enforcement of international law, you can’t then say we take no position on Israel. That’s the law, Israel is a state. If there’s an answer to that, I’m curious to hear it.. but I have not heard it so far…

    But when I hear people from BDS, there’s no discussion about the politics, it’s just: This is what we want! It’s like a child having a rattle and the rattle says “One State.” And you keep shaking the rattle. Where is the political force supporting One State? There are 195 countries or so now in the UN. Is there one state in the world that currently supports One State in Palestine? They all support two states. Is there a single human rights organization that supports One State? There’s no political support for it in the world! So even if it is in principle correct, … that is not what political people do. They don’t hold to political principles at the expense of assessing political forces – what’s possible, what’s not possible. Because at the end of the day, isn’t the goal to improve people’s lives, to make the situation better… or do you want to just sit here in the comfort of the West and hug your political principles while the suffering continues over there? That doesn’t make sense to me… and that’s my problem with the BDS. (emphasis added)
     
    I didn’t get the opportunity to respond to his response but if I had, I would have simply said that your response sounded like a paean to political expediency! While it’s true there is little support for the 1SS today, this doesn’t mean it will always remain so. How politically viable did a liberated South Africa, an independent America, the abolition of slavery, or even the establishment of a Jewish Homeland for that matter, appear in the early stages of their development?

    But what you fail to recognize is something the great Nelson Mandela once said: “It always seems impossible until its done.”

    That’s why I still call upon you to do the right thing and endorse BDS.

    - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/norman-finkelstein-on-sanders-the-first-intifada-bds-and-ten-years-of-unemployment/#sthash.C9ip7a6F.dpuf
     

    I agree with Finkelstein’s reply to you. I mean, there’s impossible and then there’s impossible. And he didn’t even mention one of the main obstacles to a one-state solution: unless it includes ethnic cleansing of the Jews and thus a Judenrein state, a one-state solution would be a disaster for the Palestinians. It would be very bad for the Jews, too, but incomparably worse for the Palestinians. And worst of all for the Palestinian leadership, who’d go from being quasi-statesmen to the leaders of some minority faction in some backwater Middle-Eastern parliament.

    Even an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and a two-state solution would be a nightmare for Fatah. They’d last about five minutes after Israel withdrew and allowed the Palestinian people to rule themselves (ha ha). Hamas wouldn’t mind a two-state “agreement” as long as they didn’t have to agree themselves, because they’d just overthrow Fatah, tear up the agreement, and continue their war to liberate all of Palestine from the river to the sea.

    Yes, the masses want independence, but they also know that after independence their state will be a shit-hole compared to how it is now. Bottom line: Fatah can survive only in the status quo. Without Israeli protection they’d be crushed by Hamas. And Hamas enjoys the luxury of being the no-compromise party of purity, of being able to promise everything and deliver nothing. There’s no way the Palestinian leadership would accept even a two-state solution now, much less a one-state solution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I would cautiously agree with your assessment, yet cannot summarily reject what Geokat says, as he channells Mandela, making it the familiar tussle between pragmatism to salvage a liveable offer for the Pals versus the ideal [from the Pal perspective], the latter outcome remaining totally elusive. I have argued the matter with the ultra-orthodox who avow to start and end the discussion with the written word of the Mishneh Torah [which speaks to the claims of the bene Yitzhak/Yisrael vs bene Yishmael & bene Kturah, the second two having interbred and thus directed to undergo Brith ha Shmini [8th day circumcision] to cement eligibility to title, while leaving unspoken the interpretation of Brith on the 13th year], but swiftly resort to Balfour and other recent laws in order to buttress their claim, which when pointed out as an evident concession of their original Biblical purity, results in chagrin and confusion. For if one is free to mix the laws: mythical, bronze age and modern, one is then free to re-interpret the pitiful distinction between the 8th day and the 13th year! "So which one is it?" when I ask the question, is met typically with moralistic flim-flam, usual offensive labels, and barely disguised threats.

    Resettlement of Palestinians with fair compensation is a topic Geo and I have exchanged thoughts on; its a scheme that has been talked about by various factions in Israel but in rather non-specific shades. My own sense it that a sufficiently large section of Ramallah and some adjoining areas will, at this point in time, be hard pressed to relinquish their sinecures, while a large minority of ex-Ramallah, including Jenin and adjoining, Umm el Fahm, Sabastiya, Shekhem, Ariha, Beth Lechem, Al Khalil might be favourably inclined to negotiate on it. With land-value swaps my estimate is it costs $80 b, a number eminently fungible.
    , @geokat62

    ... a one-state solution would be a disaster for the Palestinians
     
    there’s disaster and then there’s disaster.

    It would be very bad for the Jews, too, but incomparably worse for the Palestinians.
     
    Something tells me that it would be very bad for the Palestinians, too, but incomparably worse for the Israelis.

    Yes, the masses want independence, but they also know that after independence their state will be a shit-hole compared to how it is now.
     
    Tell you what, let's give it a try and we'll see if you're right. If you are, the Palestinians themselves should be the first to demand the reinstatement of the occupation.
  21. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Pardon me, but might it have something to do with “the grossly disparate share” of the enthusiasm for Israel among all other foreign states shown by Uncle Sam? What other foreign politician receives dozens of standing ovations from Congress?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    “the grossly disparate share” of the enthusiasm for Israel among all other foreign states shown by Uncle Sam?

    Backlash could and likely does explain some of it, even so, it does not come close to explaining most of it.
  22. My idea of a a dream debate would involve Finkelstein having to face off against Gilad Atzmon because such an encounter would require Finkelstein to justify positions that areoften , basically, totally irrational.

    Such an encounter would be truly revealing. Finkelstein, who has never been known to have a smile on his face or even the remotest semblance of a sense of humor would be facing off against Atzmon who always seems to have a a smile and a truly great and absolutely unflappable sense of humor. This is what makes Atzmon’s debating skills truly formidable.

    Just such a debate would reveal an interesting fact about the two of them. Finkelstein still proudly (and often) claims his Jewishness while Atzmon claims to be a “former Jew” because he came to the conclusion that Judaism is a concept so nebulous (is it a religion? a nationality? or an ethnicity?) as to be basically indefensible by any rational measure.

    The BDS movement would point out is another clear example of the differences between the two of them. While Finkelstein might not support BDS, the leadership of the BDS movement supports him in spirit. Atzmon, on the other hand, is enemy number one of the BDS movement because of his repeated claims that BDS is under Israeli control. Alison Weir’s recent blacklisting by BDS is only the most recent example of this overweening influence by it supposed “enemy.” BDS also, interestingly enough, criticizes him because of Atzmon’s claim that Organized Judaism (OJ) as exemplified by Zionism and Israel is inherently racist.

    Finkelstein complains about not being given air time any longer on Amy Goodman’s program any longer. This shows he still doen’t get it. Maybe he should take a look at this video involving Alison Weir and Jeff Blankfort about Goodman’s and Chomsky’s roles as long time Zionist gatekeepers.

    BDS is based on a strange concept. It only seek boycotts of products made in the occupied territories. This deliberate flaw makes it inherently ineffective . Why doesn’t it seek sanctions on all Israeli products?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    BDS is based on a strange concept. It only seek boycotts of products made in the occupied territories. This deliberate flaw makes it inherently ineffective .
     
    True, especially as it disproportionally affects Pal employese in Israeli/Pal joint enterprises.

    Atzmon, on the other hand, is enemy number one of the BDS movement because of his repeated claims that BDS is under Israeli control. Alison Weir’s recent blacklisting by BDS is only the most recent example of this overweening influence by it supposed “enemy.”
     
    Maybe so, yet what then explains Adelson's opposition to it?
    , @joe webb
    I know Allison...she is a sweetheart who is still a liberal, the old-fashioned type. If Americans knew...they would do the right thing. Not really...because Protestantism luvs the jews, and even the Catholics have gotten into the act...shoah business.

    If the Church had not protected the Jews for a couple thousand years, there would be no jews today. No Israel, no jewish nukes, no neocons....imagine!! peace more or less.

    Joe Webb
  23. iffen says:
    @anonymous
    Pardon me, but might it have something to do with "the grossly disparate share" of the enthusiasm for Israel among all other foreign states shown by Uncle Sam? What other foreign politician receives dozens of standing ovations from Congress?

    “the grossly disparate share” of the enthusiasm for Israel among all other foreign states shown by Uncle Sam?

    Backlash could and likely does explain some of it, even so, it does not come close to explaining most of it.

    Read More
  24. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Che Guava
    I appreciate much of what Mr. Finkelstein has said at times, and some of the things in this interview.

    However, to accuse Trump supporters of being violent is to turn reality on its head, truly delusional. Who? Whom?

    I have never heard of Trump supporters rioting to silence Sanders or Mrs. Pantsuit.

    The reverse seems to be a regular event, and some even get pretty good pocket money for it.

    False consciousness much?

    Yeah, his criticism of Trump and his supporters is bizarre. Like something he gathered from watching Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes. Disappointing to say the least.

    Read More
  25. woodNfish says:
    @Brás Cubas
    "Trump has also released ugly latent impulses that, even as they exist in many if not all of us, should be kept bottled up, and he’s legitimized street violence and hooliganism."

    As opposed to, per Finkelstein:

    SANDERS has released BEAUTIFUL latent impulses that, even as they exist in many if not all of us, should NOT be kept bottled up, and he’s legitimized street violence and hooliganism.

    I stopped reading at this point.

    “I stopped reading at this point.”

    As did I. Finkelstein is just another delusional leftist who can’t see past the lies generated by his own comrades and lapdogs.

    Read More
  26. @iffen
    The world is full of conflicts, it is full of dispossessed people’s that no one cares about.

    Excellent and accurate observation! Out of the hundreds (if not thousands) of possible pet victims, why Palestinians? An objective observer notices the grossly disparate share of "concern" for the Palestinians over other worthy victim groups. The Palestinians punch way above their weight in garnering a share of the support available for victims. Why is that?

    Why disproportionate concern with Palestinians?

    On the left: post-colonial white guilt.

    On the right: anti-Semitism.

    Among Arabs and other Third Worlders: post-colonial resentment.

    Among Jews: special responsibility to address your own people’s wrongdoings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    1 and 3 are generic. 2 and 4 are unique to Israel. Does this mean that 2 and 4 explain 100% of the variance? If so, what's the split between 2 and 4?
    , @iffen
    Among Jews: special responsibility to address your own people’s wrongdoings.

    Can you distinguish between Jews who have “pure” concern for the Palestinians and those who are concerned because the situation (of the Palestinians) is an impediment to gaining full acceptance of the State of Israel, either in its current form or pre-1967?

    BTW, unless one is Jewish that only leaves #2 as an explanation.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    From the non-Jewish American pov:

    disgust at the grave injustice being carried on against innocent and persecuted people of whatever label, with US tax dollars and coerced support.

    http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/mar/06/council-national-interest/billboards-question-aid-israel/

    http://stoptheblankcheck.org

    http://www.notaxdollarstoisrael.com/about/
    , @Rurik

    Why disproportionate concern with Palestinians?
     
    for me it's the cruelty- for cruelty's sake

    it's the abuse of power to impose themselves over their victims in order to exert that raw power over another human being.. for the sake of it

    http://wheneversomeday.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/room-101-rats-ingsoc-1984-spirit-of-england-peter-crawford.jpeg

    And they didn't even earn their military triumph over the Arabs. Were it not for Zionist subversion of the Western governments (using extorted lucre), they'd have been beaten by the Arabs. That's another part of it. We're (I'm) forced to be complicit in the horrors and humiliations visited upon those pitiable people. I'm forced to fund it, and provide "moral" cover for the torture and genocide and daily humiliations those people are forced to endure.

    I guess another part of it is the sheer sense of how cruel and hate-consumed Jews can be towards their victims. I remember reading about a fellow- Solomon Morel, and how he treated innocent German women and children under his charge. Beating them with clubs for no other reason than because they were German. Perhaps also, being as Jews are generally considered white by most people, we hold them to a different standard than we hold blacks for instance, who when they "necklace" people, we just cringe and think, 'oh well, what are you going to do, they're not evolved enough to know how wrong that is. So there's that aspect as well.

    The sheer cruelty, towards a people who've done nothing wrong except exist on land the Jews covet for themselves.

    the humiliations and tortures that tweak all humane peoples conscience

    that fact we're forced to be participants however unwillingly

    the fact that Jews more than any other group are constantly haranguing the rest of us for 0ur "racism" and how bad we all treated them in the Holocaust.

    That's also another huge reason the people of the world are disgusted by what's going on in Palestine. That sanctimonious, dripping hypocrisy and arrogance that the Jews seem to even congratulate themselves for, and call it chutzpah, like it's a charming trait or something. (it isn't)

    there's' more I suppose, but that's just some reasons off the top of my head

  27. @Che Guava
    I appreciate much of what Mr. Finkelstein has said at times, and some of the things in this interview.

    However, to accuse Trump supporters of being violent is to turn reality on its head, truly delusional. Who? Whom?

    I have never heard of Trump supporters rioting to silence Sanders or Mrs. Pantsuit.

    The reverse seems to be a regular event, and some even get pretty good pocket money for it.

    False consciousness much?

    Agree.
    What A disillusional twat Finkelstein is.

    Read More
  28. joe webb says:

    the fink . I watched him at Stanford a few years ago at a talk organized by the Arab students.

    He went into a jewish lawyer defense of 1948. The conquest in other words was legal.
    He then described how 1967 was illegal.

    Because I did not want to rain on the arab parade, I did not speak out, except to suggest that the try “Stalin” instead of “HItler” all the time when reaching for The Worst Thing. He actually took the suggestion.

    The Fink is a zionist, and in shoah business himself. Since I have been around a bit, Jeff Blankfort is a leftist, if not a commie type, who hates (me among other people) those who do not subscribe to his point of view…that zionism is just a capitalist ploy to divide the working class. Maybe he is more of a trot since Jeff is a Jew, sephardic type in looks, who the ashkenazis like to look down their long noses at.

    Blankfort is just another cardboard cut-out of the leftie anti-zionist. The Fink is a slippery character, not least because he looks like an aryan. Show Business on the lecture circuit.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    ....in shoah business himself.
     
    Nonsense. Prove it.
    , @War for Blair Mountain
    Don't make things so complicated:Norman Finkelstien...Noam Chomsky...and Bernie Sanders...are all the mortal enemy of The Historic Native Born White Christian American Majority, and they are cheerleaders for racial violence against our People.

    If you have any doubts about this, read the Yockey interview with Noam Chomsky in the NYT in the Sunday Times over a year ago. And Noam Chomsky has restated his position recently:Whitey deserves to be murdered and raped by blacks.

    Neither Chomsky nor Finkelstien support the right of return for Palestinians-but they demand that Native Born White Americans hand over their Historic Living and Breeding Space to Mexicans..Central Americans....Koreans...Iranians...Pakistani Muslims....Hindus and Sihks...and Israeli Nationals.
  29. Sam Shama says:
    @Aaron Gross
    I agree with Finkelstein's reply to you. I mean, there's impossible and then there's impossible. And he didn't even mention one of the main obstacles to a one-state solution: unless it includes ethnic cleansing of the Jews and thus a Judenrein state, a one-state solution would be a disaster for the Palestinians. It would be very bad for the Jews, too, but incomparably worse for the Palestinians. And worst of all for the Palestinian leadership, who'd go from being quasi-statesmen to the leaders of some minority faction in some backwater Middle-Eastern parliament.

    Even an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and a two-state solution would be a nightmare for Fatah. They'd last about five minutes after Israel withdrew and allowed the Palestinian people to rule themselves (ha ha). Hamas wouldn't mind a two-state "agreement" as long as they didn't have to agree themselves, because they'd just overthrow Fatah, tear up the agreement, and continue their war to liberate all of Palestine from the river to the sea.

    Yes, the masses want independence, but they also know that after independence their state will be a shit-hole compared to how it is now. Bottom line: Fatah can survive only in the status quo. Without Israeli protection they'd be crushed by Hamas. And Hamas enjoys the luxury of being the no-compromise party of purity, of being able to promise everything and deliver nothing. There's no way the Palestinian leadership would accept even a two-state solution now, much less a one-state solution.

    I would cautiously agree with your assessment, yet cannot summarily reject what Geokat says, as he channells Mandela, making it the familiar tussle between pragmatism to salvage a liveable offer for the Pals versus the ideal [from the Pal perspective], the latter outcome remaining totally elusive. I have argued the matter with the ultra-orthodox who avow to start and end the discussion with the written word of the Mishneh Torah [which speaks to the claims of the bene Yitzhak/Yisrael vs bene Yishmael & bene Kturah, the second two having interbred and thus directed to undergo Brith ha Shmini [8th day circumcision] to cement eligibility to title, while leaving unspoken the interpretation of Brith on the 13th year], but swiftly resort to Balfour and other recent laws in order to buttress their claim, which when pointed out as an evident concession of their original Biblical purity, results in chagrin and confusion. For if one is free to mix the laws: mythical, bronze age and modern, one is then free to re-interpret the pitiful distinction between the 8th day and the 13th year! “So which one is it?” when I ask the question, is met typically with moralistic flim-flam, usual offensive labels, and barely disguised threats.

    Resettlement of Palestinians with fair compensation is a topic Geo and I have exchanged thoughts on; its a scheme that has been talked about by various factions in Israel but in rather non-specific shades. My own sense it that a sufficiently large section of Ramallah and some adjoining areas will, at this point in time, be hard pressed to relinquish their sinecures, while a large minority of ex-Ramallah, including Jenin and adjoining, Umm el Fahm, Sabastiya, Shekhem, Ariha, Beth Lechem, Al Khalil might be favourably inclined to negotiate on it. With land-value swaps my estimate is it costs $80 b, a number eminently fungible.

    Read More
  30. Douglas says:

    I stopped reading when he said young Sanders voters were intelligent.

    Did someone force them to attend college, get government loans, and force them into debt? Trade school people!

    Read More
  31. iffen says:
    @Aaron Gross
    Why disproportionate concern with Palestinians?

    On the left: post-colonial white guilt.

    On the right: anti-Semitism.

    Among Arabs and other Third Worlders: post-colonial resentment.

    Among Jews: special responsibility to address your own people's wrongdoings.

    1 and 3 are generic. 2 and 4 are unique to Israel. Does this mean that 2 and 4 explain 100% of the variance? If so, what’s the split between 2 and 4?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    No, that's not what I meant. I meant that the effects of post-colonial resentment (Third World) and guilt (Western) are specific to Israel/Palestine. That's because Israel is perceived as a bunch of Western colonialists oppressing weak brown people.

    That also explains the wildly disproportionate attention to apartheid South Africa in its time. But now that they're gone, Israel's the only one left.
  32. Sam Shama says:
    @joe webb
    the fink . I watched him at Stanford a few years ago at a talk organized by the Arab students.

    He went into a jewish lawyer defense of 1948. The conquest in other words was legal.
    He then described how 1967 was illegal.

    Because I did not want to rain on the arab parade, I did not speak out, except to suggest that the try "Stalin" instead of "HItler" all the time when reaching for The Worst Thing. He actually took the suggestion.

    The Fink is a zionist, and in shoah business himself. Since I have been around a bit, Jeff Blankfort is a leftist, if not a commie type, who hates (me among other people) those who do not subscribe to his point of view...that zionism is just a capitalist ploy to divide the working class. Maybe he is more of a trot since Jeff is a Jew, sephardic type in looks, who the ashkenazis like to look down their long noses at.

    Blankfort is just another cardboard cut-out of the leftie anti-zionist. The Fink is a slippery character, not least because he looks like an aryan. Show Business on the lecture circuit.

    Joe Webb

    ….in shoah business himself.

    Nonsense. Prove it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Fink said:

    As for Western public opinion, the Holocaust blackmail still works at the state level but not among ordinary people. Fully seven decades have elapsed since the end of World War 2, while the Holocaust has been used like a shmatte—a multipurpose rag. It’s been drained of its emotional resonance; it no longer has the capacity to silence Europeans, at any rate, the younger generation.
     
    Which is ridiculous because:

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    Also note that there is not a single verifiable excavated mass grave that can actually be SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka) even though Jews claim to know exactly where these allegedly enormous mass graves are.

    The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
     
    , @Art

    joe webb: ….in shoah business himself.
     
    Sam: Nonsense. Prove it.

    Is Mr. Finkelstein conning us – setting up ZERO expectations. Is he saying that Palestine is dead – that the Jews have it all under control. That it is just a matter of time before the Final Solution unfolds – so give it up?

    Clearly Finkelstein supports Zionist Israel. There is no other Israel then Zionist Israel. The sum total of all the major different Jew groups all over the world is Zionist Israel. Zionism and Israel are one and the same.

    If one does not support BDS – then one does not support justice for the Palestinians - PERIOD.

    Finkelstein wrings he hands and correctly documents how Israel has accomplished their evil treatment of the Palestinians. But he provides NO hope for a just solution.

    Is his task, to tell the Gentiles to forget it – there is NO chance for a real settlement.

    Hmm - is Finkelstein a master propagandist. Lenin said “control the opposition by leading it.” Is Finkelstein trying to lead the American left wing anti-Israel cultural forces. Is Finkelstein flying a false flag – saying bad bad Israel all the while supporting Israeli goals?

    There is a Polish saying “that the Jew cries as he slaps you.”

    Finkelstein is crying – Israel is slapping us.
  33. mtn cur says:

    Main issue with the rationales of these various covens of jerking class heroes is that most are too silly to see that they serve as cats paws for one or another version of some lame lebensraum scam for whatever their fantasy gene pool is. It is ludicrous that any of these various partisans, let alone jews would be so enthusiastic in applying some of Hitlers ethnic cleansing methods, no matter what their excuse.

    Read More
  34. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @joe webb
    the fink . I watched him at Stanford a few years ago at a talk organized by the Arab students.

    He went into a jewish lawyer defense of 1948. The conquest in other words was legal.
    He then described how 1967 was illegal.

    Because I did not want to rain on the arab parade, I did not speak out, except to suggest that the try "Stalin" instead of "HItler" all the time when reaching for The Worst Thing. He actually took the suggestion.

    The Fink is a zionist, and in shoah business himself. Since I have been around a bit, Jeff Blankfort is a leftist, if not a commie type, who hates (me among other people) those who do not subscribe to his point of view...that zionism is just a capitalist ploy to divide the working class. Maybe he is more of a trot since Jeff is a Jew, sephardic type in looks, who the ashkenazis like to look down their long noses at.

    Blankfort is just another cardboard cut-out of the leftie anti-zionist. The Fink is a slippery character, not least because he looks like an aryan. Show Business on the lecture circuit.

    Joe Webb

    Don’t make things so complicated:Norman Finkelstien…Noam Chomsky…and Bernie Sanders…are all the mortal enemy of The Historic Native Born White Christian American Majority, and they are cheerleaders for racial violence against our People.

    If you have any doubts about this, read the Yockey interview with Noam Chomsky in the NYT in the Sunday Times over a year ago. And Noam Chomsky has restated his position recently:Whitey deserves to be murdered and raped by blacks.

    Neither Chomsky nor Finkelstien support the right of return for Palestinians-but they demand that Native Born White Americans hand over their Historic Living and Breeding Space to Mexicans..Central Americans….Koreans…Iranians…Pakistani Muslims….Hindus and Sihks…and Israeli Nationals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @joe webb
    you are correct basically, but it is important to understand the players and where they are coming from. What is the "Yockey" interview...who is Yockey? The only Yockey I know is the you know, nazi ,now dead for decades.

    I was one of the first to out , probably the first on the left coast to, to out Chomsky, by quoting from his Fateful Triangle, about p. 39 as I recall. This would have been back in about 2001.

    One wonder........all you have to do is read carefully, and the Fateful Triangle had been out for years.

    Again, it is important that folks know the ins and outs of things so that they can achieve understanding of different folk's writing, whether the writing is fairly and clearly presented, or , more cryptic, like Chomsky's.

    The mind likes to put two and two together for itself...connect the dots...O... that's why so and so says such and such. This way of presenting things is more objective and respects the reader. Also, understatement is generally better, from a rhetoric point of view, meaning the psychology of persuasion.

    Do I always observe it? Obviously not, but usually it is when I am trying to be funny, which I am told is usually successful. Is it Good for the Jews? That is a funny line...the way jews talk to themselves. Of course they mean it in spades.

    Joe Webb
  35. iffen says:
    @Aaron Gross
    Why disproportionate concern with Palestinians?

    On the left: post-colonial white guilt.

    On the right: anti-Semitism.

    Among Arabs and other Third Worlders: post-colonial resentment.

    Among Jews: special responsibility to address your own people's wrongdoings.

    Among Jews: special responsibility to address your own people’s wrongdoings.

    Can you distinguish between Jews who have “pure” concern for the Palestinians and those who are concerned because the situation (of the Palestinians) is an impediment to gaining full acceptance of the State of Israel, either in its current form or pre-1967?

    BTW, unless one is Jewish that only leaves #2 as an explanation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    Sure, but I was talking about disproportionate attention to Israel. Your question is about stuff that's intrinsically specific to Israel, so it's not part of the phenomenon I was trying to explain.
  36. bondo says:

    only jews and their pups are concerned about anyone showing a conscience regarding the palestinians.

    Read More
  37. He like the rest of the criminal tribe goes for Jewishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    Down with Zionism and its servants, Killary, Obama, Biden, and …..

    Read More
  38. Sbaker says:

    Vote Bernie Sanders: Because 100 million dead just isn’t enough.

    Read More
  39. @Aaron Gross
    I agree with you that the "de-whitening of America" ain't gonna be good for Israel. And I agree with you on the main cause of anti-Israelism on the left: when leftists (whether white or non-white) see white people fighting brown people, their natural sympathy is with the brown people against the white people. I agree on all that.

    Where I disagree is how important this de-whitening will be. First of all, whites will continue to hold a disproportionate amount of political power in America, even after they're a minority. That's due largely to their disproportionate wealth. More importantly, it isn't so much that non-whites are less sympathetic to Israel - they are - as that they just don't really care that much about Israel/Palestine or any other Good vs. Evil morality play being staged overseas. Caring about brown people getting oppressed is a SWPL thing, except of course where the brown people happen to be one's own people.

    So I think the non-whites will gladly trade away that kind of foreign policy decision to the SWPL whites - the ones in the elite universities today - in exchange for greater say in domestic policy. While I mostly agree with you, I still think it's the whites, including both the secular elite and Christians who are (for now) Zionist, who'll determine US policy towards Israel in the future.

    “…Where I disagree is how important this de-whitening will be….”

    Let’s apply your reasoning to a gradual de-Ashkenazi-Judaizing/de-Whitening of the European colony called Israel:

    Tear down that wall Mr. Netanyahu! Let those Ethiopian Jews in! Let anyone who wants freely convert to Judaism and let them in! None of this matters since Aaron Gross is sure that Ashkenaz Jews will still maintain control of the levers of power.

    Read More
  40. Sam Shama says:
    @silly billy
    My idea of a a dream debate would involve Finkelstein having to face off against Gilad Atzmon because such an encounter would require Finkelstein to justify positions that areoften , basically, totally irrational.

    Such an encounter would be truly revealing. Finkelstein, who has never been known to have a smile on his face or even the remotest semblance of a sense of humor would be facing off against Atzmon who always seems to have a a smile and a truly great and absolutely unflappable sense of humor. This is what makes Atzmon's debating skills truly formidable.

    Just such a debate would reveal an interesting fact about the two of them. Finkelstein still proudly (and often) claims his Jewishness while Atzmon claims to be a "former Jew" because he came to the conclusion that Judaism is a concept so nebulous (is it a religion? a nationality? or an ethnicity?) as to be basically indefensible by any rational measure.

    The BDS movement would point out is another clear example of the differences between the two of them. While Finkelstein might not support BDS, the leadership of the BDS movement supports him in spirit. Atzmon, on the other hand, is enemy number one of the BDS movement because of his repeated claims that BDS is under Israeli control. Alison Weir's recent blacklisting by BDS is only the most recent example of this overweening influence by it supposed "enemy." BDS also, interestingly enough, criticizes him because of Atzmon's claim that Organized Judaism (OJ) as exemplified by Zionism and Israel is inherently racist.

    Finkelstein complains about not being given air time any longer on Amy Goodman's program any longer. This shows he still doen't get it. Maybe he should take a look at this video involving Alison Weir and Jeff Blankfort about Goodman's and Chomsky's roles as long time Zionist gatekeepers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB2lDJJr3lE

    BDS is based on a strange concept. It only seek boycotts of products made in the occupied territories. This deliberate flaw makes it inherently ineffective . Why doesn't it seek sanctions on all Israeli products?

    BDS is based on a strange concept. It only seek boycotts of products made in the occupied territories. This deliberate flaw makes it inherently ineffective .

    True, especially as it disproportionally affects Pal employese in Israeli/Pal joint enterprises.

    Atzmon, on the other hand, is enemy number one of the BDS movement because of his repeated claims that BDS is under Israeli control. Alison Weir’s recent blacklisting by BDS is only the most recent example of this overweening influence by it supposed “enemy.”

    Maybe so, yet what then explains Adelson’s opposition to it?

    Read More
  41. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    In my opinion one of the tragedies of Prof Finkelstein is that he has confined his framework of understanding only to political Zionism in Palestine. He does not discuss Judaism, nor does he question the officialese of the Holocaust. There is however, a much wider and truer context in which to view this political catastrophe.

    If he were to do so, he would discover not only that Judaism as law or halacha has no generic term “human being” binding upon Jews but rather that very essence of the religion is its separation principle, explained by none other than the late Prof. Shmaryahu Talmon of the Hebrew University to a group of gentile philo-Semites. This separation principle provides and undergirds the theoretical and practical framework creating the great divide between Jew and goy. And it is this principle which is found in all aspects of Zionism, always and everywhere and necessarily. for the very simple reason that Zionism is politically-applied rabbinical judaism.

    Tied in with this legal and actual reality, is the absence of a Jewish injunction to tell the truth to the goy or gentile. On the contrary, lying to the goy is fine except if it has bad effects upon the Jews themselves.

    Truth is not a universal value in Judaism nor is it a binding, unconditional mitzvah!

    So the fact that revisionist historians have found “inconsistencies” and lack of evidence for the Holocaust six million killed in gas chambers etc, should not be surprising to those who understand the Jewish outlook against the goyish world.

    My own personal exposure to all the above led me to leave Judaism because I do not want to be associated with a religion which deems the non-Jew to have no soul and therefore to be impure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally

    So the fact that revisionist historians have found “inconsistencies” and lack of evidence for the Holocaust six million killed in gas chambers etc, should not be surprising to those who understand the Jewish outlook against the goyish world.
     
    Well said, sir.

    Indeed, the '6M' scam is being outed as we speak.


    “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”.

    - Arthur Schopenhauer
     

    The 6M lie since 1869:

    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6915

  42. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    are you calling obama all style and no substance?

    wow what is happening here?

    how about acknowledging that some of us 1%ner actually earned every penny that we have, because we worked for it.

    yes some of us worked our way thru college, and worked our way thru life. we have a saying around our house a 12 hours work day is a half a day.

    the 1%ner are not responsible for the ridiculous price of a college education; that responsibility goes to the liberal educrats.

    i do agree with the author sentiment regarding the waltons. they should be building free colleges instead of art museum.

    i supposed it may be time for a dorky looking jewish dude to be the pop star. whoa! them mushrooms are stoke!

    Read More
  43. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @Sam Shama

    ....in shoah business himself.
     
    Nonsense. Prove it.

    Fink said:

    As for Western public opinion, the Holocaust blackmail still works at the state level but not among ordinary people. Fully seven decades have elapsed since the end of World War 2, while the Holocaust has been used like a shmatte—a multipurpose rag. It’s been drained of its emotional resonance; it no longer has the capacity to silence Europeans, at any rate, the younger generation.

    Which is ridiculous because:

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    http://www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Also note that there is not a single verifiable excavated mass grave that can actually be SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka) even though Jews claim to know exactly where these allegedly enormous mass graves are.

    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

    Read More
  44. Sean says:

    “If I had my way, I would abolish all states. At this point in time, states are totally irrational. The world is a grain of sand spinning on its axis in an infinite universe.

    Someone is willing to go down with the ship of his views. As I recall reading: Benny Morris could not get a job in Israel and announced he was leaving, A minister (it may have been the Prime Minister) summoned him and Morris was asked if he supported Israel’s right to remain a Jewish state. Morris’s answer? Well he’s employed in Israel and that speaks for itself.

    But don’t forget the Kach Movement was banned. Moreover Louis René Beres (his latest/a>) was excluded from a previously privileged position with access to policymakers for being too Hawkish.

    It isn’t just antiZionists who are silenced, because the price that Israel pays for the support of the US (including US subsidies to Egypt) is going along with official US policy for a West Bank Palestinian state.

    The Barak government resumed peace negotiations with the PLO, stating that “Every attempt [by the State of Israel] to keep hold of this area [the West Bank and Gaza] as one political entity leads, necessarily, to either a nondemocratic or a non-Jewish state. Because if the Palestinians vote, then it is a binational state, and if they don’t vote it is an apartheid state.”[Read More

  45. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    In my opinion one of the tragedies of Prof Finkelstein is that he has confined his framework of understanding only to political Zionism in Palestine. He does not discuss Judaism, nor does he question the officialese of the Holocaust. There is however, a much wider and truer context in which to view this political catastrophe.

    If he were to do so, he would discover not only that Judaism as law or halacha has no generic term "human being" binding upon Jews but rather that very essence of the religion is its separation principle, explained by none other than the late Prof. Shmaryahu Talmon of the Hebrew University to a group of gentile philo-Semites. This separation principle provides and undergirds the theoretical and practical framework creating the great divide between Jew and goy. And it is this principle which is found in all aspects of Zionism, always and everywhere and necessarily. for the very simple reason that Zionism is politically-applied rabbinical judaism.

    Tied in with this legal and actual reality, is the absence of a Jewish injunction to tell the truth to the goy or gentile. On the contrary, lying to the goy is fine except if it has bad effects upon the Jews themselves.

    Truth is not a universal value in Judaism nor is it a binding, unconditional mitzvah!

    So the fact that revisionist historians have found "inconsistencies" and lack of evidence for the Holocaust six million killed in gas chambers etc, should not be surprising to those who understand the Jewish outlook against the goyish world.

    My own personal exposure to all the above led me to leave Judaism because I do not want to be associated with a religion which deems the non-Jew to have no soul and therefore to be impure.

    So the fact that revisionist historians have found “inconsistencies” and lack of evidence for the Holocaust six million killed in gas chambers etc, should not be surprising to those who understand the Jewish outlook against the goyish world.

    Well said, sir.

    Indeed, the ’6M’ scam is being outed as we speak.

    “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”.

    - Arthur Schopenhauer

    The 6M lie since 1869:

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6915

    Read More
  46. @Aaron Gross
    Why disproportionate concern with Palestinians?

    On the left: post-colonial white guilt.

    On the right: anti-Semitism.

    Among Arabs and other Third Worlders: post-colonial resentment.

    Among Jews: special responsibility to address your own people's wrongdoings.

    From the non-Jewish American pov:

    disgust at the grave injustice being carried on against innocent and persecuted people of whatever label, with US tax dollars and coerced support.

    http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/mar/06/council-national-interest/billboards-question-aid-israel/

    http://stoptheblankcheck.org

    http://www.notaxdollarstoisrael.com/about/

    Read More
    • Replies: @FLgeezer
    SC,
    And have you noticed that Phil Giraldi's magnificent website councilforthenationalinterest.org went off-line about a week ago?

    Web censorship is an eminent part of the plan.
    , @Aaron Gross
    I still don't think that explains the disproportionality. The US supports and has supported regimes that were far worse than Israel, without such attention.
  47. Rurik says:
    @Aaron Gross
    Why disproportionate concern with Palestinians?

    On the left: post-colonial white guilt.

    On the right: anti-Semitism.

    Among Arabs and other Third Worlders: post-colonial resentment.

    Among Jews: special responsibility to address your own people's wrongdoings.

    Why disproportionate concern with Palestinians?

    for me it’s the cruelty- for cruelty’s sake

    it’s the abuse of power to impose themselves over their victims in order to exert that raw power over another human being.. for the sake of it

    And they didn’t even earn their military triumph over the Arabs. Were it not for Zionist subversion of the Western governments (using extorted lucre), they’d have been beaten by the Arabs. That’s another part of it. We’re (I’m) forced to be complicit in the horrors and humiliations visited upon those pitiable people. I’m forced to fund it, and provide “moral” cover for the torture and genocide and daily humiliations those people are forced to endure.

    I guess another part of it is the sheer sense of how cruel and hate-consumed Jews can be towards their victims. I remember reading about a fellow- Solomon Morel, and how he treated innocent German women and children under his charge. Beating them with clubs for no other reason than because they were German. Perhaps also, being as Jews are generally considered white by most people, we hold them to a different standard than we hold blacks for instance, who when they “necklace” people, we just cringe and think, ‘oh well, what are you going to do, they’re not evolved enough to know how wrong that is. So there’s that aspect as well.

    The sheer cruelty, towards a people who’ve done nothing wrong except exist on land the Jews covet for themselves.

    the humiliations and tortures that tweak all humane peoples conscience

    that fact we’re forced to be participants however unwillingly

    the fact that Jews more than any other group are constantly haranguing the rest of us for 0ur “racism” and how bad we all treated them in the Holocaust.

    That’s also another huge reason the people of the world are disgusted by what’s going on in Palestine. That sanctimonious, dripping hypocrisy and arrogance that the Jews seem to even congratulate themselves for, and call it chutzpah, like it’s a charming trait or something. (it isn’t)

    there’s’ more I suppose, but that’s just some reasons off the top of my head

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    OK, but I already covered your answer in my second reason: anti-Semitism.
  48. Art says:
    @Sam Shama

    ....in shoah business himself.
     
    Nonsense. Prove it.

    joe webb: ….in shoah business himself.

    Sam: Nonsense. Prove it.

    Is Mr. Finkelstein conning us – setting up ZERO expectations. Is he saying that Palestine is dead – that the Jews have it all under control. That it is just a matter of time before the Final Solution unfolds – so give it up?

    Clearly Finkelstein supports Zionist Israel. There is no other Israel then Zionist Israel. The sum total of all the major different Jew groups all over the world is Zionist Israel. Zionism and Israel are one and the same.

    If one does not support BDS – then one does not support justice for the Palestinians – PERIOD.

    Finkelstein wrings he hands and correctly documents how Israel has accomplished their evil treatment of the Palestinians. But he provides NO hope for a just solution.

    Is his task, to tell the Gentiles to forget it – there is NO chance for a real settlement.

    Hmm – is Finkelstein a master propagandist. Lenin said “control the opposition by leading it.” Is Finkelstein trying to lead the American left wing anti-Israel cultural forces. Is Finkelstein flying a false flag – saying bad bad Israel all the while supporting Israeli goals?

    There is a Polish saying “that the Jew cries as he slaps you.”

    Finkelstein is crying – Israel is slapping us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @joe webb
    not sure what is intended here.

    I do not know what the Fink's position is on the Shoah, but I loved his bit on his mother, the holocaust survivor (any jew in Europe at the time by definition) Mom: With all these holocaust survivors (lining up for handouts from Germany) who did HItler kill? I love it. Take my mother, please.

    My remark was pretty loosey goosey. I meant only that the Fink is in business too. But, to be fair, he did write a good book, I guess. Not sure if I read it.
    Joe Webb

  49. Rehmat says:

    Like Bernie Sanders, Finkelstein himself is against BDS movement – but I bet they both know that BDS is another Zionist front to legitimize pre-1967 Jewish occupation of Palestine.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/05/23/bds-defends-the-zionist-entity/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    So... Is there any legitimate way for a Jew to oppose Israel?
  50. DaveE says:

    Somehow, I think Trump threatening to “Put America First” (i.e. cut way back on the zionist welfare checks) scares the Jews a LOT more than Bernie Sanders’ 24 years in Congress doing absolutely NOTHING for real reform.

    I’m beginning to think Finkelstein is as phony as Bernie or Elizabeth Warren.

    Read More
  51. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    If I had my way, I would abolish all states.

    And there you have it, folks. That quote above from Finkelstein says all that you need to know about this Globalist Finkelstein’s agenda of wanting the National Sovereignty of America to be destroyed. He wants America to be abolished and some United Nations Politburo to take its place. Don’t be fooled by these double-agents, like Finkelstein, who pretend that their agendas are the same as yours(unless of course your agenda is also to “abolish” America).

    He is pretending to have the same agenda so that people will believe him when he criticizes the use of tactics that work, like BDS and making the distinction between Zionism and Judaism. He is criticizing them BECAUSE they work. He is acting like BDS’s sole purpose is to hurt Israel financially and totally ignoring the use of it as being a way to bring the issue of what the Apartheid State of Israel is doing into the forefront.

    The BDS movement and its opposition to it by the Israel Lobby makes clear to Americans that the Lobby is attempting to destroy our right of Free Speech and it terrifies them. So they have sent their minions out to attempt to make Americans, that use BDS as a tactic, believe that BDS is helping Israel and not working. They don’t want Americans knowing the power of the Lobby which would be evident if they are able to destroy our Right to Free Speech by outlawing BDS. They don’t want it to get to that point where their malign influence would be so obvious to Americans. You may debate about whether or not the leadership of the BDS movement has been corrupted, but you can not deny that BDS is a useful tactic in a strategy to make Americans aware of what is going on.

    Making the distinction between Zionism and Judaism is the key to battling their false accusations of anti-Semitism(when false) and it terrifies them. So they send out the likes of Finkelstein to attempt to claim that making the distinction between Zionism and Judaism is helping Israel. He wants people that believe him to stupidly not make the distinction between Zionism and Judaism so that charges of anti-Semitism will stick.

    The Globalists and NeoCons have the exact same Trotskyite agenda of bankrupting this country and starting an “International Permanent Revolution”. The NeoCons use false-flags to incite us into following their bankrupting war agenda, and the Globalists use financial false-indicators to try to pacify us into following their bankrupting agenda. Both fingers of the same hand that is looking to strangle America and bring about a Global Governance made to look like it is ruled by the “People” but will in fact be ruled by the Banksters.

    Finkelstein is controlled opposition that is seeking to abolish our country’s sovereignty and should be treated as such. Do not trust this man. He’ll say some things to make it seem like he’s on your side, but his agenda for America is crystal clear: “If I had my way, I would abolish all states.”

    Nuff said, Finkelstein. Thanks for letting us Americans know where your true globalist loyalty lies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @joe webb
    abolish all states? how old are you? 18? Nationalism and genuine diversity is in the soul (genes) of man. grow up.

    The Controlled Opposition is nonsense. Please jettison the cliches.

    Zionism IS different that Judaism. Read some books. Israel Shahak claimed that what happens to jews who become zionists, is that the psychology behind Jewish religious crackpots osmoses into the brains of secular jews. The result is more fanaticism but of a different order.

    Is the zionist more dangerous than an orthodox? Probably, given the variety of orthodoxy. I have personally met a couple orthodox who were pretty normal psychologically, and they were of course not too happy with zionism.

    Then there are the orthodox sects who oppose zionism.

    Joe Webb everything that Shahak wrote should be read by all of us.
    , @joe webb
    so you are afraid of being called an anti-semite. get over it. I pride myself on being an anti-semite.

    I am anti all kinds of things, especially the lower races who are destroying our country. You may need to hide your anti-semitism if you have a job cuz the jews will make it disappear, but please don't get all huffy and run to huddle with the liberal race-traitors .

    Joe Webb but I don't have a job to lose so be careful Anybody who is not an anti-semite is just young, dumb, or poorly informed in general, including the minor topic of Jews.

    Whites are committing suicide but many are starting to awaken. Things are getting better and better with Europe about to blow up over immigration, and the US getting the Trump treatment...as inchoate as it is. Things are going to get better and better, meaning more and more conflict.

    Let the Bad Times Roll.

    Joe WEbb
  52. FLgeezer says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    From the non-Jewish American pov:

    disgust at the grave injustice being carried on against innocent and persecuted people of whatever label, with US tax dollars and coerced support.

    http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/mar/06/council-national-interest/billboards-question-aid-israel/

    http://stoptheblankcheck.org

    http://www.notaxdollarstoisrael.com/about/

    SC,
    And have you noticed that Phil Giraldi’s magnificent website councilforthenationalinterest.org went off-line about a week ago?

    Web censorship is an eminent part of the plan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    No, I had not noticed that, FLGeezer.
    Has that happened before?

    It's my understanding that Giraldi and Alison Weir coordinate activities; Weir's website is still live --
    http://ifamericansknew.org
  53. @Rehmat
    Like Bernie Sanders, Finkelstein himself is against BDS movement - but I bet they both know that BDS is another Zionist front to legitimize pre-1967 Jewish occupation of Palestine.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/05/23/bds-defends-the-zionist-entity/

    So… Is there any legitimate way for a Jew to oppose Israel?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rabbitnexus
    "So… Is there any legitimate way for a Jew to oppose Israel?"

    Yes, Neturei Karta.

  54. geokat62 says:
    @bomag

    How politically viable did a liberated South Africa, an independent America, the abolition of slavery, or even the establishment of a Jewish Homeland for that matter, appear in the early stages of their development?
     
    There are problematic aspects to all these. A one-state solution would be a civilizational step backward.

    There are problematic aspects to all these.

    The perfect is the enemy of the good.

    A one-state solution would be a civilizational step backward.

    A one-state solution would be better than apartheid.

    Read More
  55. @C H Ingoldby
    After reading all those thousands of words, I'm still wondering why I should give a damn about the Palestinians. The world is full of conflicts, it is full of dispossessed people's that no one cares about. And yet we should all really, really care about the Palestinians. For some reason.

    No. Sod them.

    I’m still wondering why I should give a damn about the Palestinians.

    I feel that. Can’t the Palestinians and the Israelis both lose?

    Read More
  56. geokat62 says:
    @Aaron Gross
    I agree with Finkelstein's reply to you. I mean, there's impossible and then there's impossible. And he didn't even mention one of the main obstacles to a one-state solution: unless it includes ethnic cleansing of the Jews and thus a Judenrein state, a one-state solution would be a disaster for the Palestinians. It would be very bad for the Jews, too, but incomparably worse for the Palestinians. And worst of all for the Palestinian leadership, who'd go from being quasi-statesmen to the leaders of some minority faction in some backwater Middle-Eastern parliament.

    Even an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and a two-state solution would be a nightmare for Fatah. They'd last about five minutes after Israel withdrew and allowed the Palestinian people to rule themselves (ha ha). Hamas wouldn't mind a two-state "agreement" as long as they didn't have to agree themselves, because they'd just overthrow Fatah, tear up the agreement, and continue their war to liberate all of Palestine from the river to the sea.

    Yes, the masses want independence, but they also know that after independence their state will be a shit-hole compared to how it is now. Bottom line: Fatah can survive only in the status quo. Without Israeli protection they'd be crushed by Hamas. And Hamas enjoys the luxury of being the no-compromise party of purity, of being able to promise everything and deliver nothing. There's no way the Palestinian leadership would accept even a two-state solution now, much less a one-state solution.

    … a one-state solution would be a disaster for the Palestinians

    there’s disaster and then there’s disaster.

    It would be very bad for the Jews, too, but incomparably worse for the Palestinians.

    Something tells me that it would be very bad for the Palestinians, too, but incomparably worse for the Israelis.

    Yes, the masses want independence, but they also know that after independence their state will be a shit-hole compared to how it is now.

    Tell you what, let’s give it a try and we’ll see if you’re right. If you are, the Palestinians themselves should be the first to demand the reinstatement of the occupation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    I don't think you read my comment too carefully. First of all, I bracketed out the scenario where Jews are ethnically cleansed. Obviously that would be a disaster for Jews.

    Second, when I said that Palestinians knew their independent state would be a shit-hole, I said they still want it anyway. They'd rather live in a shit-hole of their own than under a relatively stable, liberal, and prosperous occupation.
    , @Aaron Gross
    Sorry about the tone of my other reply to you. I suppose there might be disastrous scenarios for the Jews that don't involve ethnic cleansing.

    Instead of speculating on who'd suffer most under a one-state agreement, which is just some ill-defined fantasy anyway, it's enough just to point out that barring some decisive victory, it would be very bad for Arabs and Jews alike.
  57. joe webb says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Don't make things so complicated:Norman Finkelstien...Noam Chomsky...and Bernie Sanders...are all the mortal enemy of The Historic Native Born White Christian American Majority, and they are cheerleaders for racial violence against our People.

    If you have any doubts about this, read the Yockey interview with Noam Chomsky in the NYT in the Sunday Times over a year ago. And Noam Chomsky has restated his position recently:Whitey deserves to be murdered and raped by blacks.

    Neither Chomsky nor Finkelstien support the right of return for Palestinians-but they demand that Native Born White Americans hand over their Historic Living and Breeding Space to Mexicans..Central Americans....Koreans...Iranians...Pakistani Muslims....Hindus and Sihks...and Israeli Nationals.

    you are correct basically, but it is important to understand the players and where they are coming from. What is the “Yockey” interview…who is Yockey? The only Yockey I know is the you know, nazi ,now dead for decades.

    I was one of the first to out , probably the first on the left coast to, to out Chomsky, by quoting from his Fateful Triangle, about p. 39 as I recall. This would have been back in about 2001.

    One wonder……..all you have to do is read carefully, and the Fateful Triangle had been out for years.

    Again, it is important that folks know the ins and outs of things so that they can achieve understanding of different folk’s writing, whether the writing is fairly and clearly presented, or , more cryptic, like Chomsky’s.

    The mind likes to put two and two together for itself…connect the dots…O… that’s why so and so says such and such. This way of presenting things is more objective and respects the reader. Also, understatement is generally better, from a rhetoric point of view, meaning the psychology of persuasion.

    Do I always observe it? Obviously not, but usually it is when I am trying to be funny, which I am told is usually successful. Is it Good for the Jews? That is a funny line…the way jews talk to themselves. Of course they mean it in spades.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Joe Webb

    If I have his name right, Yockey is an African American Professor of Philosophy at Stanford who does interviews of big time US Intellectuals in the Sunday NYT.

    The interview with Noam Chomsky was Oct 2014 Sunday NYT..

    I am really surprised that Steve Sailer has not made a post about this interview with Chomsky...for without a doubt..it was nothing less than a violent threat against The Historic Native Born White American Majority...it was repeated a month ago:"White Americans are afraid of Black Revenge"....

    Commadante Unz should post this interview with Noam Chomksy on Unz Review...I am surprised that he hasn't done this.
  58. joe webb says:
    @Junior

    If I had my way, I would abolish all states.
     
    And there you have it, folks. That quote above from Finkelstein says all that you need to know about this Globalist Finkelstein's agenda of wanting the National Sovereignty of America to be destroyed. He wants America to be abolished and some United Nations Politburo to take its place. Don't be fooled by these double-agents, like Finkelstein, who pretend that their agendas are the same as yours(unless of course your agenda is also to "abolish" America).

    He is pretending to have the same agenda so that people will believe him when he criticizes the use of tactics that work, like BDS and making the distinction between Zionism and Judaism. He is criticizing them BECAUSE they work. He is acting like BDS's sole purpose is to hurt Israel financially and totally ignoring the use of it as being a way to bring the issue of what the Apartheid State of Israel is doing into the forefront.

    The BDS movement and its opposition to it by the Israel Lobby makes clear to Americans that the Lobby is attempting to destroy our right of Free Speech and it terrifies them. So they have sent their minions out to attempt to make Americans, that use BDS as a tactic, believe that BDS is helping Israel and not working. They don't want Americans knowing the power of the Lobby which would be evident if they are able to destroy our Right to Free Speech by outlawing BDS. They don't want it to get to that point where their malign influence would be so obvious to Americans. You may debate about whether or not the leadership of the BDS movement has been corrupted, but you can not deny that BDS is a useful tactic in a strategy to make Americans aware of what is going on.

    Making the distinction between Zionism and Judaism is the key to battling their false accusations of anti-Semitism(when false) and it terrifies them. So they send out the likes of Finkelstein to attempt to claim that making the distinction between Zionism and Judaism is helping Israel. He wants people that believe him to stupidly not make the distinction between Zionism and Judaism so that charges of anti-Semitism will stick.

    The Globalists and NeoCons have the exact same Trotskyite agenda of bankrupting this country and starting an "International Permanent Revolution". The NeoCons use false-flags to incite us into following their bankrupting war agenda, and the Globalists use financial false-indicators to try to pacify us into following their bankrupting agenda. Both fingers of the same hand that is looking to strangle America and bring about a Global Governance made to look like it is ruled by the "People" but will in fact be ruled by the Banksters.

    Finkelstein is controlled opposition that is seeking to abolish our country's sovereignty and should be treated as such. Do not trust this man. He'll say some things to make it seem like he's on your side, but his agenda for America is crystal clear: "If I had my way, I would abolish all states."

    Nuff said, Finkelstein. Thanks for letting us Americans know where your true globalist loyalty lies.

    abolish all states? how old are you? 18? Nationalism and genuine diversity is in the soul (genes) of man. grow up.

    The Controlled Opposition is nonsense. Please jettison the cliches.

    Zionism IS different that Judaism. Read some books. Israel Shahak claimed that what happens to jews who become zionists, is that the psychology behind Jewish religious crackpots osmoses into the brains of secular jews. The result is more fanaticism but of a different order.

    Is the zionist more dangerous than an orthodox? Probably, given the variety of orthodoxy. I have personally met a couple orthodox who were pretty normal psychologically, and they were of course not too happy with zionism.

    Then there are the orthodox sects who oppose zionism.

    Joe Webb everything that Shahak wrote should be read by all of us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Junior
    Well well well, if it isn't crotchety old Joe. Wish I could say it was good to hear from you Joe. Hows your spreading of ignorant racist and anti-Semitic bullshit been going? I see I touched a nerve with my post because you're exactly the type of useful pawn that the ADL has wet dreams about.

    abolish all states? how old are you? 18? Nationalism and genuine diversity is in the soul (genes) of man. grow up.
     
    What exactly are you saying here, Joe? Are you saying that you don't believe that there is a plan for world governance or are you arguing that their plan is unattainable? Perhaps you haven't noticed a thing called the European Union. Or maybe you are unaware of the North American Union, IMF, SPP, WTO, UN, NAFTA, TPP, World Bank, and the list goes on and on of organizations with plans to destroy our national sovereignty, which I have no doubt this Globalist Finkelstein supports.

    The Controlled Opposition is nonsense. Please jettison the cliches.
     
    Nonsense and cliches, is it? So let me get this straight, this self-proclaimed "Old-fashioned Communist" that wants America's National Sovereignty abolished is arguing against using tactics that have proven themselves to work and you don't think he's controlled opposition? Much in the same as you are a wet-dream for the ADL, Finkelstein would have left Lenin with sticky sheets to clean up in the morning.

    “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” -Vladimir Lenin

    Zionism IS different that Judaism.
     
    So if you know that there is a difference then why do you insist on not making the difference in your arguments? That's worse than ignorance. You are a person that knows they are being ignorant yet chooses to act like a fool for attention. Sad.
  59. joe webb says:
    @Junior

    If I had my way, I would abolish all states.
     
    And there you have it, folks. That quote above from Finkelstein says all that you need to know about this Globalist Finkelstein's agenda of wanting the National Sovereignty of America to be destroyed. He wants America to be abolished and some United Nations Politburo to take its place. Don't be fooled by these double-agents, like Finkelstein, who pretend that their agendas are the same as yours(unless of course your agenda is also to "abolish" America).

    He is pretending to have the same agenda so that people will believe him when he criticizes the use of tactics that work, like BDS and making the distinction between Zionism and Judaism. He is criticizing them BECAUSE they work. He is acting like BDS's sole purpose is to hurt Israel financially and totally ignoring the use of it as being a way to bring the issue of what the Apartheid State of Israel is doing into the forefront.

    The BDS movement and its opposition to it by the Israel Lobby makes clear to Americans that the Lobby is attempting to destroy our right of Free Speech and it terrifies them. So they have sent their minions out to attempt to make Americans, that use BDS as a tactic, believe that BDS is helping Israel and not working. They don't want Americans knowing the power of the Lobby which would be evident if they are able to destroy our Right to Free Speech by outlawing BDS. They don't want it to get to that point where their malign influence would be so obvious to Americans. You may debate about whether or not the leadership of the BDS movement has been corrupted, but you can not deny that BDS is a useful tactic in a strategy to make Americans aware of what is going on.

    Making the distinction between Zionism and Judaism is the key to battling their false accusations of anti-Semitism(when false) and it terrifies them. So they send out the likes of Finkelstein to attempt to claim that making the distinction between Zionism and Judaism is helping Israel. He wants people that believe him to stupidly not make the distinction between Zionism and Judaism so that charges of anti-Semitism will stick.

    The Globalists and NeoCons have the exact same Trotskyite agenda of bankrupting this country and starting an "International Permanent Revolution". The NeoCons use false-flags to incite us into following their bankrupting war agenda, and the Globalists use financial false-indicators to try to pacify us into following their bankrupting agenda. Both fingers of the same hand that is looking to strangle America and bring about a Global Governance made to look like it is ruled by the "People" but will in fact be ruled by the Banksters.

    Finkelstein is controlled opposition that is seeking to abolish our country's sovereignty and should be treated as such. Do not trust this man. He'll say some things to make it seem like he's on your side, but his agenda for America is crystal clear: "If I had my way, I would abolish all states."

    Nuff said, Finkelstein. Thanks for letting us Americans know where your true globalist loyalty lies.

    so you are afraid of being called an anti-semite. get over it. I pride myself on being an anti-semite.

    I am anti all kinds of things, especially the lower races who are destroying our country. You may need to hide your anti-semitism if you have a job cuz the jews will make it disappear, but please don’t get all huffy and run to huddle with the liberal race-traitors .

    Joe Webb but I don’t have a job to lose so be careful Anybody who is not an anti-semite is just young, dumb, or poorly informed in general, including the minor topic of Jews.

    Whites are committing suicide but many are starting to awaken. Things are getting better and better with Europe about to blow up over immigration, and the US getting the Trump treatment…as inchoate as it is. Things are going to get better and better, meaning more and more conflict.

    Let the Bad Times Roll.

    Joe WEbb

    Read More
    • Replies: @DaveE
    Me too. As a matter of practicality, the best way to shut down the "anti-Semite" smear is simply to say, "No, I'm anti-Jewish. What's your point?" and walk away.
    , @Junior

    so you are afraid of being called an anti-semite. get over it. I pride myself on being an anti-semite.

     

    You seem to be under the false impression that everyone shares your idiotic lack of values and morals, and that the only reason that people don't voice reprehensible racist anti-Semitic views is out of fear of retribution. It couldn't be because they don't share your ignorant beliefs, now could it Joe? Your stupidity is boundless. The only fear that I have of being called an anti-Semite is the fear and revulsion of IF it were true because of the damage it would do to my soul IF it were true. I have what are called, MORALS, while you, on the other hand, apparently are extremely proud to have none.

    You are a disgustingly shameful man, Joe Webb.
    , @Karl
    >> Whites are committing suicide but many are starting to awaken


    your fundamental problem is that you have no idea how to lead them.

    Some will end up taking refuge in the land where Christianity is indigenous.

    Their grandchildren will speak Hebreo-Aramaic - just like Jesus did.
  60. joe webb says:
    @Art

    joe webb: ….in shoah business himself.
     
    Sam: Nonsense. Prove it.

    Is Mr. Finkelstein conning us – setting up ZERO expectations. Is he saying that Palestine is dead – that the Jews have it all under control. That it is just a matter of time before the Final Solution unfolds – so give it up?

    Clearly Finkelstein supports Zionist Israel. There is no other Israel then Zionist Israel. The sum total of all the major different Jew groups all over the world is Zionist Israel. Zionism and Israel are one and the same.

    If one does not support BDS – then one does not support justice for the Palestinians - PERIOD.

    Finkelstein wrings he hands and correctly documents how Israel has accomplished their evil treatment of the Palestinians. But he provides NO hope for a just solution.

    Is his task, to tell the Gentiles to forget it – there is NO chance for a real settlement.

    Hmm - is Finkelstein a master propagandist. Lenin said “control the opposition by leading it.” Is Finkelstein trying to lead the American left wing anti-Israel cultural forces. Is Finkelstein flying a false flag – saying bad bad Israel all the while supporting Israeli goals?

    There is a Polish saying “that the Jew cries as he slaps you.”

    Finkelstein is crying – Israel is slapping us.

    not sure what is intended here.

    I do not know what the Fink’s position is on the Shoah, but I loved his bit on his mother, the holocaust survivor (any jew in Europe at the time by definition) Mom: With all these holocaust survivors (lining up for handouts from Germany) who did HItler kill? I love it. Take my mother, please.

    My remark was pretty loosey goosey. I meant only that the Fink is in business too. But, to be fair, he did write a good book, I guess. Not sure if I read it.
    Joe Webb

    Read More
  61. I could say the same of Mr Finkelstein as he says of the lessons of the First Intifada. What a waste, what a terrible waste of intelligence and wisdom. Few men I admire more for their tenacity and honesty.

    Read More
  62. @Andrew E. Mathis
    So... Is there any legitimate way for a Jew to oppose Israel?

    “So… Is there any legitimate way for a Jew to oppose Israel?”

    Yes, Neturei Karta.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    And if s/he isn't religious?
    , @DaveE
    Neturei Karta is a scam. The N.K. don't REALLY believe Israel doesn't have the right to exist (it doesn't) but merely argue about the timing being "all wrong." That is, that the Jews don't have the right to steal Palestine and smite all the inhabitants UNTIL THE MESSIAH RETURNS and does their diabolical work for them.

    Don't fall for the Neturei Karta scam.
    , @SolontoCroesus


    “So… Is there any legitimate way for a Jew to oppose Israel?”
     
    Yes, Neturei Karta.
     
    and Gertrude Stein

    The Reverie of the Zionist


    I know all about the war I have been in France ever since the peace. Remember what was said yesterday. We can think and we know that we love our country so.
    Can we believe that all Jews are these.
    Let us remember that the little bird of all is not the one that has the singing dell.
    It sings and it sings and a great many people say it is not pleasant.
    Is it likely that there is real grief.
    Anywhere there are beards and everywhere there are girls and all about there is a wealth of imagery.
    I saw all this to prove that Judaism should be a question of religion.
    Don’t talk about race. Race is disgusting if you don’t love your country.
    I don’t want to go to Zion.
    This is an expression of Shem.

    -Gertrude Stein, 1920
     
  63. joe webb says:
    @silly billy
    My idea of a a dream debate would involve Finkelstein having to face off against Gilad Atzmon because such an encounter would require Finkelstein to justify positions that areoften , basically, totally irrational.

    Such an encounter would be truly revealing. Finkelstein, who has never been known to have a smile on his face or even the remotest semblance of a sense of humor would be facing off against Atzmon who always seems to have a a smile and a truly great and absolutely unflappable sense of humor. This is what makes Atzmon's debating skills truly formidable.

    Just such a debate would reveal an interesting fact about the two of them. Finkelstein still proudly (and often) claims his Jewishness while Atzmon claims to be a "former Jew" because he came to the conclusion that Judaism is a concept so nebulous (is it a religion? a nationality? or an ethnicity?) as to be basically indefensible by any rational measure.

    The BDS movement would point out is another clear example of the differences between the two of them. While Finkelstein might not support BDS, the leadership of the BDS movement supports him in spirit. Atzmon, on the other hand, is enemy number one of the BDS movement because of his repeated claims that BDS is under Israeli control. Alison Weir's recent blacklisting by BDS is only the most recent example of this overweening influence by it supposed "enemy." BDS also, interestingly enough, criticizes him because of Atzmon's claim that Organized Judaism (OJ) as exemplified by Zionism and Israel is inherently racist.

    Finkelstein complains about not being given air time any longer on Amy Goodman's program any longer. This shows he still doen't get it. Maybe he should take a look at this video involving Alison Weir and Jeff Blankfort about Goodman's and Chomsky's roles as long time Zionist gatekeepers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB2lDJJr3lE

    BDS is based on a strange concept. It only seek boycotts of products made in the occupied territories. This deliberate flaw makes it inherently ineffective . Why doesn't it seek sanctions on all Israeli products?

    I know Allison…she is a sweetheart who is still a liberal, the old-fashioned type. If Americans knew…they would do the right thing. Not really…because Protestantism luvs the jews, and even the Catholics have gotten into the act…shoah business.

    If the Church had not protected the Jews for a couple thousand years, there would be no jews today. No Israel, no jewish nukes, no neocons….imagine!! peace more or less.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  64. @iffen
    1 and 3 are generic. 2 and 4 are unique to Israel. Does this mean that 2 and 4 explain 100% of the variance? If so, what's the split between 2 and 4?

    No, that’s not what I meant. I meant that the effects of post-colonial resentment (Third World) and guilt (Western) are specific to Israel/Palestine. That’s because Israel is perceived as a bunch of Western colonialists oppressing weak brown people.

    That also explains the wildly disproportionate attention to apartheid South Africa in its time. But now that they’re gone, Israel’s the only one left.

    Read More
  65. @Rurik

    Why disproportionate concern with Palestinians?
     
    for me it's the cruelty- for cruelty's sake

    it's the abuse of power to impose themselves over their victims in order to exert that raw power over another human being.. for the sake of it

    http://wheneversomeday.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/room-101-rats-ingsoc-1984-spirit-of-england-peter-crawford.jpeg

    And they didn't even earn their military triumph over the Arabs. Were it not for Zionist subversion of the Western governments (using extorted lucre), they'd have been beaten by the Arabs. That's another part of it. We're (I'm) forced to be complicit in the horrors and humiliations visited upon those pitiable people. I'm forced to fund it, and provide "moral" cover for the torture and genocide and daily humiliations those people are forced to endure.

    I guess another part of it is the sheer sense of how cruel and hate-consumed Jews can be towards their victims. I remember reading about a fellow- Solomon Morel, and how he treated innocent German women and children under his charge. Beating them with clubs for no other reason than because they were German. Perhaps also, being as Jews are generally considered white by most people, we hold them to a different standard than we hold blacks for instance, who when they "necklace" people, we just cringe and think, 'oh well, what are you going to do, they're not evolved enough to know how wrong that is. So there's that aspect as well.

    The sheer cruelty, towards a people who've done nothing wrong except exist on land the Jews covet for themselves.

    the humiliations and tortures that tweak all humane peoples conscience

    that fact we're forced to be participants however unwillingly

    the fact that Jews more than any other group are constantly haranguing the rest of us for 0ur "racism" and how bad we all treated them in the Holocaust.

    That's also another huge reason the people of the world are disgusted by what's going on in Palestine. That sanctimonious, dripping hypocrisy and arrogance that the Jews seem to even congratulate themselves for, and call it chutzpah, like it's a charming trait or something. (it isn't)

    there's' more I suppose, but that's just some reasons off the top of my head

    OK, but I already covered your answer in my second reason: anti-Semitism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    anti-Semitism.
     
    is that what you call Palestinians who resent Jews for what Jews are doing to them?

    "anti-Semites"?

    IOW, people who irrationally hate Jews for being Jews, and not for what Jews are doing to them
  66. @geokat62

    ... a one-state solution would be a disaster for the Palestinians
     
    there’s disaster and then there’s disaster.

    It would be very bad for the Jews, too, but incomparably worse for the Palestinians.
     
    Something tells me that it would be very bad for the Palestinians, too, but incomparably worse for the Israelis.

    Yes, the masses want independence, but they also know that after independence their state will be a shit-hole compared to how it is now.
     
    Tell you what, let's give it a try and we'll see if you're right. If you are, the Palestinians themselves should be the first to demand the reinstatement of the occupation.

    I don’t think you read my comment too carefully. First of all, I bracketed out the scenario where Jews are ethnically cleansed. Obviously that would be a disaster for Jews.

    Second, when I said that Palestinians knew their independent state would be a shit-hole, I said they still want it anyway. They’d rather live in a shit-hole of their own than under a relatively stable, liberal, and prosperous occupation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    They’d rather live in a shit-hole of their own than under a relatively stable, liberal, and prosperous occupation.
     
    wow

    did you just say that?!

    what a POS
  67. @SolontoCroesus
    From the non-Jewish American pov:

    disgust at the grave injustice being carried on against innocent and persecuted people of whatever label, with US tax dollars and coerced support.

    http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/mar/06/council-national-interest/billboards-question-aid-israel/

    http://stoptheblankcheck.org

    http://www.notaxdollarstoisrael.com/about/

    I still don’t think that explains the disproportionality. The US supports and has supported regimes that were far worse than Israel, without such attention.

    Read More
  68. @iffen
    Among Jews: special responsibility to address your own people’s wrongdoings.

    Can you distinguish between Jews who have “pure” concern for the Palestinians and those who are concerned because the situation (of the Palestinians) is an impediment to gaining full acceptance of the State of Israel, either in its current form or pre-1967?

    BTW, unless one is Jewish that only leaves #2 as an explanation.

    Sure, but I was talking about disproportionate attention to Israel. Your question is about stuff that’s intrinsically specific to Israel, so it’s not part of the phenomenon I was trying to explain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thank you for your comments.

    It is my premise that the disproportionate “concern” for the Palestinians derives from anti-Semitism.

    What I want to understand is how to separate legitimate concern for the Palestinians from that generated by anti-Semitism.

    You mention South Africa. Do you think that many of the commenters here were as worked up over the fate of black South Africans as they are over the fate of the Palestinians?

    I didn’t think so.
  69. @geokat62

    ... a one-state solution would be a disaster for the Palestinians
     
    there’s disaster and then there’s disaster.

    It would be very bad for the Jews, too, but incomparably worse for the Palestinians.
     
    Something tells me that it would be very bad for the Palestinians, too, but incomparably worse for the Israelis.

    Yes, the masses want independence, but they also know that after independence their state will be a shit-hole compared to how it is now.
     
    Tell you what, let's give it a try and we'll see if you're right. If you are, the Palestinians themselves should be the first to demand the reinstatement of the occupation.

    Sorry about the tone of my other reply to you. I suppose there might be disastrous scenarios for the Jews that don’t involve ethnic cleansing.

    Instead of speculating on who’d suffer most under a one-state agreement, which is just some ill-defined fantasy anyway, it’s enough just to point out that barring some decisive victory, it would be very bad for Arabs and Jews alike.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    a one-state agreement, which is just some ill-defined fantasy anyway
     
    some people are living the fantasy

    and they are showing the only realistic way forward for this conflict

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/verona-dating-app-news/

    the sooner you embrace these inevitable trends, the sooner the region will know peace

    http://getverona.com/
  70. “Trump has also released ugly latent impulses that, even as they exist in many if not all of us, should be kept bottled up, and he’s legitimized street violence and hooliganism.”

    Disappointing. Even for a good guy like Norman, he sees us as an “ugly” mass of potentially dangerous goyim. Nativism is illegitimate, and to be “bottled up”.

    Sad!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Boy did you ever miss the point. What in Fink's article made you conclude that he was exempting Jews from his analysis. Most leftists, and I count myself as one, have a problem with Israel because its problems are those specific to ethnic nationalism.
  71. @Rabbitnexus
    "So… Is there any legitimate way for a Jew to oppose Israel?"

    Yes, Neturei Karta.

    And if s/he isn’t religious?

    Read More
  72. @AnonymousCoward

    “Trump has also released ugly latent impulses that, even as they exist in many if not all of us, should be kept bottled up, and he’s legitimized street violence and hooliganism.”
     
    Disappointing. Even for a good guy like Norman, he sees us as an "ugly" mass of potentially dangerous goyim. Nativism is illegitimate, and to be "bottled up".

    Sad!

    Boy did you ever miss the point. What in Fink’s article made you conclude that he was exempting Jews from his analysis. Most leftists, and I count myself as one, have a problem with Israel because its problems are those specific to ethnic nationalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonymousCoward

    What in Fink’s article made you conclude that he was exempting Jews from his analysis.
     
    Uh, where in my post do I say that Norm is exempting Jews?

    I say that he views America-first, Trumpish nativist impulses as "ugly" and in need of being "bottled up". Which he does.

    That is disappointing, there's *nothing* wrong with putting America first.

  73. iffen says:
    @Aaron Gross
    Sure, but I was talking about disproportionate attention to Israel. Your question is about stuff that's intrinsically specific to Israel, so it's not part of the phenomenon I was trying to explain.

    Thank you for your comments.

    It is my premise that the disproportionate “concern” for the Palestinians derives from anti-Semitism.

    What I want to understand is how to separate legitimate concern for the Palestinians from that generated by anti-Semitism.

    You mention South Africa. Do you think that many of the commenters here were as worked up over the fate of black South Africans as they are over the fate of the Palestinians?

    I didn’t think so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    No, because most of the commenters here are right-wing. I clearly said that anti-Semitism is a major cause of the phenomenon on the right, and post-colonial white guilt on the left.

    And yes, I remember that during the apartheid era leftists got at least as worked up over South Africa as over Israel. Where do you think the whole BDS strategy came from?
    , @Sam Shama
    [What I want to understand is how to separate legitimate concern for the Palestinians from that generated by anti-Semitism.]

    Count me in that group as well. Its a legitimate and fascinating question. In statistics one can apply control variables to isolate causes for an observed effect; I cannot readily think of an adequate one here.
  74. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @joe webb
    you are correct basically, but it is important to understand the players and where they are coming from. What is the "Yockey" interview...who is Yockey? The only Yockey I know is the you know, nazi ,now dead for decades.

    I was one of the first to out , probably the first on the left coast to, to out Chomsky, by quoting from his Fateful Triangle, about p. 39 as I recall. This would have been back in about 2001.

    One wonder........all you have to do is read carefully, and the Fateful Triangle had been out for years.

    Again, it is important that folks know the ins and outs of things so that they can achieve understanding of different folk's writing, whether the writing is fairly and clearly presented, or , more cryptic, like Chomsky's.

    The mind likes to put two and two together for itself...connect the dots...O... that's why so and so says such and such. This way of presenting things is more objective and respects the reader. Also, understatement is generally better, from a rhetoric point of view, meaning the psychology of persuasion.

    Do I always observe it? Obviously not, but usually it is when I am trying to be funny, which I am told is usually successful. Is it Good for the Jews? That is a funny line...the way jews talk to themselves. Of course they mean it in spades.

    Joe Webb

    Joe Webb

    If I have his name right, Yockey is an African American Professor of Philosophy at Stanford who does interviews of big time US Intellectuals in the Sunday NYT.

    The interview with Noam Chomsky was Oct 2014 Sunday NYT..

    I am really surprised that Steve Sailer has not made a post about this interview with Chomsky…for without a doubt..it was nothing less than a violent threat against The Historic Native Born White American Majority…it was repeated a month ago:”White Americans are afraid of Black Revenge”….

    Commadante Unz should post this interview with Noam Chomksy on Unz Review…I am surprised that he hasn’t done this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @joe webb
    right, I have read the idiocy of this guy. The only reason he gets print is he be black.
    Joe Webb thanks,
  75. {Noam Chomsky has said that of course he’ll vote for Clinton if she’s the Democratic nominee. Because, although the policy differences between the candidates might be tiny, when you wield so much power, even a tiny difference translates into life and death for many people. That’s a compelling argument. }

    This closet Zionist is CLEVERLY, like Noam Chomsky, telling the fools to vote for the Zionist servant, the criminal Killary. Destroy the Zionist tribe and its servants by voting for Trump. Why not give Trump a chance? His hand is NOt bloody like Chomsky’s favorite candidate, Clinton. Who wants to vote for a known Zionist war criminal and a Zionist bankers’ pimp, Killary Clinton?
    Chomsky is in neocon camp voting for the baby killer to serve the interest of jewish tribe like always, of course ‘cleverly’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Donald Trump's foreign policy views are many orders of magnitude less lethal than Hillary Clinton's. One can not distinguish between Hillary Clinton's foreign policy and the maniac John McCain's.

    Noam Chomsky is voting for Hillary Clinton for one reason and one reason only:Chomsky is a hyper-ethnic Jew who desires the demographic extermination of The Historic Native Born White Christian American Majority...even if it means voting for the violent psychopath WAR CRIIMINAL Hillary Clinton.

    Both Noam Chomsky and Norman Finklestein are enthusiasts for a Jew-pure Israel(neither of them support the right of return for Palestinians)....but both demand that Native Born White American Christians commit demographic suicide..OR ELSE....OR ELSE=encourage Black murder and rape fantasies towards Native Born White Americans..millions of them!!!
  76. Rurik says:
    @Aaron Gross
    OK, but I already covered your answer in my second reason: anti-Semitism.

    anti-Semitism.

    is that what you call Palestinians who resent Jews for what Jews are doing to them?

    “anti-Semites”?

    IOW, people who irrationally hate Jews for being Jews, and not for what Jews are doing to them

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross

    is that what you call Palestinians who resent Jews for what Jews are doing to them?

    “anti-Semites”?
     
    No, you misunderstood. That's what I called you.
  77. Rurik says:
    @Aaron Gross
    I don't think you read my comment too carefully. First of all, I bracketed out the scenario where Jews are ethnically cleansed. Obviously that would be a disaster for Jews.

    Second, when I said that Palestinians knew their independent state would be a shit-hole, I said they still want it anyway. They'd rather live in a shit-hole of their own than under a relatively stable, liberal, and prosperous occupation.

    They’d rather live in a shit-hole of their own than under a relatively stable, liberal, and prosperous occupation.

    wow

    did you just say that?!

    what a POS

    Read More
  78. @iffen
    Thank you for your comments.

    It is my premise that the disproportionate “concern” for the Palestinians derives from anti-Semitism.

    What I want to understand is how to separate legitimate concern for the Palestinians from that generated by anti-Semitism.

    You mention South Africa. Do you think that many of the commenters here were as worked up over the fate of black South Africans as they are over the fate of the Palestinians?

    I didn’t think so.

    No, because most of the commenters here are right-wing. I clearly said that anti-Semitism is a major cause of the phenomenon on the right, and post-colonial white guilt on the left.

    And yes, I remember that during the apartheid era leftists got at least as worked up over South Africa as over Israel. Where do you think the whole BDS strategy came from?

    Read More
  79. Rurik says:
    @Aaron Gross
    Sorry about the tone of my other reply to you. I suppose there might be disastrous scenarios for the Jews that don't involve ethnic cleansing.

    Instead of speculating on who'd suffer most under a one-state agreement, which is just some ill-defined fantasy anyway, it's enough just to point out that barring some decisive victory, it would be very bad for Arabs and Jews alike.

    a one-state agreement, which is just some ill-defined fantasy anyway

    some people are living the fantasy

    and they are showing the only realistic way forward for this conflict

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/verona-dating-app-news/

    the sooner you embrace these inevitable trends, the sooner the region will know peace

    http://getverona.com/

    Read More
  80. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    Thank you for your comments.

    It is my premise that the disproportionate “concern” for the Palestinians derives from anti-Semitism.

    What I want to understand is how to separate legitimate concern for the Palestinians from that generated by anti-Semitism.

    You mention South Africa. Do you think that many of the commenters here were as worked up over the fate of black South Africans as they are over the fate of the Palestinians?

    I didn’t think so.

    [What I want to understand is how to separate legitimate concern for the Palestinians from that generated by anti-Semitism.]

    Count me in that group as well. Its a legitimate and fascinating question. In statistics one can apply control variables to isolate causes for an observed effect; I cannot readily think of an adequate one here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    We need look no further than the current piece by Giraldi to see that the definition of anti-Semitism is up for grabs and more than that it is not a settled fact that people on the left cannot be anti-Semitic. The Labour Party is on the left, correct. If the Labour Party is worried about anti-Semitism in its ranks then it either exists or is "made up."
    , @iffen
    I am rapidly coming to understand that it might be a full time job.

    Question for you, Sam.

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism. The only exception that I can think of is if a person denies all nation states the right to exist.
  81. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Montain"] says:
    @No Second Israel
    {Noam Chomsky has said that of course he’ll vote for Clinton if she’s the Democratic nominee. Because, although the policy differences between the candidates might be tiny, when you wield so much power, even a tiny difference translates into life and death for many people. That’s a compelling argument. }

    This closet Zionist is CLEVERLY, like Noam Chomsky, telling the fools to vote for the Zionist servant, the criminal Killary. Destroy the Zionist tribe and its servants by voting for Trump. Why not give Trump a chance? His hand is NOt bloody like Chomsky's favorite candidate, Clinton. Who wants to vote for a known Zionist war criminal and a Zionist bankers' pimp, Killary Clinton?
    Chomsky is in neocon camp voting for the baby killer to serve the interest of jewish tribe like always, of course 'cleverly'.

    Donald Trump’s foreign policy views are many orders of magnitude less lethal than Hillary Clinton’s. One can not distinguish between Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy and the maniac John McCain’s.

    Noam Chomsky is voting for Hillary Clinton for one reason and one reason only:Chomsky is a hyper-ethnic Jew who desires the demographic extermination of The Historic Native Born White Christian American Majority…even if it means voting for the violent psychopath WAR CRIIMINAL Hillary Clinton.

    Both Noam Chomsky and Norman Finklestein are enthusiasts for a Jew-pure Israel(neither of them support the right of return for Palestinians)….but both demand that Native Born White American Christians commit demographic suicide..OR ELSE….OR ELSE=encourage Black murder and rape fantasies towards Native Born White Americans..millions of them!!!

    Read More
  82. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    [What I want to understand is how to separate legitimate concern for the Palestinians from that generated by anti-Semitism.]

    Count me in that group as well. Its a legitimate and fascinating question. In statistics one can apply control variables to isolate causes for an observed effect; I cannot readily think of an adequate one here.

    We need look no further than the current piece by Giraldi to see that the definition of anti-Semitism is up for grabs and more than that it is not a settled fact that people on the left cannot be anti-Semitic. The Labour Party is on the left, correct. If the Labour Party is worried about anti-Semitism in its ranks then it either exists or is “made up.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    anti-Semitism is up for grabs
     
    has it ever occurred to you that people on the right and the left are often disgusted by what some Jews DO? And don't hate Jews for simply being Jews?

    Has it ever occurred to you that people on the right in Europe are disgusted by the well-known by now Jewish agenda to see Europe overrun by Muslims (and everyone else)? And that if Jews decided that Europe should stay European, that those same "anti-Semites" on the right would become philo-Semites overnight?

    or that those on the left (many of those who are Jewish themselves) would become pro-Israel in a heartbeat if Israel granted the Palestinians full rights and citizenship and treated them like equals and human beings?

    what you lot don't (can't) seem to understand, is that there are times when there are valid criticisms of some of the things Jews do. And that people who're willing to voice those criticisms (many of whom are Jews themselves) are not automatically anti-Semites.

    Duh

  83. Rurik says:
    @iffen
    We need look no further than the current piece by Giraldi to see that the definition of anti-Semitism is up for grabs and more than that it is not a settled fact that people on the left cannot be anti-Semitic. The Labour Party is on the left, correct. If the Labour Party is worried about anti-Semitism in its ranks then it either exists or is "made up."

    anti-Semitism is up for grabs

    has it ever occurred to you that people on the right and the left are often disgusted by what some Jews DO? And don’t hate Jews for simply being Jews?

    Has it ever occurred to you that people on the right in Europe are disgusted by the well-known by now Jewish agenda to see Europe overrun by Muslims (and everyone else)? And that if Jews decided that Europe should stay European, that those same “anti-Semites” on the right would become philo-Semites overnight?

    or that those on the left (many of those who are Jewish themselves) would become pro-Israel in a heartbeat if Israel granted the Palestinians full rights and citizenship and treated them like equals and human beings?

    what you lot don’t (can’t) seem to understand, is that there are times when there are valid criticisms of some of the things Jews do. And that people who’re willing to voice those criticisms (many of whom are Jews themselves) are not automatically anti-Semites.

    Duh

    Read More
    • Agree: geokat62
    • Replies: @iffen
    A) there are times when there are valid criticisms of some of the things Jews do. And that people who’re willing to voice those criticisms (many of whom are Jews themselves) are not automatically anti-Semites.

    Complete agreement.

    B) what you lot don’t (can’t) seem to understand

    You can't decide A for me, you didn't write the book on it.
  84. iffen says:
    @Rurik

    anti-Semitism is up for grabs
     
    has it ever occurred to you that people on the right and the left are often disgusted by what some Jews DO? And don't hate Jews for simply being Jews?

    Has it ever occurred to you that people on the right in Europe are disgusted by the well-known by now Jewish agenda to see Europe overrun by Muslims (and everyone else)? And that if Jews decided that Europe should stay European, that those same "anti-Semites" on the right would become philo-Semites overnight?

    or that those on the left (many of those who are Jewish themselves) would become pro-Israel in a heartbeat if Israel granted the Palestinians full rights and citizenship and treated them like equals and human beings?

    what you lot don't (can't) seem to understand, is that there are times when there are valid criticisms of some of the things Jews do. And that people who're willing to voice those criticisms (many of whom are Jews themselves) are not automatically anti-Semites.

    Duh

    A) there are times when there are valid criticisms of some of the things Jews do. And that people who’re willing to voice those criticisms (many of whom are Jews themselves) are not automatically anti-Semites.

    Complete agreement.

    B) what you lot don’t (can’t) seem to understand

    You can’t decide A for me, you didn’t write the book on it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    One caveat to my complete agreement is that one has to separate diaspora Jews from Israeli citizens.
    , @Rurik

    You can’t decide A for me, you didn’t write the book on it.
     
    never said I did

    I was only pointing out that there are certain criticism of some of the things some Jews do, that when pointed out, is not automatically a case of anti-Semitism. That's all.
  85. joe webb says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Joe Webb

    If I have his name right, Yockey is an African American Professor of Philosophy at Stanford who does interviews of big time US Intellectuals in the Sunday NYT.

    The interview with Noam Chomsky was Oct 2014 Sunday NYT..

    I am really surprised that Steve Sailer has not made a post about this interview with Chomsky...for without a doubt..it was nothing less than a violent threat against The Historic Native Born White American Majority...it was repeated a month ago:"White Americans are afraid of Black Revenge"....

    Commadante Unz should post this interview with Noam Chomksy on Unz Review...I am surprised that he hasn't done this.

    right, I have read the idiocy of this guy. The only reason he gets print is he be black.
    Joe Webb thanks,

    Read More
  86. bondo says:

    anti semitism is what ever jews dont like: truth, resistance to jew lies, uncovering jew deceptions, revealing/resisting jew violence.

    then there is jew pigshit.

    also

    jews dont like people calling them jews

    maybe satan’s ugliest word.

    while here i’ll ask finkelstein, “why didnt patrick henry chomsky defend prof steven salaita? why didnt you? why your attack and the noam’s silence?”

    Read More
  87. iffen says:
    @iffen
    A) there are times when there are valid criticisms of some of the things Jews do. And that people who’re willing to voice those criticisms (many of whom are Jews themselves) are not automatically anti-Semites.

    Complete agreement.

    B) what you lot don’t (can’t) seem to understand

    You can't decide A for me, you didn't write the book on it.

    One caveat to my complete agreement is that one has to separate diaspora Jews from Israeli citizens.

    Read More
  88. DaveE says:
    @joe webb
    so you are afraid of being called an anti-semite. get over it. I pride myself on being an anti-semite.

    I am anti all kinds of things, especially the lower races who are destroying our country. You may need to hide your anti-semitism if you have a job cuz the jews will make it disappear, but please don't get all huffy and run to huddle with the liberal race-traitors .

    Joe Webb but I don't have a job to lose so be careful Anybody who is not an anti-semite is just young, dumb, or poorly informed in general, including the minor topic of Jews.

    Whites are committing suicide but many are starting to awaken. Things are getting better and better with Europe about to blow up over immigration, and the US getting the Trump treatment...as inchoate as it is. Things are going to get better and better, meaning more and more conflict.

    Let the Bad Times Roll.

    Joe WEbb

    Me too. As a matter of practicality, the best way to shut down the “anti-Semite” smear is simply to say, “No, I’m anti-Jewish. What’s your point?” and walk away.

    Read More
  89. DaveE says:
    @Rabbitnexus
    "So… Is there any legitimate way for a Jew to oppose Israel?"

    Yes, Neturei Karta.

    Neturei Karta is a scam. The N.K. don’t REALLY believe Israel doesn’t have the right to exist (it doesn’t) but merely argue about the timing being “all wrong.” That is, that the Jews don’t have the right to steal Palestine and smite all the inhabitants UNTIL THE MESSIAH RETURNS and does their diabolical work for them.

    Don’t fall for the Neturei Karta scam.

    Read More
  90. @Andrew E. Mathis
    Boy did you ever miss the point. What in Fink's article made you conclude that he was exempting Jews from his analysis. Most leftists, and I count myself as one, have a problem with Israel because its problems are those specific to ethnic nationalism.

    What in Fink’s article made you conclude that he was exempting Jews from his analysis.

    Uh, where in my post do I say that Norm is exempting Jews?

    I say that he views America-first, Trumpish nativist impulses as “ugly” and in need of being “bottled up”. Which he does.

    That is disappointing, there’s *nothing* wrong with putting America first.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    For Americans, no, there's nothing wrong with it. But that doesn't entail nativism. There's a distinction that should be made between the two things.

    It was your use of the term "goyim" in your post that led me to believe you thought Fink was exempting Jews in his response.
  91. @Rurik

    anti-Semitism.
     
    is that what you call Palestinians who resent Jews for what Jews are doing to them?

    "anti-Semites"?

    IOW, people who irrationally hate Jews for being Jews, and not for what Jews are doing to them

    is that what you call Palestinians who resent Jews for what Jews are doing to them?

    “anti-Semites”?

    No, you misunderstood. That’s what I called you.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrew E. Mathis
    • Replies: @Rurik

    That’s what I called you.
     
    it's beginning to become a term of honor

    I'll join Mel Gibson and Roger Waters and now apparently Donald Trump and so many others who oppose genocide and wars for fun and profit.

    Count me in please!
    , @Art
    So Mr. Little Jew Aaron Gross,

    You Jew say we Americans cannot say "America First." 300,000,000 Americans can not do what is natural because it is offensive to you Jew. You want to steal our natural rights to be human.

    Why shouldn't we all be anti-Jew?

    Art

    p.s. The term "anti-Semite" is a calculated Jew lie. Arabs are Semites - TRUTH - it is you Jew who hate the majority of Semites.

    p.s. So Mr. Little Jew Aaron Gross - you are lying when you call us Gentiles anti-Semite - we are justifiably being anti-Jew.
  92. bondo says:

    no such creature “diaspora jew”. another jew fiction. converts to jew.

    diseased minds with lies for brain cells.

    jew occupiers of palestine – the ultra demented jew.

    jew elsewhere – demented to ultra demented.

    difference shadow thin.

    jew is a jew is a jew.

    easy to notice by reading their comments and deceptions at unz and other blogs.

    Read More
  93. @AnonymousCoward

    What in Fink’s article made you conclude that he was exempting Jews from his analysis.
     
    Uh, where in my post do I say that Norm is exempting Jews?

    I say that he views America-first, Trumpish nativist impulses as "ugly" and in need of being "bottled up". Which he does.

    That is disappointing, there's *nothing* wrong with putting America first.

    For Americans, no, there’s nothing wrong with it. But that doesn’t entail nativism. There’s a distinction that should be made between the two things.

    It was your use of the term “goyim” in your post that led me to believe you thought Fink was exempting Jews in his response.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonymousCoward
    Norman is not equal in his treatment of Israel and the US (the jews and the goyim), if that's what you mean, no. He does not argue that Israeli leaders who argue against open borders are feeding "ugly impulses" and must be "bottled up", as far as I know.
  94. Rurik says:
    @Aaron Gross

    is that what you call Palestinians who resent Jews for what Jews are doing to them?

    “anti-Semites”?
     
    No, you misunderstood. That's what I called you.

    That’s what I called you.

    it’s beginning to become a term of honor

    I’ll join Mel Gibson and Roger Waters and now apparently Donald Trump and so many others who oppose genocide and wars for fun and profit.

    Count me in please!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    You are confused. Trump is most decidedly not anti-semitic, nor would he wear that label as you do. His daughter is a giyoret [a convert to judaism] as I am sure you know, and he is very close to the in-laws. Many of his business partners are of Jewish extraction as well.

    The trouble as I am beginning to gather, about some in the Alt-Right, is their acute inability to take nuanced positions. Therefore, if and when Trump assumes power, their hopes of Judenrein is almost surely going to be dashed.
  95. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @joe webb
    abolish all states? how old are you? 18? Nationalism and genuine diversity is in the soul (genes) of man. grow up.

    The Controlled Opposition is nonsense. Please jettison the cliches.

    Zionism IS different that Judaism. Read some books. Israel Shahak claimed that what happens to jews who become zionists, is that the psychology behind Jewish religious crackpots osmoses into the brains of secular jews. The result is more fanaticism but of a different order.

    Is the zionist more dangerous than an orthodox? Probably, given the variety of orthodoxy. I have personally met a couple orthodox who were pretty normal psychologically, and they were of course not too happy with zionism.

    Then there are the orthodox sects who oppose zionism.

    Joe Webb everything that Shahak wrote should be read by all of us.

    Well well well, if it isn’t crotchety old Joe. Wish I could say it was good to hear from you Joe. Hows your spreading of ignorant racist and anti-Semitic bullshit been going? I see I touched a nerve with my post because you’re exactly the type of useful pawn that the ADL has wet dreams about.

    abolish all states? how old are you? 18? Nationalism and genuine diversity is in the soul (genes) of man. grow up.

    What exactly are you saying here, Joe? Are you saying that you don’t believe that there is a plan for world governance or are you arguing that their plan is unattainable? Perhaps you haven’t noticed a thing called the European Union. Or maybe you are unaware of the North American Union, IMF, SPP, WTO, UN, NAFTA, TPP, World Bank, and the list goes on and on of organizations with plans to destroy our national sovereignty, which I have no doubt this Globalist Finkelstein supports.

    The Controlled Opposition is nonsense. Please jettison the cliches.

    Nonsense and cliches, is it? So let me get this straight, this self-proclaimed “Old-fashioned Communist” that wants America’s National Sovereignty abolished is arguing against using tactics that have proven themselves to work and you don’t think he’s controlled opposition? Much in the same as you are a wet-dream for the ADL, Finkelstein would have left Lenin with sticky sheets to clean up in the morning.

    “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” -Vladimir Lenin

    Zionism IS different that Judaism.

    So if you know that there is a difference then why do you insist on not making the difference in your arguments? That’s worse than ignorance. You are a person that knows they are being ignorant yet chooses to act like a fool for attention. Sad.

    Read More
  96. Rurik says:
    @iffen
    A) there are times when there are valid criticisms of some of the things Jews do. And that people who’re willing to voice those criticisms (many of whom are Jews themselves) are not automatically anti-Semites.

    Complete agreement.

    B) what you lot don’t (can’t) seem to understand

    You can't decide A for me, you didn't write the book on it.

    You can’t decide A for me, you didn’t write the book on it.

    never said I did

    I was only pointing out that there are certain criticism of some of the things some Jews do, that when pointed out, is not automatically a case of anti-Semitism. That’s all.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @iffen
    You can't just say what some Jews do. You have to consider the citizenship of the Jew.
  97. Sam Shama says:
    @Rurik

    That’s what I called you.
     
    it's beginning to become a term of honor

    I'll join Mel Gibson and Roger Waters and now apparently Donald Trump and so many others who oppose genocide and wars for fun and profit.

    Count me in please!

    You are confused. Trump is most decidedly not anti-semitic, nor would he wear that label as you do. His daughter is a giyoret [a convert to judaism] as I am sure you know, and he is very close to the in-laws. Many of his business partners are of Jewish extraction as well.

    The trouble as I am beginning to gather, about some in the Alt-Right, is their acute inability to take nuanced positions. Therefore, if and when Trump assumes power, their hopes of Judenrein is almost surely going to be dashed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Trump is most decidedly not anti-semitic, nor would he wear that label as you do
     
    .
    I "wear that label" because there are morally bankrupt people who have no rational argument for their contemptible positions so they toss that idiotic pejorative around, (like Holocaust denier or climate denier) in a pathetic attempt to use it like a bludgeon to silence critics. Go ahead I say. Call me a racist or a liberal or a Christian or an anti-Semite til your head spins. It makes the user of the word look more repellent than the one they're trying (pathetically ; ) to smear anyways.

    Of course Trump is not an anti-Semite. He loves Jews and he loves Israel and has the credentials to prove it. But that doesn't stop them from screeching their vile smears now does it?

    What? He said Jerusalem was not the eternal capital of Israel! That god damn Nazi!!!

    He said put America first?!! He must be David Duke!!!!!!

    it's beyond sad and pathetic. Put me in with Mel and Roger Waters all day long and twice on Sunday!

    , @Santoculto
    ''Trump is most decidedly not anti-semitic, nor would he wear that label as you do. His daughter is a giyoret [a convert to judaism]''

    ''Goym'' mentalitet

    Jews tend to be hyper-pragmatic as well a lot of ''gentile'' leaders.
  98. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @joe webb
    so you are afraid of being called an anti-semite. get over it. I pride myself on being an anti-semite.

    I am anti all kinds of things, especially the lower races who are destroying our country. You may need to hide your anti-semitism if you have a job cuz the jews will make it disappear, but please don't get all huffy and run to huddle with the liberal race-traitors .

    Joe Webb but I don't have a job to lose so be careful Anybody who is not an anti-semite is just young, dumb, or poorly informed in general, including the minor topic of Jews.

    Whites are committing suicide but many are starting to awaken. Things are getting better and better with Europe about to blow up over immigration, and the US getting the Trump treatment...as inchoate as it is. Things are going to get better and better, meaning more and more conflict.

    Let the Bad Times Roll.

    Joe WEbb

    so you are afraid of being called an anti-semite. get over it. I pride myself on being an anti-semite.

    You seem to be under the false impression that everyone shares your idiotic lack of values and morals, and that the only reason that people don’t voice reprehensible racist anti-Semitic views is out of fear of retribution. It couldn’t be because they don’t share your ignorant beliefs, now could it Joe? Your stupidity is boundless. The only fear that I have of being called an anti-Semite is the fear and revulsion of IF it were true because of the damage it would do to my soul IF it were true. I have what are called, MORALS, while you, on the other hand, apparently are extremely proud to have none.

    You are a disgustingly shameful man, Joe Webb.

    Read More
  99. @Andrew E. Mathis
    For Americans, no, there's nothing wrong with it. But that doesn't entail nativism. There's a distinction that should be made between the two things.

    It was your use of the term "goyim" in your post that led me to believe you thought Fink was exempting Jews in his response.

    Norman is not equal in his treatment of Israel and the US (the jews and the goyim), if that’s what you mean, no. He does not argue that Israeli leaders who argue against open borders are feeding “ugly impulses” and must be “bottled up”, as far as I know.

    Read More
  100. Rurik says:
    @Sam Shama
    You are confused. Trump is most decidedly not anti-semitic, nor would he wear that label as you do. His daughter is a giyoret [a convert to judaism] as I am sure you know, and he is very close to the in-laws. Many of his business partners are of Jewish extraction as well.

    The trouble as I am beginning to gather, about some in the Alt-Right, is their acute inability to take nuanced positions. Therefore, if and when Trump assumes power, their hopes of Judenrein is almost surely going to be dashed.

    Trump is most decidedly not anti-semitic, nor would he wear that label as you do

    .
    I “wear that label” because there are morally bankrupt people who have no rational argument for their contemptible positions so they toss that idiotic pejorative around, (like Holocaust denier or climate denier) in a pathetic attempt to use it like a bludgeon to silence critics. Go ahead I say. Call me a racist or a liberal or a Christian or an anti-Semite til your head spins. It makes the user of the word look more repellent than the one they’re trying (pathetically ; ) to smear anyways.

    Of course Trump is not an anti-Semite. He loves Jews and he loves Israel and has the credentials to prove it. But that doesn’t stop them from screeching their vile smears now does it?

    What? He said Jerusalem was not the eternal capital of Israel! That god damn Nazi!!!

    He said put America first?!! He must be David Duke!!!!!!

    it’s beyond sad and pathetic. Put me in with Mel and Roger Waters all day long and twice on Sunday!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    So now you emphatically say that Trump is not an anti semite, within a span of......oh well, nbd
    , @Junior
    Hey, Rurik & Sam :)
    Was reading your conversation with each other and thought I might interject some thoughts from the peanut gallery.

    in a pathetic attempt to use it like a bludgeon to silence critics. Go ahead I say. Call me a racist or a liberal or a Christian or an anti-Semite til your head spins. It makes the user of the word look more repellent than the one they’re trying (pathetically ; ) to smear anyways.
     
    I know you already know my position on this from our previous conversation about it, Rurik, but I feel I must voice my opposition to it again. This logic of "makes the user look more repellent than the one they're trying to smear," is ONLY true if it's a false charge. If it's a false charge then why in the world would you claim it's true? You are smearing and degrading yourself. I think it's akin to the phrase, cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    By smearing yourself with such a disgustingly shitty title, you are only going to attract flies. You are silencing yourself by referring to yourself as anti-Semitic IF you are not. I think it's a horrible idea. I'm FAR from a Psychologist(although some may rightly claim that I need to get closer to one on their couch :) ) but it seems like this strategy is almost like Stockholm Syndrome in which you are exhibiting the symptom of "supportive behavior by the victim helping the abuser" by smearing yourself. The comparison to Stockholm is obviously not entirely an accurate comparison but I think an interesting one.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

  101. iffen says:
    @Rurik

    You can’t decide A for me, you didn’t write the book on it.
     
    never said I did

    I was only pointing out that there are certain criticism of some of the things some Jews do, that when pointed out, is not automatically a case of anti-Semitism. That's all.

    You can’t just say what some Jews do. You have to consider the citizenship of the Jew.

    Read More
  102. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    [What I want to understand is how to separate legitimate concern for the Palestinians from that generated by anti-Semitism.]

    Count me in that group as well. Its a legitimate and fascinating question. In statistics one can apply control variables to isolate causes for an observed effect; I cannot readily think of an adequate one here.

    I am rapidly coming to understand that it might be a full time job.

    Question for you, Sam.

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism. The only exception that I can think of is if a person denies all nation states the right to exist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Hi Iffen
    I must say that this is an astute take on the matter, sort of similar to asking how a system behaves at extreme values of determinant parameters [I don't mean to sound deliberately obscure].

    I think given man's history of nation building and expansion, your point is sound, and I cannot easily think of an exception.

    Palestinians? [They are semitic so....]

    , @Rurik

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism.
     
    what about the Palestinian whose whose parents were murdered and whose land and home Israel now claims as it's own, having stolen it from the Palestinian who was driven into the desert by Jewish terrorists who butchered his relatives?

    Is he an anti-Semite for questioning the Zionist's demands that he has no right to his life or property?

    If that Palestinian, whose family had owned that land and business and house for hundreds of years until a Jew from Poland murdered his parents and stole it for themselves, does he have any justification for questioning that Jew's right to do that to him and his family?

    when Bibi does another 'Cast Lead', and fires white phosphorous onto Palestinian children, or blows them up on a beach, or shoots them like target practice from the rooftops, is it anti-Semitic for the Pals to complain, and even say they "hate" (gasp) the Jews who did that?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De8g_LAHh_0
    , @Max Payne

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism.
     
    Israel has the same right to exist as the indigenous nations of North America, South America, Australia....Palestine.

    If Israel is allowed to exist then the US/Mexico/South America/Central America/Australia/etc. should split large swaths of their territory and hand it over to its Native American population (no I don't mean reserves, I mean large states with their own representation in the UN). If Israel is allowed to exist then so too should the Native Americans have their own legit nation. Unlike Israel their claim is a lot more recent and isn't based on religious dogma and a handful of questionable fossils (and a heavy-handed story of victimization which is verboten to question). The indigenous peoples of the Americas have suffered genocide too (probably the worlds worst if you take the highest figures).

    Israel has no right to exist, that's not anti-Semitism, it's being fair.

    Welcome to the 21st century, keep your barbarism in check.

    But I guess the golden rule is true:

    Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

    AM I RITE?
    , @geokat62

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism.
     
    I guess that makes Miko Peled an anti-Semite, right?

    It’s important for people to stop talking about the occupation or the occupied territories.. as though they are limited parts of Palestine…. All of Israel is occupied Palestine, all of Israeli cities and towns are illegal settlements. And we have to start talking about it in those terms, otherwise we will never reach a solution, which relies on understanding this, and accepting the fact that we need to push for a transformation and the establishment of a democratic regime in Palestine.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/sanders-put-everything-on-the-line-for-palestine-because-bds-movement-has-changed-us-conversation-peled/
     
  103. Rurik says:

    You can’t just say what some Jews do. You have to consider the citizenship of the Jew.

    huh?

    why?

    when NY Jew Baruch Goldstein slaughtered all those worshipers, did it matter that he was born in NY?

    half the people in the State Dept. are duel citizens, what about them? Do I have to ask them to which country they feel more allegiance, to determine how to categorize their respective Jewish supremacist zealotry?

    does it matter which country an ISIS Muslim terrorist head slicer comes from before Putin’s bomb drops on his head?

    notions of religious or racial supremacy are vile no matter who holds them, no?

    and just for the record, when I say supremacy, I’m talking about the aggressors who’re trying to cleanse others out of their homes, like the head slicers are doing to Christians and non-Sunnis in Syria today, or the Zionists are doing to Palestinians. No matter what country they hail from or are working their intrigue from.

    And that would apply to white Christians too, if there were any white Christians who were stealing other people’s land- like they used to. Today the only Christians acting as aggressors are the ones trying to foist Jewish supremacist Zionist polices in the Middle East, all to the direct detriment of the Christians who live there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    You can’t just say what some Jews do. You have to consider the citizenship of the Jew.

    huh?

    why?
     
    OK, but if we start discussing whether the questioning of or the speculating about the loyalty of American Jews vis-a-vis loyalty to Israel, you are disqualified from entering the discussion.
  104. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    I am rapidly coming to understand that it might be a full time job.

    Question for you, Sam.

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism. The only exception that I can think of is if a person denies all nation states the right to exist.

    Hi Iffen
    I must say that this is an astute take on the matter, sort of similar to asking how a system behaves at extreme values of determinant parameters [I don't mean to sound deliberately obscure].

    I think given man’s history of nation building and expansion, your point is sound, and I cannot easily think of an exception.

    Palestinians? [They are semitic so....]

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Palestinians? [They are semitic so....]

    This is a pink herring and nonsensical . The anti part is up for debate not the Semitic part. Anyone with a contribution that has any value understands that we are talking about Jews.

    Would you give me your opinion on the use of Lobby vs. lobby?

  105. Rurik says:
    @iffen
    I am rapidly coming to understand that it might be a full time job.

    Question for you, Sam.

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism. The only exception that I can think of is if a person denies all nation states the right to exist.

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism.

    what about the Palestinian whose whose parents were murdered and whose land and home Israel now claims as it’s own, having stolen it from the Palestinian who was driven into the desert by Jewish terrorists who butchered his relatives?

    Is he an anti-Semite for questioning the Zionist’s demands that he has no right to his life or property?

    If that Palestinian, whose family had owned that land and business and house for hundreds of years until a Jew from Poland murdered his parents and stole it for themselves, does he have any justification for questioning that Jew’s right to do that to him and his family?

    when Bibi does another ‘Cast Lead’, and fires white phosphorous onto Palestinian children, or blows them up on a beach, or shoots them like target practice from the rooftops, is it anti-Semitic for the Pals to complain, and even say they “hate” (gasp) the Jews who did that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    what about the Palestinian whose whose parents were murdered and whose land and home Israel now claims as it’s own, having stolen it from the Palestinian who was driven into the desert by Jewish terrorists who butchered his relatives?

    Is he an anti-Semite for questioning the Zionist’s demands that he has no right to his life or property?


    The Palestinians that have been expelled and those that remain as 2nd class citizens have a right to self-defense, whether they are anti-Semitic or not is not really germane to their status.
    , @Sam Shama
    This video is a fake.
  106. Sam Shama says:
    @Rurik

    Trump is most decidedly not anti-semitic, nor would he wear that label as you do
     
    .
    I "wear that label" because there are morally bankrupt people who have no rational argument for their contemptible positions so they toss that idiotic pejorative around, (like Holocaust denier or climate denier) in a pathetic attempt to use it like a bludgeon to silence critics. Go ahead I say. Call me a racist or a liberal or a Christian or an anti-Semite til your head spins. It makes the user of the word look more repellent than the one they're trying (pathetically ; ) to smear anyways.

    Of course Trump is not an anti-Semite. He loves Jews and he loves Israel and has the credentials to prove it. But that doesn't stop them from screeching their vile smears now does it?

    What? He said Jerusalem was not the eternal capital of Israel! That god damn Nazi!!!

    He said put America first?!! He must be David Duke!!!!!!

    it's beyond sad and pathetic. Put me in with Mel and Roger Waters all day long and twice on Sunday!

    So now you emphatically say that Trump is not an anti semite, within a span of……oh well, nbd

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    So now you emphatically say that Trump is not an anti semite, within a span of……oh well, nbd
     
    he isn't

    when I suggested he was I was being over-the-top sarcastic. I bundled him in with people like Mel Gibson who also is not an anti-Semite, at least yet... as far as we know.

    criticizing "the Jews' for foisting wars is not anti-Semitism, it's lucidity
  107. Max Payne says:
    @iffen
    I am rapidly coming to understand that it might be a full time job.

    Question for you, Sam.

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism. The only exception that I can think of is if a person denies all nation states the right to exist.

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism.

    Israel has the same right to exist as the indigenous nations of North America, South America, Australia….Palestine.

    If Israel is allowed to exist then the US/Mexico/South America/Central America/Australia/etc. should split large swaths of their territory and hand it over to its Native American population (no I don’t mean reserves, I mean large states with their own representation in the UN). If Israel is allowed to exist then so too should the Native Americans have their own legit nation. Unlike Israel their claim is a lot more recent and isn’t based on religious dogma and a handful of questionable fossils (and a heavy-handed story of victimization which is verboten to question). The indigenous peoples of the Americas have suffered genocide too (probably the worlds worst if you take the highest figures).

    Israel has no right to exist, that’s not anti-Semitism, it’s being fair.

    Welcome to the 21st century, keep your barbarism in check.

    But I guess the golden rule is true:

    Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

    AM I RITE?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    Max Payne >> If Israel is allowed to exist


    it's not Max Payne's, or anyone else in the world's decision.

    Max: there's an open spot, right next to Rachel Corrie's grave. It's waiting for you. Watch your step.
  108. Norman Finkelstein, by his own admission, is not very good at predictions. This is a pity, because his heart, mind and intellect are all in the right place.
    Finkelstein once made an important observation; that, when it comes to political affairs, what we think is immaterial because we are not in the position to make decisions or make things happen according to our desires. What matters is whether we can analyze situations correctly in order to make credible predictions and be better prepared what future has in store for us.
    This is the best advice I can think of giving all those who comment these columns.

    Read More
  109. geokat62 says:
    @iffen
    I am rapidly coming to understand that it might be a full time job.

    Question for you, Sam.

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism. The only exception that I can think of is if a person denies all nation states the right to exist.

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism.

    I guess that makes Miko Peled an anti-Semite, right?

    It’s important for people to stop talking about the occupation or the occupied territories.. as though they are limited parts of Palestine…. All of Israel is occupied Palestine, all of Israeli cities and towns are illegal settlements. And we have to start talking about it in those terms, otherwise we will never reach a solution, which relies on understanding this, and accepting the fact that we need to push for a transformation and the establishment of a democratic regime in Palestine.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/sanders-put-everything-on-the-line-for-palestine-because-bds-movement-has-changed-us-conversation-peled/

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I read the Mearsheimer and Walt article that you provided.

    I was impressed with the scholarship and saved it for future reference.

    Except for the directly affected Palestinians (as pointed out by Rurik), I have trouble with people denying the right of existence for Israel.

    I want to be consistent and have some sort of general principles that can be applied to situations without regard to the peoples involved.

    Look at Mercer. She says that she is a Zionist, but she is a supporter of white South Africa. What's the principle at work there?
  110. @FLgeezer
    SC,
    And have you noticed that Phil Giraldi's magnificent website councilforthenationalinterest.org went off-line about a week ago?

    Web censorship is an eminent part of the plan.

    No, I had not noticed that, FLGeezer.
    Has that happened before?

    It’s my understanding that Giraldi and Alison Weir coordinate activities; Weir’s website is still live –

    http://ifamericansknew.org

    Read More
  111. iffen says:
    @Rurik

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism.
     
    what about the Palestinian whose whose parents were murdered and whose land and home Israel now claims as it's own, having stolen it from the Palestinian who was driven into the desert by Jewish terrorists who butchered his relatives?

    Is he an anti-Semite for questioning the Zionist's demands that he has no right to his life or property?

    If that Palestinian, whose family had owned that land and business and house for hundreds of years until a Jew from Poland murdered his parents and stole it for themselves, does he have any justification for questioning that Jew's right to do that to him and his family?

    when Bibi does another 'Cast Lead', and fires white phosphorous onto Palestinian children, or blows them up on a beach, or shoots them like target practice from the rooftops, is it anti-Semitic for the Pals to complain, and even say they "hate" (gasp) the Jews who did that?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De8g_LAHh_0

    what about the Palestinian whose whose parents were murdered and whose land and home Israel now claims as it’s own, having stolen it from the Palestinian who was driven into the desert by Jewish terrorists who butchered his relatives?

    Is he an anti-Semite for questioning the Zionist’s demands that he has no right to his life or property?

    The Palestinians that have been expelled and those that remain as 2nd class citizens have a right to self-defense, whether they are anti-Semitic or not is not really germane to their status.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    The Palestinians that have been expelled and those that remain as 2nd class citizens have a right to self-defense, whether they are anti-Semitic or not is not really germane to their status.
     
    is it germane to the discussion?

    if they are anti-Semitic, (some of them might hate Jews simply for being Jews), would you say they have a right to be? That it's understandable, given the circumstances?

    and while we're having this discussion about who is or isn't an "anti-Semite", let's set the record straight on what exactly that means, shall we?

    I posit that the definition is thus: An anti-Semite is a person who hates all Jews simply for being Jews.

    like a white man who hates all blacks, or a black who hates all whites, or a Zionist Jew who hates all Arabs, regardless of anything that they've done, but just because of who and what they were born as.

    That is the definition, as far as I'm concerned. Now, let's define who is not an anti-Semite, OK?

    if you criticize something that 'the Jews' are doing; like terrorizing and murdering and torturing men, women and children perpetually, generation after generation- so that the Jews can steal their land, that is not anti-Semitism, that is simply an observation and a moral judgment call. You're condemning the actions of some Jews, and not the very religion or the genetic identity of the Jewish people.

    if you notice and mention that Jews have inordinate sway over the institutions and levers of power in our society, that is not anti-Semitism, it is simply being sentient. To not notice this you'd basically have to be dead.

    So the problem is, there are some people who actually are anti-Semites and who hate all Jews simply for being Jews. (Perhaps occasionally, like in the case of some Palestinians, it is I suppose almost understandable). But it's wrong, nevertheless, and we should always look at people's individual character and never judge them all with blanket condemnations. Right? So when people are racist or anti-Semitic, we all know that such a thing is wrong on a moral plane. Yes?

    But then what happens is you have these people who cynically use that general and universal rejection of bigotry to try to vilify and silence justifiable criticism of some of the things some Jews do by smearing honorable people who bring up the truth about these things as "anti-Semites". And this is a vile and despicable thing to do, because for one, these people telling the truth are not anti-Semites, so it's a smear intended to silence criticism with the tactics of an intellectual bully, and what that tends to do is create in people's mind the idea that Jews consider themselves beyond reproach, and then that tends to reinforce in some people's mind that 'the Jews' are a contemptible lot, who really are insufferably arrogant. You see? (I'm trying to help out here).

    I think it would be good and important to draw the distinctions between what is anti-Semitism and what isn't.

    When someone say Israel is an apartheid state and has no right to exist.. this is not prima facie proof of anti-Semitism. There are tones of Jews who feel this way, and there are some very real and cogent arguments that go to the foundation of Israel's right to exist. I'm not debating that issue here, I'm merely pointing out that it is wrong and contemptible to use a smear tactic to assault the character of a person whose arguments you don't like, (usually because they have merit), otherwise people wouldn't resort to name calling and smears.
  112. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    Hi Iffen
    I must say that this is an astute take on the matter, sort of similar to asking how a system behaves at extreme values of determinant parameters [I don't mean to sound deliberately obscure].

    I think given man's history of nation building and expansion, your point is sound, and I cannot easily think of an exception.

    Palestinians? [They are semitic so....]

    Palestinians? [They are semitic so....]

    This is a pink herring and nonsensical . The anti part is up for debate not the Semitic part. Anyone with a contribution that has any value understands that we are talking about Jews.

    Would you give me your opinion on the use of Lobby vs. lobby?

    Read More
    • Agree: Sam Shama
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Well on the matter of the Lobby vs. the lobby, I am somewhat agnostic [and I may ramble a bit]; for a section of the commentariat its merely an attempt to separate AIPAC and its tertiaries from the numerous others; for some it is, as it were, a species of vengeance for the capitalisation of Holocaust; for yet another section it is a reminder that the Jewish lobby needs specific, lexicographic even bibliotic separation from other lobbies, just so that it might be met with special dispensations were the days of reckoning at hand - whatever.
  113. iffen says:
    @Rurik

    You can’t just say what some Jews do. You have to consider the citizenship of the Jew.
     
    huh?

    why?

    when NY Jew Baruch Goldstein slaughtered all those worshipers, did it matter that he was born in NY?

    half the people in the State Dept. are duel citizens, what about them? Do I have to ask them to which country they feel more allegiance, to determine how to categorize their respective Jewish supremacist zealotry?

    does it matter which country an ISIS Muslim terrorist head slicer comes from before Putin's bomb drops on his head?

    notions of religious or racial supremacy are vile no matter who holds them, no?

    and just for the record, when I say supremacy, I'm talking about the aggressors who're trying to cleanse others out of their homes, like the head slicers are doing to Christians and non-Sunnis in Syria today, or the Zionists are doing to Palestinians. No matter what country they hail from or are working their intrigue from.

    And that would apply to white Christians too, if there were any white Christians who were stealing other people's land- like they used to. Today the only Christians acting as aggressors are the ones trying to foist Jewish supremacist Zionist polices in the Middle East, all to the direct detriment of the Christians who live there.

    You can’t just say what some Jews do. You have to consider the citizenship of the Jew.

    huh?

    why?

    OK, but if we start discussing whether the questioning of or the speculating about the loyalty of American Jews vis-a-vis loyalty to Israel, you are disqualified from entering the discussion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    speculating about the loyalty of American Jews vis-a-vis loyalty to Israel, you are disqualified from entering the discussion.
     
    huh? again..

    let's just consider Rahm Emanuel, the "godfather" of Chicago. Where do we draw the distinctions between his loyalty to Israel as an American Jew vis-à-vis his Jewishness.

    As someone else once said:

    "the Jewish lobby and the Israel lobby are essentially indistinguishable."
  114. iffen says:
    @geokat62

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism.
     
    I guess that makes Miko Peled an anti-Semite, right?

    It’s important for people to stop talking about the occupation or the occupied territories.. as though they are limited parts of Palestine…. All of Israel is occupied Palestine, all of Israeli cities and towns are illegal settlements. And we have to start talking about it in those terms, otherwise we will never reach a solution, which relies on understanding this, and accepting the fact that we need to push for a transformation and the establishment of a democratic regime in Palestine.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/sanders-put-everything-on-the-line-for-palestine-because-bds-movement-has-changed-us-conversation-peled/
     

    I read the Mearsheimer and Walt article that you provided.

    I was impressed with the scholarship and saved it for future reference.

    Except for the directly affected Palestinians (as pointed out by Rurik), I have trouble with people denying the right of existence for Israel.

    I want to be consistent and have some sort of general principles that can be applied to situations without regard to the peoples involved.

    Look at Mercer. She says that she is a Zionist, but she is a supporter of white South Africa. What’s the principle at work there?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Appeals to existence of timeless principles, in my own discussions with myself, has produced mostly dead ends. The most satisfactory passage is one which applies logic, a set of morals concordant with social choice, in itself a concession to majoritarian rules of the game [which we all evidently subscribe to] and little patience for post hoc type of bickering. In other words it is cafeteria philosophy: you are free to pick and choose what you want but do not complain about the aggregate outcome.
  115. @Rabbitnexus
    "So… Is there any legitimate way for a Jew to oppose Israel?"

    Yes, Neturei Karta.

    “So… Is there any legitimate way for a Jew to oppose Israel?”

    Yes, Neturei Karta.

    and Gertrude Stein

    The Reverie of the Zionist

    I know all about the war I have been in France ever since the peace. Remember what was said yesterday. We can think and we know that we love our country so.
    Can we believe that all Jews are these.
    Let us remember that the little bird of all is not the one that has the singing dell.
    It sings and it sings and a great many people say it is not pleasant.
    Is it likely that there is real grief.
    Anywhere there are beards and everywhere there are girls and all about there is a wealth of imagery.
    I saw all this to prove that Judaism should be a question of religion.
    Don’t talk about race. Race is disgusting if you don’t love your country.
    I don’t want to go to Zion.
    This is an expression of Shem.

    -Gertrude Stein, 1920

    Read More
  116. Sam Shama says:
    @Rurik

    I think that if a person categorically states that Israel does not have a right to exist then that springs from anti-Semitism.
     
    what about the Palestinian whose whose parents were murdered and whose land and home Israel now claims as it's own, having stolen it from the Palestinian who was driven into the desert by Jewish terrorists who butchered his relatives?

    Is he an anti-Semite for questioning the Zionist's demands that he has no right to his life or property?

    If that Palestinian, whose family had owned that land and business and house for hundreds of years until a Jew from Poland murdered his parents and stole it for themselves, does he have any justification for questioning that Jew's right to do that to him and his family?

    when Bibi does another 'Cast Lead', and fires white phosphorous onto Palestinian children, or blows them up on a beach, or shoots them like target practice from the rooftops, is it anti-Semitic for the Pals to complain, and even say they "hate" (gasp) the Jews who did that?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De8g_LAHh_0

    This video is a fake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Was what Chris Hedges witnessed a fake?

    https://www.popularresistance.org/chris-hedges-why-israel-lies/
    I saw small boys baited and killed by Israeli soldiers in the Gaza refugee camp of Khan Younis. The soldiers swore at the boys in Arabic over the loudspeakers of their armored jeep. The boys, about 10 years old, then threw stones at an Israeli vehicle and the soldiers opened fire, killing some, wounding others. I was present more than once as Israeli troops drew out and shot Palestinian children in this way.
     
    and


    http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/011001_hedges.html
    Barefoot boys, clutching kites made out of scraps of paper and ragged soccer balls, squat a few feet away under scrub trees. Men in flowing white or gray galabias—homespun robes—smoke cigarettes in the shade of slim eaves. Two emaciated donkeys, their ribs protruding, are tethered to wooden carts with rubber wheels.

    It is still. The camp waits, as if holding its breath. And then, out of the dry furnace air, a disembodied voice crackles over a loudspeaker.

    "Come on, dogs," the voice booms in Arabic. "Where are all the dogs of Khan Younis? Come! Come!"

    I stand up. I walk outside the hut. The invective continues to spew: "Son of a bitch!" "Son of a whore!" "Your mother's cunt!"

    The boys dart in small packs up the sloping dunes to the electric fence that separates the camp from the Jewish settlement. They lob rocks toward two armored jeeps parked on top of the dune and mounted with loudspeakers. Three ambulances line the road below the dunes in anticipation of what is to come.

    A percussion grenade explodes. The boys, most no more than ten or eleven years old, scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand. They descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me. There are no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. The bullets from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children's slight bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos.

    Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered—death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo—but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.
     
    Was Max Blumenthal's reporting a fake?

    https://www.sott.net/article/282060-Chris-Hedges-Imploding-the-Myth-of-Israel
    The IDF tells its Israeli occupation forces they are allowed to shoot 12-year-olds.
    "Twelve [years old] and up, you are allowed to shoot. That's what they tell us," an Israeli sniper told Haaretz correspondent Amira Hass in 2004 at the height of the Second Intifada, Blumenthal writes. "This is according to what the IDF [Israel Defense Force] says to its soldiers. I do not know if this is what the IDF says to the media," the sniper was quoted as saying.

    The 2008 murderous rampage is not, as Blumenthal understands, an anomaly. It is the overt policy of the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who advocates "a system of open apartheid."
     
    , @Rurik

    This video is a fake.
     
    how do you know?

    is there a link to it being debunked?

    I looked but I didn't see anything

    there's this

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/11/israeli-troops-accused-children-gaza

  117. bondo says:

    israel, jewry, has a right to exist in a toxic landfill in jersey.
    jewry in palestine has no right to existence.

    Read More
  118. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    Palestinians? [They are semitic so....]

    This is a pink herring and nonsensical . The anti part is up for debate not the Semitic part. Anyone with a contribution that has any value understands that we are talking about Jews.

    Would you give me your opinion on the use of Lobby vs. lobby?

    Well on the matter of the Lobby vs. the lobby, I am somewhat agnostic [and I may ramble a bit]; for a section of the commentariat its merely an attempt to separate AIPAC and its tertiaries from the numerous others; for some it is, as it were, a species of vengeance for the capitalisation of Holocaust; for yet another section it is a reminder that the Jewish lobby needs specific, lexicographic even bibliotic separation from other lobbies, just so that it might be met with special dispensations were the days of reckoning at hand – whatever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    This is a lot to think about on just one lower or uppercase letter.

    Why do you use Jewish lobby rather than Israel lobby?
  119. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    Well on the matter of the Lobby vs. the lobby, I am somewhat agnostic [and I may ramble a bit]; for a section of the commentariat its merely an attempt to separate AIPAC and its tertiaries from the numerous others; for some it is, as it were, a species of vengeance for the capitalisation of Holocaust; for yet another section it is a reminder that the Jewish lobby needs specific, lexicographic even bibliotic separation from other lobbies, just so that it might be met with special dispensations were the days of reckoning at hand - whatever.

    This is a lot to think about on just one lower or uppercase letter.

    Why do you use Jewish lobby rather than Israel lobby?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I do suppose one can be somewhat mindful in this regard, yet I am comfortable making the speculation that the Jewish lobby and the Israel lobby are essentially indistinguishable.
  120. Rurik says:
    @Sam Shama
    So now you emphatically say that Trump is not an anti semite, within a span of......oh well, nbd

    So now you emphatically say that Trump is not an anti semite, within a span of……oh well, nbd

    he isn’t

    when I suggested he was I was being over-the-top sarcastic. I bundled him in with people like Mel Gibson who also is not an anti-Semite, at least yet… as far as we know.

    criticizing “the Jews’ for foisting wars is not anti-Semitism, it’s lucidity

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Gibson is a crackpot and a wino; his anti-semitism is projected and restricted to violence on his pet poodles, Christ on screen, habitual fracases with the police, typically ending with a stint in gaol.
  121. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    I read the Mearsheimer and Walt article that you provided.

    I was impressed with the scholarship and saved it for future reference.

    Except for the directly affected Palestinians (as pointed out by Rurik), I have trouble with people denying the right of existence for Israel.

    I want to be consistent and have some sort of general principles that can be applied to situations without regard to the peoples involved.

    Look at Mercer. She says that she is a Zionist, but she is a supporter of white South Africa. What's the principle at work there?

    Appeals to existence of timeless principles, in my own discussions with myself, has produced mostly dead ends. The most satisfactory passage is one which applies logic, a set of morals concordant with social choice, in itself a concession to majoritarian rules of the game [which we all evidently subscribe to] and little patience for post hoc type of bickering. In other words it is cafeteria philosophy: you are free to pick and choose what you want but do not complain about the aggregate outcome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    has = have; eofl
    , @iffen
    Appeals to existence of timeless principles

    I am not really expecting to find any of these, but there are some long standing accepted principles in use. One of these is the concept of a nation state. An ethnic, ethno-religious or politico-cultural group has the "right" to establish itself as a nation state. If one accepts the idea that nation states are acceptable then the legitimacy of all such nation states should be evaluated on a fair and impartial basis. There is no "higher authority" that can commission which states are legitimate and which are not.
  122. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    This is a lot to think about on just one lower or uppercase letter.

    Why do you use Jewish lobby rather than Israel lobby?

    I do suppose one can be somewhat mindful in this regard, yet I am comfortable making the speculation that the Jewish lobby and the Israel lobby are essentially indistinguishable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I do suppose one can be somewhat mindful in this regard, yet I am comfortable making the speculation that the Jewish lobby and the Israel lobby are essentially indistinguishable.

    Will you expand on this? American Jews are required to be Zionists? American Jews have to accept what Israel demands? You can't keep your Jewishness if you don't support every move by Israel?
  123. iffen says:

    criticizing “the Jews’ for foisting wars is not anti-Semitism, it’s lucidity

    “The Jews” have as much right to foist wars as any other group.

    How much time do you spend complaining about other countries and groups that foist wars?

    There are a lot of wars and a lot of foisting to choose from.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    criticizing “the Jews’ for foisting wars is not anti-Semitism, it’s lucidity


    “The Jews” have as much right to foist wars as any other group.

    How much time do you spend complaining about other countries and groups that foist wars?
     
    to the degree that Saudi Arabia or Turkey is responsible for trying to use my country's military and blood and treasure for their own cynical (and contemptible) motivations, I condemn them profusely.

    Same goes with any and all other agents of treachery with blood on their hands and dead Americans and so many untold legions of murdered innocents the world over on their soul ledgers.

    But Israel is the elephant in the living room when it comes to intriguing America into endless wars. And there isn't one person here that doesn't know that. And pointing that out is not anti-Semitism, rather it's just the simple, honest truth. Whether I say it, or Mel Gibson
  124. Sam Shama says:
    @Rurik

    So now you emphatically say that Trump is not an anti semite, within a span of……oh well, nbd
     
    he isn't

    when I suggested he was I was being over-the-top sarcastic. I bundled him in with people like Mel Gibson who also is not an anti-Semite, at least yet... as far as we know.

    criticizing "the Jews' for foisting wars is not anti-Semitism, it's lucidity

    Gibson is a crackpot and a wino; his anti-semitism is projected and restricted to violence on his pet poodles, Christ on screen, habitual fracases with the police, typically ending with a stint in gaol.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Gibson is a crackpot and a wino; his anti-semitism is projected and restricted to violence on his pet poodles, Christ on screen, habitual fracases with the police, typically ending with a stint in gaol.
     
    and your point is?

    you don't like him so you call this hugely successful and amazingly talented man a "crackpot" and other assorted nasty names for basically being human and slightly flawed. Are you perfect? Have you ever had one too many? What the hell is wrong with him making a move about his God? I saw it. How many movies have Jews made that mock or insult people's cherished beliefs? (do they make any other kind? ; )
  125. Rurik says:
    @iffen
    what about the Palestinian whose whose parents were murdered and whose land and home Israel now claims as it’s own, having stolen it from the Palestinian who was driven into the desert by Jewish terrorists who butchered his relatives?

    Is he an anti-Semite for questioning the Zionist’s demands that he has no right to his life or property?


    The Palestinians that have been expelled and those that remain as 2nd class citizens have a right to self-defense, whether they are anti-Semitic or not is not really germane to their status.

    The Palestinians that have been expelled and those that remain as 2nd class citizens have a right to self-defense, whether they are anti-Semitic or not is not really germane to their status.

    is it germane to the discussion?

    if they are anti-Semitic, (some of them might hate Jews simply for being Jews), would you say they have a right to be? That it’s understandable, given the circumstances?

    and while we’re having this discussion about who is or isn’t an “anti-Semite”, let’s set the record straight on what exactly that means, shall we?

    I posit that the definition is thus: An anti-Semite is a person who hates all Jews simply for being Jews.

    like a white man who hates all blacks, or a black who hates all whites, or a Zionist Jew who hates all Arabs, regardless of anything that they’ve done, but just because of who and what they were born as.

    That is the definition, as far as I’m concerned. Now, let’s define who is not an anti-Semite, OK?

    if you criticize something that ‘the Jews’ are doing; like terrorizing and murdering and torturing men, women and children perpetually, generation after generation- so that the Jews can steal their land, that is not anti-Semitism, that is simply an observation and a moral judgment call. You’re condemning the actions of some Jews, and not the very religion or the genetic identity of the Jewish people.

    if you notice and mention that Jews have inordinate sway over the institutions and levers of power in our society, that is not anti-Semitism, it is simply being sentient. To not notice this you’d basically have to be dead.

    So the problem is, there are some people who actually are anti-Semites and who hate all Jews simply for being Jews. (Perhaps occasionally, like in the case of some Palestinians, it is I suppose almost understandable). But it’s wrong, nevertheless, and we should always look at people’s individual character and never judge them all with blanket condemnations. Right? So when people are racist or anti-Semitic, we all know that such a thing is wrong on a moral plane. Yes?

    But then what happens is you have these people who cynically use that general and universal rejection of bigotry to try to vilify and silence justifiable criticism of some of the things some Jews do by smearing honorable people who bring up the truth about these things as “anti-Semites”. And this is a vile and despicable thing to do, because for one, these people telling the truth are not anti-Semites, so it’s a smear intended to silence criticism with the tactics of an intellectual bully, and what that tends to do is create in people’s mind the idea that Jews consider themselves beyond reproach, and then that tends to reinforce in some people’s mind that ‘the Jews’ are a contemptible lot, who really are insufferably arrogant. You see? (I’m trying to help out here).

    I think it would be good and important to draw the distinctions between what is anti-Semitism and what isn’t.

    When someone say Israel is an apartheid state and has no right to exist.. this is not prima facie proof of anti-Semitism. There are tones of Jews who feel this way, and there are some very real and cogent arguments that go to the foundation of Israel’s right to exist. I’m not debating that issue here, I’m merely pointing out that it is wrong and contemptible to use a smear tactic to assault the character of a person whose arguments you don’t like, (usually because they have merit), otherwise people wouldn’t resort to name calling and smears.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Rurik says:
    May 4, 2016 at 3:20 pm GMT • 600 Words
    @iffen

    The Palestinians that have been expelled and those that remain as 2nd class citizens have a right to self-defense, whether they are anti-Semitic or not is not really germane to their status.
    is it germane to the discussion?
    if they are anti-Semitic, (some of them might hate Jews simply for being Jews), would you say they have a right to be? That it’s understandable, given the circumstances?


    I thought that I was clear that I support their right of self-defense and the right to hate the “people” destroying them.

    if you criticize something that ‘the Jews’ are doing

    Agree that most of your examples of criticism of Israel do not constitute anti-Semitism.

    if you notice and mention that Jews have inordinate sway over the institutions and levers of power in our society, that is not anti-Semitism, it is simply being sentient.

    ditto

    And this is a vile and despicable thing to do, because for one, these people telling the truth are not anti-Semites, so it’s a smear intended to silence criticism with the tactics of an intellectual bully, and what that tends to do is create in people’s mind the idea that Jews consider themselves beyond reproach, and then that tends to reinforce in some people’s mind that ‘the Jews’ are a contemptible lot, who really are insufferably arrogant. You see? (I’m trying to help out here).

    You are blaming Jews for creating anti-Semitism, that’s anti-Semitic.

    “The Truth” is something to be established.
  126. Sam Shama says:
    @Sam Shama
    Appeals to existence of timeless principles, in my own discussions with myself, has produced mostly dead ends. The most satisfactory passage is one which applies logic, a set of morals concordant with social choice, in itself a concession to majoritarian rules of the game [which we all evidently subscribe to] and little patience for post hoc type of bickering. In other words it is cafeteria philosophy: you are free to pick and choose what you want but do not complain about the aggregate outcome.

    has = have; eofl

    Read More
  127. Rurik says:
    @iffen
    You can’t just say what some Jews do. You have to consider the citizenship of the Jew.

    huh?

    why?
     
    OK, but if we start discussing whether the questioning of or the speculating about the loyalty of American Jews vis-a-vis loyalty to Israel, you are disqualified from entering the discussion.

    speculating about the loyalty of American Jews vis-a-vis loyalty to Israel, you are disqualified from entering the discussion.

    huh? again..

    let’s just consider Rahm Emanuel, the “godfather” of Chicago. Where do we draw the distinctions between his loyalty to Israel as an American Jew vis-à-vis his Jewishness.

    As someone else once said:

    “the Jewish lobby and the Israel lobby are essentially indistinguishable.”

    Read More
  128. Rurik says:
    @iffen
    criticizing “the Jews’ for foisting wars is not anti-Semitism, it’s lucidity

    "The Jews" have as much right to foist wars as any other group.

    How much time do you spend complaining about other countries and groups that foist wars?

    There are a lot of wars and a lot of foisting to choose from.

    criticizing “the Jews’ for foisting wars is not anti-Semitism, it’s lucidity

    “The Jews” have as much right to foist wars as any other group.

    How much time do you spend complaining about other countries and groups that foist wars?

    to the degree that Saudi Arabia or Turkey is responsible for trying to use my country’s military and blood and treasure for their own cynical (and contemptible) motivations, I condemn them profusely.

    Same goes with any and all other agents of treachery with blood on their hands and dead Americans and so many untold legions of murdered innocents the world over on their soul ledgers.

    But Israel is the elephant in the living room when it comes to intriguing America into endless wars. And there isn’t one person here that doesn’t know that. And pointing that out is not anti-Semitism, rather it’s just the simple, honest truth. Whether I say it, or Mel Gibson

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    How many billions have we given Pakistan?

    How many Americans have been killed by people trained, equipped and directed by Pakistan?

    How many years would Pakistan have hidden and protected Bin Laden?
    , @Sam Shama
    Its a testable [and interesting] proposition, this notion of Israel mesmerising Uncle Sam into wars, and one is course free to assert it; even more, the opposition concede with reservations, that the intellectual foundation and a subset of leadership being of Jewish faith; the non-Jewish Christian portion of the impetus behind it, either impotent and mesmerised, or in willful partnership.

    (a) With all of that, the testable hypothesis is less than entirely accepted, one which M&W approach commendably but good parts subject to the criticism of Type I error: failure to recognise the American policy process as it is presumed to operate in The Israel Lobby. [I know, I know long discussion....]

    Even if (a) is pure bollocks,

    (b) I revert to my previous stand:


    Appeals to existence of timeless principles, in my own discussions with myself, have produced mostly dead ends. The most satisfactory passage is one which applies logic, a set of morals concordant with social choice, in itself a concession to majoritarian rules of the game [which we all evidently subscribe to] and little patience for post hoc type of bickering. In other words it is cafeteria philosophy: you are free to pick and choose what you want but do not complain about the aggregate outcome.
     
  129. Rurik says:
    @Sam Shama
    Gibson is a crackpot and a wino; his anti-semitism is projected and restricted to violence on his pet poodles, Christ on screen, habitual fracases with the police, typically ending with a stint in gaol.

    Gibson is a crackpot and a wino; his anti-semitism is projected and restricted to violence on his pet poodles, Christ on screen, habitual fracases with the police, typically ending with a stint in gaol.

    and your point is?

    you don’t like him so you call this hugely successful and amazingly talented man a “crackpot” and other assorted nasty names for basically being human and slightly flawed. Are you perfect? Have you ever had one too many? What the hell is wrong with him making a move about his God? I saw it. How many movies have Jews made that mock or insult people’s cherished beliefs? (do they make any other kind? ; )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    My point is rather simple: Intersection of Trump and Gibson in a null set.

    And I did not say I dislike him. On the contrary I like him and his films: they serve a particular purpose.
  130. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    Appeals to existence of timeless principles, in my own discussions with myself, has produced mostly dead ends. The most satisfactory passage is one which applies logic, a set of morals concordant with social choice, in itself a concession to majoritarian rules of the game [which we all evidently subscribe to] and little patience for post hoc type of bickering. In other words it is cafeteria philosophy: you are free to pick and choose what you want but do not complain about the aggregate outcome.

    Appeals to existence of timeless principles

    I am not really expecting to find any of these, but there are some long standing accepted principles in use. One of these is the concept of a nation state. An ethnic, ethno-religious or politico-cultural group has the “right” to establish itself as a nation state. If one accepts the idea that nation states are acceptable then the legitimacy of all such nation states should be evaluated on a fair and impartial basis. There is no “higher authority” that can commission which states are legitimate and which are not.

    Read More
  131. iffen says:
    @Rurik
    criticizing “the Jews’ for foisting wars is not anti-Semitism, it’s lucidity


    “The Jews” have as much right to foist wars as any other group.

    How much time do you spend complaining about other countries and groups that foist wars?
     
    to the degree that Saudi Arabia or Turkey is responsible for trying to use my country's military and blood and treasure for their own cynical (and contemptible) motivations, I condemn them profusely.

    Same goes with any and all other agents of treachery with blood on their hands and dead Americans and so many untold legions of murdered innocents the world over on their soul ledgers.

    But Israel is the elephant in the living room when it comes to intriguing America into endless wars. And there isn't one person here that doesn't know that. And pointing that out is not anti-Semitism, rather it's just the simple, honest truth. Whether I say it, or Mel Gibson

    How many billions have we given Pakistan?

    How many Americans have been killed by people trained, equipped and directed by Pakistan?

    How many years would Pakistan have hidden and protected Bin Laden?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    How many years would Pakistan have hidden and protected Bin Laden?
     
    now are you suggesting that the story of Bin Laden's death in Pakistan was not a preposterous fabrication?

    that he was really there in plain sight all this time until our heroic SEAL team went and took him out? And then disposed of the body in secret with no witnesses and no pictures or videos? Except of course for the picture of the entire administration in the situation room watching with rapt attention, which turned out to be a total fake, just like the other photos of the dead "Bin Laden" that also turned out to be faked. So now you're making the case I guess, that that whole charade was actually real?! And that this guy was actually in that compound in Pakistan with his wives and just chillin.

    they lie about everything. WMD, Assad's chemical weapons attack, Putin shot down the plane, "moderate" rebels.. everything they say is a lie. Yet you still believe them even when they're spinning tales so outrageously absurd that a child can see through it. Amazing

    btw, Pakistan is not subverting our nation to fight wars. If anything, we're over there droning goat herding villagers and weddings and terrorizing the entire country into a generation of people that will grow up with Orwellian scars on their psyches and a visceral and all abiding hatred for the great Satan.

  132. Sam Shama says:
    @Rurik
    criticizing “the Jews’ for foisting wars is not anti-Semitism, it’s lucidity


    “The Jews” have as much right to foist wars as any other group.

    How much time do you spend complaining about other countries and groups that foist wars?
     
    to the degree that Saudi Arabia or Turkey is responsible for trying to use my country's military and blood and treasure for their own cynical (and contemptible) motivations, I condemn them profusely.

    Same goes with any and all other agents of treachery with blood on their hands and dead Americans and so many untold legions of murdered innocents the world over on their soul ledgers.

    But Israel is the elephant in the living room when it comes to intriguing America into endless wars. And there isn't one person here that doesn't know that. And pointing that out is not anti-Semitism, rather it's just the simple, honest truth. Whether I say it, or Mel Gibson

    Its a testable [and interesting] proposition, this notion of Israel mesmerising Uncle Sam into wars, and one is course free to assert it; even more, the opposition concede with reservations, that the intellectual foundation and a subset of leadership being of Jewish faith; the non-Jewish Christian portion of the impetus behind it, either impotent and mesmerised, or in willful partnership.

    (a) With all of that, the testable hypothesis is less than entirely accepted, one which M&W approach commendably but good parts subject to the criticism of Type I error: failure to recognise the American policy process as it is presumed to operate in The Israel Lobby. [I know, I know long discussion....]

    Even if (a) is pure bollocks,

    (b) I revert to my previous stand:

    Appeals to existence of timeless principles, in my own discussions with myself, have produced mostly dead ends. The most satisfactory passage is one which applies logic, a set of morals concordant with social choice, in itself a concession to majoritarian rules of the game [which we all evidently subscribe to] and little patience for post hoc type of bickering. In other words it is cafeteria philosophy: you are free to pick and choose what you want but do not complain about the aggregate outcome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    do not complain about the aggregate outcome
     
    Hitler could have said the same thing
  133. iffen says:
    @Rurik

    The Palestinians that have been expelled and those that remain as 2nd class citizens have a right to self-defense, whether they are anti-Semitic or not is not really germane to their status.
     
    is it germane to the discussion?

    if they are anti-Semitic, (some of them might hate Jews simply for being Jews), would you say they have a right to be? That it's understandable, given the circumstances?

    and while we're having this discussion about who is or isn't an "anti-Semite", let's set the record straight on what exactly that means, shall we?

    I posit that the definition is thus: An anti-Semite is a person who hates all Jews simply for being Jews.

    like a white man who hates all blacks, or a black who hates all whites, or a Zionist Jew who hates all Arabs, regardless of anything that they've done, but just because of who and what they were born as.

    That is the definition, as far as I'm concerned. Now, let's define who is not an anti-Semite, OK?

    if you criticize something that 'the Jews' are doing; like terrorizing and murdering and torturing men, women and children perpetually, generation after generation- so that the Jews can steal their land, that is not anti-Semitism, that is simply an observation and a moral judgment call. You're condemning the actions of some Jews, and not the very religion or the genetic identity of the Jewish people.

    if you notice and mention that Jews have inordinate sway over the institutions and levers of power in our society, that is not anti-Semitism, it is simply being sentient. To not notice this you'd basically have to be dead.

    So the problem is, there are some people who actually are anti-Semites and who hate all Jews simply for being Jews. (Perhaps occasionally, like in the case of some Palestinians, it is I suppose almost understandable). But it's wrong, nevertheless, and we should always look at people's individual character and never judge them all with blanket condemnations. Right? So when people are racist or anti-Semitic, we all know that such a thing is wrong on a moral plane. Yes?

    But then what happens is you have these people who cynically use that general and universal rejection of bigotry to try to vilify and silence justifiable criticism of some of the things some Jews do by smearing honorable people who bring up the truth about these things as "anti-Semites". And this is a vile and despicable thing to do, because for one, these people telling the truth are not anti-Semites, so it's a smear intended to silence criticism with the tactics of an intellectual bully, and what that tends to do is create in people's mind the idea that Jews consider themselves beyond reproach, and then that tends to reinforce in some people's mind that 'the Jews' are a contemptible lot, who really are insufferably arrogant. You see? (I'm trying to help out here).

    I think it would be good and important to draw the distinctions between what is anti-Semitism and what isn't.

    When someone say Israel is an apartheid state and has no right to exist.. this is not prima facie proof of anti-Semitism. There are tones of Jews who feel this way, and there are some very real and cogent arguments that go to the foundation of Israel's right to exist. I'm not debating that issue here, I'm merely pointing out that it is wrong and contemptible to use a smear tactic to assault the character of a person whose arguments you don't like, (usually because they have merit), otherwise people wouldn't resort to name calling and smears.

    Rurik says:
    May 4, 2016 at 3:20 pm GMT • 600 Words

    The Palestinians that have been expelled and those that remain as 2nd class citizens have a right to self-defense, whether they are anti-Semitic or not is not really germane to their status.
    is it germane to the discussion?
    if they are anti-Semitic, (some of them might hate Jews simply for being Jews), would you say they have a right to be? That it’s understandable, given the circumstances?

    I thought that I was clear that I support their right of self-defense and the right to hate the “people” destroying them.

    if you criticize something that ‘the Jews’ are doing

    Agree that most of your examples of criticism of Israel do not constitute anti-Semitism.

    if you notice and mention that Jews have inordinate sway over the institutions and levers of power in our society, that is not anti-Semitism, it is simply being sentient.

    ditto

    And this is a vile and despicable thing to do, because for one, these people telling the truth are not anti-Semites, so it’s a smear intended to silence criticism with the tactics of an intellectual bully, and what that tends to do is create in people’s mind the idea that Jews consider themselves beyond reproach, and then that tends to reinforce in some people’s mind that ‘the Jews’ are a contemptible lot, who really are insufferably arrogant. You see? (I’m trying to help out here).

    You are blaming Jews for creating anti-Semitism, that’s anti-Semitic.

    “The Truth” is something to be established.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    You are blaming Jews for creating anti-Semitism, that’s anti-Semitic.
     
    no I am not

    I'm blaming some Jews and others for trying to smear honorable people for telling some truths that they don't like mentioned. Like Jewish/Zionist subversion of our foreign policy. How many Jews called Walt and Mearsheimer "anti-Semites" for simply telling the truth?

    How many Jews called Judge Goldstone an anti-Semite for telling the truth? Alan Dershowitz called Judge Goldstone a Dr. Mengele for telling the truth about what happened in Gaza. (war crimes)

    This is a despicable and beneath contempt tactic to smear and lie about people whose opinions people want to silence. It's a sleazy way to try to censor criticism, and it's wrong. No matter if Jews use it or Muslims or Christians or anyone else.

    Now, when Dershowitz uses tactics like this, and there's a dearth of condemnation from Jewish circles, then that does tend to encourage anti-Semitic stereotypes. Like that Jews consider themselves above all criticism. - I didn't tell people that Jews create anti-Semitism, that's just a consequence of misguided people who don't see the nuance and diversity of Jewish attitudes, and start to assume they all goose step to the same ZioNazi supremacist mantras.

    We all need to recognize that when men like Dershowitz demand that we all tremble in fear of his frothing defamations and smears, that the collective weight of society's vomit reflex upon men like him is a just and understandable reaction to that kind of nauseating arrogance, no?

    And the more Jews, especially in the public eye- agree with that, [thunderously], the more anti-Semitic stereotypes will simply fade away.

  134. Sam Shama says:
    @Rurik

    Gibson is a crackpot and a wino; his anti-semitism is projected and restricted to violence on his pet poodles, Christ on screen, habitual fracases with the police, typically ending with a stint in gaol.
     
    and your point is?

    you don't like him so you call this hugely successful and amazingly talented man a "crackpot" and other assorted nasty names for basically being human and slightly flawed. Are you perfect? Have you ever had one too many? What the hell is wrong with him making a move about his God? I saw it. How many movies have Jews made that mock or insult people's cherished beliefs? (do they make any other kind? ; )

    My point is rather simple: Intersection of Trump and Gibson in a null set.

    And I did not say I dislike him. On the contrary I like him and his films: they serve a particular purpose.

    Read More
  135. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    I do suppose one can be somewhat mindful in this regard, yet I am comfortable making the speculation that the Jewish lobby and the Israel lobby are essentially indistinguishable.

    I do suppose one can be somewhat mindful in this regard, yet I am comfortable making the speculation that the Jewish lobby and the Israel lobby are essentially indistinguishable.

    Will you expand on this? American Jews are required to be Zionists? American Jews have to accept what Israel demands? You can’t keep your Jewishness if you don’t support every move by Israel?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    American Jews are required to be Zionists?

    American Jews have to accept what Israel demands?

    You can’t keep your Jewishness if you don’t support every move by Israel?

    No to each.

    The efforts of the Israel lobby are directed to political ends. Zionists - Jewish and Christian - constitute the funding membership and some Blacks and Latinos are ornamental. There are many Jews who do not support the lobby. So logically, Jews are not in a general sense Zionists. The Lobby is free to jockey for power in an indirect republic, crafted from rules of majoritarianism just as much as any other lobby is. Upon that construct, I impose my particular set of morals, arguments drawn from modern laws, Jewish relative wealth, and appeal to somnolent American Jews, exhort them in fact, to support a viable and financially equitable solution for Palestinians and then help impose it forcefully on Netanyahu.

  136. Rurik says:
    @iffen
    How many billions have we given Pakistan?

    How many Americans have been killed by people trained, equipped and directed by Pakistan?

    How many years would Pakistan have hidden and protected Bin Laden?

    How many years would Pakistan have hidden and protected Bin Laden?

    now are you suggesting that the story of Bin Laden’s death in Pakistan was not a preposterous fabrication?

    that he was really there in plain sight all this time until our heroic SEAL team went and took him out? And then disposed of the body in secret with no witnesses and no pictures or videos? Except of course for the picture of the entire administration in the situation room watching with rapt attention, which turned out to be a total fake, just like the other photos of the dead “Bin Laden” that also turned out to be faked. So now you’re making the case I guess, that that whole charade was actually real?! And that this guy was actually in that compound in Pakistan with his wives and just chillin.

    they lie about everything. WMD, Assad’s chemical weapons attack, Putin shot down the plane, “moderate” rebels.. everything they say is a lie. Yet you still believe them even when they’re spinning tales so outrageously absurd that a child can see through it. Amazing

    btw, Pakistan is not subverting our nation to fight wars. If anything, we’re over there droning goat herding villagers and weddings and terrorizing the entire country into a generation of people that will grow up with Orwellian scars on their psyches and a visceral and all abiding hatred for the great Satan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    now are you suggesting that the story of Bin Laden’s death in Pakistan was not a preposterous fabrication?

    Just when I start thinking I am exchanging comments with a sane rational person.

  137. Rurik says:
    @Sam Shama
    Its a testable [and interesting] proposition, this notion of Israel mesmerising Uncle Sam into wars, and one is course free to assert it; even more, the opposition concede with reservations, that the intellectual foundation and a subset of leadership being of Jewish faith; the non-Jewish Christian portion of the impetus behind it, either impotent and mesmerised, or in willful partnership.

    (a) With all of that, the testable hypothesis is less than entirely accepted, one which M&W approach commendably but good parts subject to the criticism of Type I error: failure to recognise the American policy process as it is presumed to operate in The Israel Lobby. [I know, I know long discussion....]

    Even if (a) is pure bollocks,

    (b) I revert to my previous stand:


    Appeals to existence of timeless principles, in my own discussions with myself, have produced mostly dead ends. The most satisfactory passage is one which applies logic, a set of morals concordant with social choice, in itself a concession to majoritarian rules of the game [which we all evidently subscribe to] and little patience for post hoc type of bickering. In other words it is cafeteria philosophy: you are free to pick and choose what you want but do not complain about the aggregate outcome.
     

    do not complain about the aggregate outcome

    Hitler could have said the same thing

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Well he did, if not exactly in the same words, yet squealed like a little skirt when the allies finally stuffed him, Sturm und Drang notwithstanding.
  138. iffen says:
    @Rurik

    How many years would Pakistan have hidden and protected Bin Laden?
     
    now are you suggesting that the story of Bin Laden's death in Pakistan was not a preposterous fabrication?

    that he was really there in plain sight all this time until our heroic SEAL team went and took him out? And then disposed of the body in secret with no witnesses and no pictures or videos? Except of course for the picture of the entire administration in the situation room watching with rapt attention, which turned out to be a total fake, just like the other photos of the dead "Bin Laden" that also turned out to be faked. So now you're making the case I guess, that that whole charade was actually real?! And that this guy was actually in that compound in Pakistan with his wives and just chillin.

    they lie about everything. WMD, Assad's chemical weapons attack, Putin shot down the plane, "moderate" rebels.. everything they say is a lie. Yet you still believe them even when they're spinning tales so outrageously absurd that a child can see through it. Amazing

    btw, Pakistan is not subverting our nation to fight wars. If anything, we're over there droning goat herding villagers and weddings and terrorizing the entire country into a generation of people that will grow up with Orwellian scars on their psyches and a visceral and all abiding hatred for the great Satan.

    now are you suggesting that the story of Bin Laden’s death in Pakistan was not a preposterous fabrication?

    Just when I start thinking I am exchanging comments with a sane rational person.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    now are you suggesting that the story of Bin Laden’s death in Pakistan was not a preposterous fabrication?

    Just when I start thinking I am exchanging comments with a sane rational person.
     
    ditto
  139. Art says:
    @Aaron Gross

    is that what you call Palestinians who resent Jews for what Jews are doing to them?

    “anti-Semites”?
     
    No, you misunderstood. That's what I called you.

    So Mr. Little Jew Aaron Gross,

    You Jew say we Americans cannot say “America First.” 300,000,000 Americans can not do what is natural because it is offensive to you Jew. You want to steal our natural rights to be human.

    Why shouldn’t we all be anti-Jew?

    Art

    p.s. The term “anti-Semite” is a calculated Jew lie. Arabs are Semites – TRUTH – it is you Jew who hate the majority of Semites.

    p.s. So Mr. Little Jew Aaron Gross – you are lying when you call us Gentiles anti-Semite – we are justifiably being anti-Jew.

    Read More
  140. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @Rurik

    Trump is most decidedly not anti-semitic, nor would he wear that label as you do
     
    .
    I "wear that label" because there are morally bankrupt people who have no rational argument for their contemptible positions so they toss that idiotic pejorative around, (like Holocaust denier or climate denier) in a pathetic attempt to use it like a bludgeon to silence critics. Go ahead I say. Call me a racist or a liberal or a Christian or an anti-Semite til your head spins. It makes the user of the word look more repellent than the one they're trying (pathetically ; ) to smear anyways.

    Of course Trump is not an anti-Semite. He loves Jews and he loves Israel and has the credentials to prove it. But that doesn't stop them from screeching their vile smears now does it?

    What? He said Jerusalem was not the eternal capital of Israel! That god damn Nazi!!!

    He said put America first?!! He must be David Duke!!!!!!

    it's beyond sad and pathetic. Put me in with Mel and Roger Waters all day long and twice on Sunday!

    Hey, Rurik & Sam :)
    Was reading your conversation with each other and thought I might interject some thoughts from the peanut gallery.

    in a pathetic attempt to use it like a bludgeon to silence critics. Go ahead I say. Call me a racist or a liberal or a Christian or an anti-Semite til your head spins. It makes the user of the word look more repellent than the one they’re trying (pathetically ; ) to smear anyways.

    I know you already know my position on this from our previous conversation about it, Rurik, but I feel I must voice my opposition to it again. This logic of “makes the user look more repellent than the one they’re trying to smear,” is ONLY true if it’s a false charge. If it’s a false charge then why in the world would you claim it’s true? You are smearing and degrading yourself. I think it’s akin to the phrase, cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    By smearing yourself with such a disgustingly shitty title, you are only going to attract flies. You are silencing yourself by referring to yourself as anti-Semitic IF you are not. I think it’s a horrible idea. I’m FAR from a Psychologist(although some may rightly claim that I need to get closer to one on their couch :) ) but it seems like this strategy is almost like Stockholm Syndrome in which you are exhibiting the symptom of “supportive behavior by the victim helping the abuser” by smearing yourself. The comparison to Stockholm is obviously not entirely an accurate comparison but I think an interesting one.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Hi JR, always nice to see your input

    I don't walk around with a sign on that says "anti-Semite", because unless it's in context, then people will just go wtf?

    but when I see these terms slung around like a mental patient smearing his feces all over the walls, I like to point out how pathetic the people who use that word are. Or others, like the way they call Trump supporters "racists". Or the way they call historians "Holocaust deniers" for honestly questioning some aspect of the holy dogma.

    It's sort of like in that move Spartacus with Kirk Douglas and Crassus wanted to know which guy was Spartacus, so he could make an example of him to terrorize the others into submission. And then Tony Curtis stands up and says "I'm Spartacus". And if we all stand up and say "I'm an anti-Semite", or "I'm a Holocaust denier" or "I'm a climate denier!", then it sort of makes a mockery of these loaded smear terms that they try to use to bludgeon people into silence with.

    But you have to have the nads to deal with those screeching mavens of Moloch who want to keep the scam alive. It not doubt, has served them very well in the past.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cD-hnRxMoY
  141. Rurik says:
    @iffen
    Rurik says:
    May 4, 2016 at 3:20 pm GMT • 600 Words
    @iffen

    The Palestinians that have been expelled and those that remain as 2nd class citizens have a right to self-defense, whether they are anti-Semitic or not is not really germane to their status.
    is it germane to the discussion?
    if they are anti-Semitic, (some of them might hate Jews simply for being Jews), would you say they have a right to be? That it’s understandable, given the circumstances?


    I thought that I was clear that I support their right of self-defense and the right to hate the “people” destroying them.

    if you criticize something that ‘the Jews’ are doing

    Agree that most of your examples of criticism of Israel do not constitute anti-Semitism.

    if you notice and mention that Jews have inordinate sway over the institutions and levers of power in our society, that is not anti-Semitism, it is simply being sentient.

    ditto

    And this is a vile and despicable thing to do, because for one, these people telling the truth are not anti-Semites, so it’s a smear intended to silence criticism with the tactics of an intellectual bully, and what that tends to do is create in people’s mind the idea that Jews consider themselves beyond reproach, and then that tends to reinforce in some people’s mind that ‘the Jews’ are a contemptible lot, who really are insufferably arrogant. You see? (I’m trying to help out here).

    You are blaming Jews for creating anti-Semitism, that’s anti-Semitic.

    “The Truth” is something to be established.

    You are blaming Jews for creating anti-Semitism, that’s anti-Semitic.

    no I am not

    I’m blaming some Jews and others for trying to smear honorable people for telling some truths that they don’t like mentioned. Like Jewish/Zionist subversion of our foreign policy. How many Jews called Walt and Mearsheimer “anti-Semites” for simply telling the truth?

    How many Jews called Judge Goldstone an anti-Semite for telling the truth? Alan Dershowitz called Judge Goldstone a Dr. Mengele for telling the truth about what happened in Gaza. (war crimes)

    This is a despicable and beneath contempt tactic to smear and lie about people whose opinions people want to silence. It’s a sleazy way to try to censor criticism, and it’s wrong. No matter if Jews use it or Muslims or Christians or anyone else.

    Now, when Dershowitz uses tactics like this, and there’s a dearth of condemnation from Jewish circles, then that does tend to encourage anti-Semitic stereotypes. Like that Jews consider themselves above all criticism. – I didn’t tell people that Jews create anti-Semitism, that’s just a consequence of misguided people who don’t see the nuance and diversity of Jewish attitudes, and start to assume they all goose step to the same ZioNazi supremacist mantras.

    We all need to recognize that when men like Dershowitz demand that we all tremble in fear of his frothing defamations and smears, that the collective weight of society’s vomit reflex upon men like him is a just and understandable reaction to that kind of nauseating arrogance, no?

    And the more Jews, especially in the public eye- agree with that, [thunderously], the more anti-Semitic stereotypes will simply fade away.

    Read More
  142. Rurik says:
    @iffen
    now are you suggesting that the story of Bin Laden’s death in Pakistan was not a preposterous fabrication?

    Just when I start thinking I am exchanging comments with a sane rational person.

    now are you suggesting that the story of Bin Laden’s death in Pakistan was not a preposterous fabrication?

    Just when I start thinking I am exchanging comments with a sane rational person.

    ditto

    Read More
  143. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    I do suppose one can be somewhat mindful in this regard, yet I am comfortable making the speculation that the Jewish lobby and the Israel lobby are essentially indistinguishable.

    Will you expand on this? American Jews are required to be Zionists? American Jews have to accept what Israel demands? You can't keep your Jewishness if you don't support every move by Israel?

    American Jews are required to be Zionists?

    American Jews have to accept what Israel demands?

    You can’t keep your Jewishness if you don’t support every move by Israel?

    No to each.

    The efforts of the Israel lobby are directed to political ends. Zionists – Jewish and Christian – constitute the funding membership and some Blacks and Latinos are ornamental. There are many Jews who do not support the lobby. So logically, Jews are not in a general sense Zionists. The Lobby is free to jockey for power in an indirect republic, crafted from rules of majoritarianism just as much as any other lobby is. Upon that construct, I impose my particular set of morals, arguments drawn from modern laws, Jewish relative wealth, and appeal to somnolent American Jews, exhort them in fact, to support a viable and financially equitable solution for Palestinians and then help impose it forcefully on Netanyahu.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    The Lobby is free to jockey for power in an indirect republic, crafted from rules of majoritarianism just as much as any other lobby is.

    Yes, and the fact that by any impartial evaluation they are the hands down most successful lobby with perhaps the NRA being a very distant 2nd is one of the reasons one could say that they have earned the right to be referred to as the Lobby.

    I have read many of your comments and have the understanding that you are not happy with the current positions of the Israeli government in regards to the entire Palestinian conflict.

    I am baffled by the idea that you think it is okay to use Jewish lobby interchangeably with Israel lobby. As you point out many members and contributors are not Jewish, this negates the idea that the lobby is a lobby composed of Jewish people. The alternative is that it is a lobby on behalf of Jewish people. If this is the case then you have subsumed and intertwined Jewish interests within the interests of Israel.

    On a related note. I notice a dog that is not barking. Netanyahu is obviously trying to bring Obama to heel on the aid package, yet I haven’t noticed any of our fellow commenters speaking out against a foreigner trying to manipulate our Prez.
    , @Art

    The efforts of the Israel lobby are directed to political ends.
     
    Sam - calling the US Jew efforts to help Israel, a "political lobby" is a lie.

    There is a giant difference between asking and coercion. Our elected representatives are being terrorized by your tribe. (For sure many fall victim to the Stockholm syndrome.)

    The US Jew lobby is a domestic terrorist effort. There is out and out coercion of our political system. US Jew actions put Gentiles political and economic lives at risk.

    Your characterization is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

    Art

    , @RobinG
    Lots of time wasted in this thread flaying that dead cow, anti-Semitism, while ignoring the meaning of Zionism. Is Zionism the belief in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state? Is Zionism the endorsement of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to enable the emergence of a Jewish state? Is Zionism the acceptance of the myth of a humble people who went to an empty land and made it bloom?

    Are you alleging that the "funding membership" of the Israel Lobby are the only real Zionists? Of course there is leadership, and there are big donors. But even though there are many Jews who don't list Israel in their top concerns, who don't consider themselves religious, etc., etc., very, very few would aver that Israel has no intrinsic right to exist as a Jewish state. (And BTW, wasn't that somebody's definition of anti-Semitism?) This applies even to most of those Jews who now detest Israeli policies --- hence Atzmon's designation "Anti-Zionist Zionists".

    Last year I posted a quote (James Petras?) about how the majority of Jews acquiesce to (and thereby support) the policies of the AIPAC leadership. No doubt many fear losing friends or being called self-hating Jews, but how much silence is needed to assume consent? This is about where Jr. accused me of being anti-Semitic, which I promptly rebuffed. Perhaps it's verboten to say that (most) Jews support a Jewish state in Palestine? (I'm speaking about American Jews, but I assume this holds true elsewhere.)

    At the moment I can only think of a handful of Jews who aren't devoted to a Jewish political entity, and except for my friend Bob they're all Israeli --- Atzmon, Miko Peled and his sister, and maybe Gideon Levy. All this is not to say that I don't recognize the value of numerous Jewish organizations, even J-Street who are very effective and reviled by the hard-liners.
  144. Sam Shama says:
    @Rurik

    do not complain about the aggregate outcome
     
    Hitler could have said the same thing

    Well he did, if not exactly in the same words, yet squealed like a little skirt when the allies finally stuffed him, Sturm und Drang notwithstanding.

    Read More
  145. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    American Jews are required to be Zionists?

    American Jews have to accept what Israel demands?

    You can’t keep your Jewishness if you don’t support every move by Israel?

    No to each.

    The efforts of the Israel lobby are directed to political ends. Zionists - Jewish and Christian - constitute the funding membership and some Blacks and Latinos are ornamental. There are many Jews who do not support the lobby. So logically, Jews are not in a general sense Zionists. The Lobby is free to jockey for power in an indirect republic, crafted from rules of majoritarianism just as much as any other lobby is. Upon that construct, I impose my particular set of morals, arguments drawn from modern laws, Jewish relative wealth, and appeal to somnolent American Jews, exhort them in fact, to support a viable and financially equitable solution for Palestinians and then help impose it forcefully on Netanyahu.

    The Lobby is free to jockey for power in an indirect republic, crafted from rules of majoritarianism just as much as any other lobby is.

    Yes, and the fact that by any impartial evaluation they are the hands down most successful lobby with perhaps the NRA being a very distant 2nd is one of the reasons one could say that they have earned the right to be referred to as the Lobby.

    I have read many of your comments and have the understanding that you are not happy with the current positions of the Israeli government in regards to the entire Palestinian conflict.

    I am baffled by the idea that you think it is okay to use Jewish lobby interchangeably with Israel lobby. As you point out many members and contributors are not Jewish, this negates the idea that the lobby is a lobby composed of Jewish people. The alternative is that it is a lobby on behalf of Jewish people. If this is the case then you have subsumed and intertwined Jewish interests within the interests of Israel.

    On a related note. I notice a dog that is not barking. Netanyahu is obviously trying to bring Obama to heel on the aid package, yet I haven’t noticed any of our fellow commenters speaking out against a foreigner trying to manipulate our Prez.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    Yes, and the fact that by any impartial evaluation they are the hands down most successful lobby with perhaps the NRA being a very distant 2nd is one of the reasons one could say that they have earned the right to be referred to as the Lobby.
     
    Maybe so, and as I said earlier I am agnostic to the usage, reason to follow in my response to your other queries.

    I have read many of your comments and have the understanding that you are not happy with the current positions of the Israeli government in regards to the entire Palestinian conflict.
     
    Yes I think Netanyahu's positions, cobbled together with those of the conveniently biblical parasites, are both repulsive and inimical to the long-term interests of Israeli citizens. A saner policy would have been a sincerely demonstrated desire for the 2SS.
    [Now I have my own thoughts regarding the economic and civil viability of a state run by less than capable Pal leadership and population, but that is another story]

    That idea being rendered an unicorn and the 1SS increasingly taking the shape of nothing more than a god awful bantustan for the Pals [they have nowhere near the rights and resources compared to Israeli Arabs and Druze], I see a financial solution with relocation as an alternative for discussion. Its really a question of which alternative has the best chance of success while maximising the monetary rewards to the affected Pals.


    I am baffled by the idea that you think it is okay to use Jewish lobby interchangeably with Israel lobby. As you point out many members and contributors are not Jewish, this negates the idea that the lobby is a lobby composed of Jewish people.
     
    I am unaware of any other issue that any Jewish lobby has lobbied for [or lobbed at] POTUS and Congress. I am honestly unaware. [The wars waged by the USA being exceptions, since as I recall, while a number of Jewish administration leaders were with Bush II in crafting the second one [as were a greater many Christians etc], Jews in general were very ambivalent, and in fact less supportive of it than the general public, despite their [somewhat lukewarm] desire to support Dubya broadly. Also I am yet to be persuaded that Israel was behind those wars. Talking about PNAC etc. I consider an exercise of data fitting by peeking at the rear-view mirror. One could just as easily retrofit it as a reaction to a combination of world-powers' chess-moves on the region plus Dubya's own hubris. Did Israel benefit from it? Maybe.]

    On a related note. I notice a dog that is not barking. Netanyahu is obviously trying to bring Obama to heel on the aid package, yet I haven’t noticed any of our fellow commenters speaking out against a foreigner trying to manipulate our Prez.
     
    Quite sure that Obama effectively told Bibi to go get stuffed, with Congress quaking at the prospect of having to deal with Trump.
  146. @Sam Shama
    This video is a fake.

    Was what Chris Hedges witnessed a fake?

    https://www.popularresistance.org/chris-hedges-why-israel-lies/
    I saw small boys baited and killed by Israeli soldiers in the Gaza refugee camp of Khan Younis. The soldiers swore at the boys in Arabic over the loudspeakers of their armored jeep. The boys, about 10 years old, then threw stones at an Israeli vehicle and the soldiers opened fire, killing some, wounding others. I was present more than once as Israeli troops drew out and shot Palestinian children in this way.

    and

    http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/011001_hedges.html

    Barefoot boys, clutching kites made out of scraps of paper and ragged soccer balls, squat a few feet away under scrub trees. Men in flowing white or gray galabias—homespun robes—smoke cigarettes in the shade of slim eaves. Two emaciated donkeys, their ribs protruding, are tethered to wooden carts with rubber wheels.

    It is still. The camp waits, as if holding its breath. And then, out of the dry furnace air, a disembodied voice crackles over a loudspeaker.

    “Come on, dogs,” the voice booms in Arabic. “Where are all the dogs of Khan Younis? Come! Come!”

    I stand up. I walk outside the hut. The invective continues to spew: “Son of a bitch!” “Son of a whore!” “Your mother’s cunt!”

    The boys dart in small packs up the sloping dunes to the electric fence that separates the camp from the Jewish settlement. They lob rocks toward two armored jeeps parked on top of the dune and mounted with loudspeakers. Three ambulances line the road below the dunes in anticipation of what is to come.

    A percussion grenade explodes. The boys, most no more than ten or eleven years old, scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand. They descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me. There are no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. The bullets from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children’s slight bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos.

    Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered—death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo—but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.

    Was Max Blumenthal’s reporting a fake?

    https://www.sott.net/article/282060-Chris-Hedges-Imploding-the-Myth-of-Israel
    The IDF tells its Israeli occupation forces they are allowed to shoot 12-year-olds.
    “Twelve [years old] and up, you are allowed to shoot. That’s what they tell us,” an Israeli sniper told Haaretz correspondent Amira Hass in 2004 at the height of the Second Intifada, Blumenthal writes. “This is according to what the IDF [Israel Defense Force] says to its soldiers. I do not know if this is what the IDF says to the media,” the sniper was quoted as saying.

    The 2008 murderous rampage is not, as Blumenthal understands, an anomaly. It is the overt policy of the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who advocates “a system of open apartheid.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    S2C I can honestly recount the following. There is a fair bit of dis-information emanating from all sides. When I speak to friends in the IDF, I sense frustration and resignation at the prospect of having to police civilian areas, where they might easily get injured or killed. They also repudiate the charge that orders are given to deliberately shoot at children. They typically do not shoot when stones are thrown [they can shoot blanks and stun grenades in retaliation to firebombs].

    I know that many videos circulating are doctored.

    Do I doubt that many children were killed? Absolutely I do not. I think those are overwhelmingly the acts of the gun-toting settlers.

    Writing on these incidents leaves one immediately vulnerable to the charge of acting as an apologist, which I suppose is fair game, and I really don't care; the truth as always is somewhere in the middle.

    I await the inevitable barrage.
  147. Art says:
    @Sam Shama
    American Jews are required to be Zionists?

    American Jews have to accept what Israel demands?

    You can’t keep your Jewishness if you don’t support every move by Israel?

    No to each.

    The efforts of the Israel lobby are directed to political ends. Zionists - Jewish and Christian - constitute the funding membership and some Blacks and Latinos are ornamental. There are many Jews who do not support the lobby. So logically, Jews are not in a general sense Zionists. The Lobby is free to jockey for power in an indirect republic, crafted from rules of majoritarianism just as much as any other lobby is. Upon that construct, I impose my particular set of morals, arguments drawn from modern laws, Jewish relative wealth, and appeal to somnolent American Jews, exhort them in fact, to support a viable and financially equitable solution for Palestinians and then help impose it forcefully on Netanyahu.

    The efforts of the Israel lobby are directed to political ends.

    Sam – calling the US Jew efforts to help Israel, a “political lobby” is a lie.

    There is a giant difference between asking and coercion. Our elected representatives are being terrorized by your tribe. (For sure many fall victim to the Stockholm syndrome.)

    The US Jew lobby is a domestic terrorist effort. There is out and out coercion of our political system. US Jew actions put Gentiles political and economic lives at risk.

    Your characterization is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

    Art

    Read More
  148. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    The Lobby is free to jockey for power in an indirect republic, crafted from rules of majoritarianism just as much as any other lobby is.

    Yes, and the fact that by any impartial evaluation they are the hands down most successful lobby with perhaps the NRA being a very distant 2nd is one of the reasons one could say that they have earned the right to be referred to as the Lobby.

    I have read many of your comments and have the understanding that you are not happy with the current positions of the Israeli government in regards to the entire Palestinian conflict.

    I am baffled by the idea that you think it is okay to use Jewish lobby interchangeably with Israel lobby. As you point out many members and contributors are not Jewish, this negates the idea that the lobby is a lobby composed of Jewish people. The alternative is that it is a lobby on behalf of Jewish people. If this is the case then you have subsumed and intertwined Jewish interests within the interests of Israel.

    On a related note. I notice a dog that is not barking. Netanyahu is obviously trying to bring Obama to heel on the aid package, yet I haven’t noticed any of our fellow commenters speaking out against a foreigner trying to manipulate our Prez.

    Yes, and the fact that by any impartial evaluation they are the hands down most successful lobby with perhaps the NRA being a very distant 2nd is one of the reasons one could say that they have earned the right to be referred to as the Lobby.

    Maybe so, and as I said earlier I am agnostic to the usage, reason to follow in my response to your other queries.

    I have read many of your comments and have the understanding that you are not happy with the current positions of the Israeli government in regards to the entire Palestinian conflict.

    Yes I think Netanyahu’s positions, cobbled together with those of the conveniently biblical parasites, are both repulsive and inimical to the long-term interests of Israeli citizens. A saner policy would have been a sincerely demonstrated desire for the 2SS.
    [Now I have my own thoughts regarding the economic and civil viability of a state run by less than capable Pal leadership and population, but that is another story]

    That idea being rendered an unicorn and the 1SS increasingly taking the shape of nothing more than a god awful bantustan for the Pals [they have nowhere near the rights and resources compared to Israeli Arabs and Druze], I see a financial solution with relocation as an alternative for discussion. Its really a question of which alternative has the best chance of success while maximising the monetary rewards to the affected Pals.

    I am baffled by the idea that you think it is okay to use Jewish lobby interchangeably with Israel lobby. As you point out many members and contributors are not Jewish, this negates the idea that the lobby is a lobby composed of Jewish people.

    I am unaware of any other issue that any Jewish lobby has lobbied for [or lobbed at] POTUS and Congress. I am honestly unaware. [The wars waged by the USA being exceptions, since as I recall, while a number of Jewish administration leaders were with Bush II in crafting the second one [as were a greater many Christians etc], Jews in general were very ambivalent, and in fact less supportive of it than the general public, despite their [somewhat lukewarm] desire to support Dubya broadly. Also I am yet to be persuaded that Israel was behind those wars. Talking about PNAC etc. I consider an exercise of data fitting by peeking at the rear-view mirror. One could just as easily retrofit it as a reaction to a combination of world-powers’ chess-moves on the region plus Dubya’s own hubris. Did Israel benefit from it? Maybe.]

    On a related note. I notice a dog that is not barking. Netanyahu is obviously trying to bring Obama to heel on the aid package, yet I haven’t noticed any of our fellow commenters speaking out against a foreigner trying to manipulate our Prez.

    Quite sure that Obama effectively told Bibi to go get stuffed, with Congress quaking at the prospect of having to deal with Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    I see a financial solution with relocation as an alternative for discussion. Its really a question of which alternative has the best chance of success while maximising the monetary rewards to the affected Pals.
     
    Sam,

    I believe that relocation through compensation, is the ONLY solution short of an Israel ending war.

    Clearly the Palestinian people have been grievously hurt by the Jews. They must have their day in court. They should receive just compensation for sixty years of hell.

    Think of all the money that has been spent on war because of Zionism/Israel.

    I do NOT see you advocating for the diversion of money going to Israeli defense – to just compensation for the Palestinian people.

    I do not see a private Jewish fund to compensate the Palestinian people.

    Hmm - is this more Jew smoke?

    Art
    , @geokat62

    Jews in general were very ambivalent, and in fact less supportive of it than the general public, despite their [somewhat lukewarm] desire to support Dubya broadly. Also I am yet to be persuaded that Israel was behind those wars.
     
    There you go again, Sam. Who do you think you're fooling? Let me guess: the dumb goy?

    So Zionists were opposed to the idea of remaking the ME by regime changing those countries deemed hostile to the Zionist entity, all in an effort to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle? If they were indeed ambivalent, it was because of concern about the potential of backlash from the dumb goy.

    You wouldn't happen to have a bridge to sell us, would you?

    , @iffen
    Quite sure that Obama effectively told Bibi to go get stuffed, with Congress quaking at the prospect of having to deal with Trump.

    Alternative: How about Bibi telling Obama to get stuffed while salivating at the prospect of dealing with Hillary?
  149. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Was what Chris Hedges witnessed a fake?

    https://www.popularresistance.org/chris-hedges-why-israel-lies/
    I saw small boys baited and killed by Israeli soldiers in the Gaza refugee camp of Khan Younis. The soldiers swore at the boys in Arabic over the loudspeakers of their armored jeep. The boys, about 10 years old, then threw stones at an Israeli vehicle and the soldiers opened fire, killing some, wounding others. I was present more than once as Israeli troops drew out and shot Palestinian children in this way.
     
    and


    http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/011001_hedges.html
    Barefoot boys, clutching kites made out of scraps of paper and ragged soccer balls, squat a few feet away under scrub trees. Men in flowing white or gray galabias—homespun robes—smoke cigarettes in the shade of slim eaves. Two emaciated donkeys, their ribs protruding, are tethered to wooden carts with rubber wheels.

    It is still. The camp waits, as if holding its breath. And then, out of the dry furnace air, a disembodied voice crackles over a loudspeaker.

    "Come on, dogs," the voice booms in Arabic. "Where are all the dogs of Khan Younis? Come! Come!"

    I stand up. I walk outside the hut. The invective continues to spew: "Son of a bitch!" "Son of a whore!" "Your mother's cunt!"

    The boys dart in small packs up the sloping dunes to the electric fence that separates the camp from the Jewish settlement. They lob rocks toward two armored jeeps parked on top of the dune and mounted with loudspeakers. Three ambulances line the road below the dunes in anticipation of what is to come.

    A percussion grenade explodes. The boys, most no more than ten or eleven years old, scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand. They descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me. There are no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. The bullets from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children's slight bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos.

    Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered—death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo—but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.
     
    Was Max Blumenthal's reporting a fake?

    https://www.sott.net/article/282060-Chris-Hedges-Imploding-the-Myth-of-Israel
    The IDF tells its Israeli occupation forces they are allowed to shoot 12-year-olds.
    "Twelve [years old] and up, you are allowed to shoot. That's what they tell us," an Israeli sniper told Haaretz correspondent Amira Hass in 2004 at the height of the Second Intifada, Blumenthal writes. "This is according to what the IDF [Israel Defense Force] says to its soldiers. I do not know if this is what the IDF says to the media," the sniper was quoted as saying.

    The 2008 murderous rampage is not, as Blumenthal understands, an anomaly. It is the overt policy of the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who advocates "a system of open apartheid."
     

    S2C I can honestly recount the following. There is a fair bit of dis-information emanating from all sides. When I speak to friends in the IDF, I sense frustration and resignation at the prospect of having to police civilian areas, where they might easily get injured or killed. They also repudiate the charge that orders are given to deliberately shoot at children. They typically do not shoot when stones are thrown [they can shoot blanks and stun grenades in retaliation to firebombs].

    I know that many videos circulating are doctored.

    Do I doubt that many children were killed? Absolutely I do not. I think those are overwhelmingly the acts of the gun-toting settlers.

    Writing on these incidents leaves one immediately vulnerable to the charge of acting as an apologist, which I suppose is fair game, and I really don’t care; the truth as always is somewhere in the middle.

    I await the inevitable barrage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    I await the inevitable barrage.
     
    Just curious, Sam. Why do you think Miko Peled, an Israeli Jew, says this:

    It’s important for people to stop talking about the occupation or the occupied territories.. as though they are limited parts of Palestine…. All of Israel is occupied Palestine, all of Israeli cities and towns are illegal settlements. And we have to start talking about it in those terms, otherwise we will never reach a solution, which relies on understanding this, and accepting the fact that we need to push for a transformation and the establishment of a democratic regime in Palestine.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/sanders-put-everything-on-the-line-for-palestine-because-bds-movement-has-changed-us-conversation-peled/
     
    , @bondo
    dissembler
    dissembling
    , @Art

    When I speak to friends in the IDF, I sense frustration and resignation at the prospect of having to police civilian areas, where they might easily get injured or killed.
     
    Sam - I see and you and Netanyahu see eye to eye on the most moral army in the world.

    Every day things like this happen to Palestinians in your Israel.

    For Most Israelis, Palestinian Lives Don’t Matter

    http://lobelog.com/for-most-israelis-palestinian-lives-dont-matter/

    , @Jonathan Revusky

    I know that many videos circulating are doctored.
     
    Could you link a video or two that you are fairly sure is doctored? Then we could judge.

    It would be even better if you said what the giveaway was that the video is doctored. But anyway, if this is a serious discussion and you say there are these doctored videos floating around, it makes sense for you to point us to one, no?
  150. Art says:
    @Sam Shama

    Yes, and the fact that by any impartial evaluation they are the hands down most successful lobby with perhaps the NRA being a very distant 2nd is one of the reasons one could say that they have earned the right to be referred to as the Lobby.
     
    Maybe so, and as I said earlier I am agnostic to the usage, reason to follow in my response to your other queries.

    I have read many of your comments and have the understanding that you are not happy with the current positions of the Israeli government in regards to the entire Palestinian conflict.
     
    Yes I think Netanyahu's positions, cobbled together with those of the conveniently biblical parasites, are both repulsive and inimical to the long-term interests of Israeli citizens. A saner policy would have been a sincerely demonstrated desire for the 2SS.
    [Now I have my own thoughts regarding the economic and civil viability of a state run by less than capable Pal leadership and population, but that is another story]

    That idea being rendered an unicorn and the 1SS increasingly taking the shape of nothing more than a god awful bantustan for the Pals [they have nowhere near the rights and resources compared to Israeli Arabs and Druze], I see a financial solution with relocation as an alternative for discussion. Its really a question of which alternative has the best chance of success while maximising the monetary rewards to the affected Pals.


    I am baffled by the idea that you think it is okay to use Jewish lobby interchangeably with Israel lobby. As you point out many members and contributors are not Jewish, this negates the idea that the lobby is a lobby composed of Jewish people.
     
    I am unaware of any other issue that any Jewish lobby has lobbied for [or lobbed at] POTUS and Congress. I am honestly unaware. [The wars waged by the USA being exceptions, since as I recall, while a number of Jewish administration leaders were with Bush II in crafting the second one [as were a greater many Christians etc], Jews in general were very ambivalent, and in fact less supportive of it than the general public, despite their [somewhat lukewarm] desire to support Dubya broadly. Also I am yet to be persuaded that Israel was behind those wars. Talking about PNAC etc. I consider an exercise of data fitting by peeking at the rear-view mirror. One could just as easily retrofit it as a reaction to a combination of world-powers' chess-moves on the region plus Dubya's own hubris. Did Israel benefit from it? Maybe.]

    On a related note. I notice a dog that is not barking. Netanyahu is obviously trying to bring Obama to heel on the aid package, yet I haven’t noticed any of our fellow commenters speaking out against a foreigner trying to manipulate our Prez.
     
    Quite sure that Obama effectively told Bibi to go get stuffed, with Congress quaking at the prospect of having to deal with Trump.

    I see a financial solution with relocation as an alternative for discussion. Its really a question of which alternative has the best chance of success while maximising the monetary rewards to the affected Pals.

    Sam,

    I believe that relocation through compensation, is the ONLY solution short of an Israel ending war.

    Clearly the Palestinian people have been grievously hurt by the Jews. They must have their day in court. They should receive just compensation for sixty years of hell.

    Think of all the money that has been spent on war because of Zionism/Israel.

    I do NOT see you advocating for the diversion of money going to Israeli defense – to just compensation for the Palestinian people.

    I do not see a private Jewish fund to compensate the Palestinian people.

    Hmm – is this more Jew smoke?

    Art

    Read More
  151. Rurik says:
    @Junior
    Hey, Rurik & Sam :)
    Was reading your conversation with each other and thought I might interject some thoughts from the peanut gallery.

    in a pathetic attempt to use it like a bludgeon to silence critics. Go ahead I say. Call me a racist or a liberal or a Christian or an anti-Semite til your head spins. It makes the user of the word look more repellent than the one they’re trying (pathetically ; ) to smear anyways.
     
    I know you already know my position on this from our previous conversation about it, Rurik, but I feel I must voice my opposition to it again. This logic of "makes the user look more repellent than the one they're trying to smear," is ONLY true if it's a false charge. If it's a false charge then why in the world would you claim it's true? You are smearing and degrading yourself. I think it's akin to the phrase, cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    By smearing yourself with such a disgustingly shitty title, you are only going to attract flies. You are silencing yourself by referring to yourself as anti-Semitic IF you are not. I think it's a horrible idea. I'm FAR from a Psychologist(although some may rightly claim that I need to get closer to one on their couch :) ) but it seems like this strategy is almost like Stockholm Syndrome in which you are exhibiting the symptom of "supportive behavior by the victim helping the abuser" by smearing yourself. The comparison to Stockholm is obviously not entirely an accurate comparison but I think an interesting one.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

    Hi JR, always nice to see your input

    I don’t walk around with a sign on that says “anti-Semite”, because unless it’s in context, then people will just go wtf?

    but when I see these terms slung around like a mental patient smearing his feces all over the walls, I like to point out how pathetic the people who use that word are. Or others, like the way they call Trump supporters “racists”. Or the way they call historians “Holocaust deniers” for honestly questioning some aspect of the holy dogma.

    It’s sort of like in that move Spartacus with Kirk Douglas and Crassus wanted to know which guy was Spartacus, so he could make an example of him to terrorize the others into submission. And then Tony Curtis stands up and says “I’m Spartacus”. And if we all stand up and say “I’m an anti-Semite”, or “I’m a Holocaust denier” or “I’m a climate denier!”, then it sort of makes a mockery of these loaded smear terms that they try to use to bludgeon people into silence with.

    But you have to have the nads to deal with those screeching mavens of Moloch who want to keep the scam alive. It not doubt, has served them very well in the past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Junior
    Just wanted to begin with saying, I'm not gonna be around so pardon if any response goes un-answered for awhile.

    And then Tony Curtis stands up and says “I’m Spartacus”. And if we all stand up and say “I’m an anti-Semite”, or “I’m a Holocaust denier” or “I’m a climate denier!”, then it sort of makes a mockery of these loaded smear terms that they try to use to bludgeon people into silence with.
     
    I understand what you are saying in terms of wanting to take the power out of the word, but you are defining yourself with a derogatory term. I would liken it to when a Black Person calls themselves the "N word". (On a side note, here's a funny clip from Louis CK about people saying "N word" instead of the full word https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waehONGY-yI ) The excuse of "it's a term of endearment" or "taking the power out of the word" just doesn't cut it when you realize that referring to yourself as a derogatory term is degrading. As the late great Richard Pryor spoke about after returning from a trip to Africa:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AltWj4iAmno
  152. iffen says:

    And if we all stand up and say “I’m an anti-Semite”,

    Have you thought about the possibility that it would be easier to not be anti-Semitic and to not tolerate anti-Semites and then when for political purposes (as we see in the current case of the Labour Party) some agitator screeches, “anti-Semite” they will look like a fool and you can tell them to f* off?

    Read More
  153. Rurik says:

    Have you thought about the possibility that it would be easier to not be anti-Semitic

    >>sigh<<

    the point is this stupid charge of "anti-Semite" is an outrageous lie, (duh)

    97% of the people you and everyone else calls an anti-Semite are not (duh)

    they're just people who've grown weary and disgusted by some of the thing some Jews do

    but you can't resist this disgusting tactic because it has served Zionists (and Wall Street fraudsters and assorted villains who also happen to be Jews) as a cover for the criminal and obnoxios things that they do. duh

    Every time Bibi drops bombs on children, there you and he are, sanctimoniously pointing the finger and screeching “anti-Semites!!!” at all the people who’re justifiably horrified at what he’s doing over there.

    And if the world decided to say ‘fuck you Bibi, we’re all anti-Semites as far as you’re concerned’, then there’s iffen saying ‘well then stop being anti-Semites!

    ..and stop criticizing what Bibi’s doing!

    Bibi is Jewish, and if you criticize him, that means you’re a Nazi and an anti-Semite and want to push little Jewish girls into ovens!!!!

    well I say fuck all that. Fuck your tiresome narrative that any criticisms of Zionism can be silenced with smears and pathetic attempts at character assassination. Bibi is a war criminal who’s guilty of myriad atrocities and crimes against humanity, and he should hang by the neck until his ugly white face turns purple and he dies an ignoble death to the thunderous cheers of 7 billion heartfelt voices thanking God almighty for long over due justice. And it isn’t the slightest bit anti-Semitic to say that. And if anyone did, then I’d be the first to say that IF saying Bibi is a war criminal = means a person is anti-Semitic, then count me as the proudest anti-Semite in the whole fucking world.

    Now, having explained that, all I have to do is sit back and wait for the imbeciles to say, why do you hate Bibi? Why do you hate all Jews? Why are you an anti-Semite.

    And I admit I really don’t know if they’re that fucking stupid, or just that fucking rotten

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I am giving up on you. You either have poor reading comprehension or you are deliberately imputing thoughts and statements to me that I have not expressed.
  154. RobinG says:
    @Sam Shama
    American Jews are required to be Zionists?

    American Jews have to accept what Israel demands?

    You can’t keep your Jewishness if you don’t support every move by Israel?

    No to each.

    The efforts of the Israel lobby are directed to political ends. Zionists - Jewish and Christian - constitute the funding membership and some Blacks and Latinos are ornamental. There are many Jews who do not support the lobby. So logically, Jews are not in a general sense Zionists. The Lobby is free to jockey for power in an indirect republic, crafted from rules of majoritarianism just as much as any other lobby is. Upon that construct, I impose my particular set of morals, arguments drawn from modern laws, Jewish relative wealth, and appeal to somnolent American Jews, exhort them in fact, to support a viable and financially equitable solution for Palestinians and then help impose it forcefully on Netanyahu.

    Lots of time wasted in this thread flaying that dead cow, anti-Semitism, while ignoring the meaning of Zionism. Is Zionism the belief in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state? Is Zionism the endorsement of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to enable the emergence of a Jewish state? Is Zionism the acceptance of the myth of a humble people who went to an empty land and made it bloom?

    Are you alleging that the “funding membership” of the Israel Lobby are the only real Zionists? Of course there is leadership, and there are big donors. But even though there are many Jews who don’t list Israel in their top concerns, who don’t consider themselves religious, etc., etc., very, very few would aver that Israel has no intrinsic right to exist as a Jewish state. (And BTW, wasn’t that somebody’s definition of anti-Semitism?) This applies even to most of those Jews who now detest Israeli policies — hence Atzmon’s designation “Anti-Zionist Zionists”.

    Last year I posted a quote (James Petras?) about how the majority of Jews acquiesce to (and thereby support) the policies of the AIPAC leadership. No doubt many fear losing friends or being called self-hating Jews, but how much silence is needed to assume consent? This is about where Jr. accused me of being anti-Semitic, which I promptly rebuffed. Perhaps it’s verboten to say that (most) Jews support a Jewish state in Palestine? (I’m speaking about American Jews, but I assume this holds true elsewhere.)

    At the moment I can only think of a handful of Jews who aren’t devoted to a Jewish political entity, and except for my friend Bob they’re all Israeli — Atzmon, Miko Peled and his sister, and maybe Gideon Levy. All this is not to say that I don’t recognize the value of numerous Jewish organizations, even J-Street who are very effective and reviled by the hard-liners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    that dead cow, anti-Semitism

    if true, then why the rebuff?

    Jr. accused me of being anti-Semitic, which I promptly rebuffed

    Do you think that it is correct to use Jewish lobby interchangeably with Israel lobby?

    Every nation state has myths, foundational creeds, cultural or religious glue, sacred writings, etc. Why should Israel be considered any different. Why should Zionism be considered different from any other foundational myth?
    , @Sam Shama
    Hi Robin. You ask too many difficult questions lass! :-)

    Lots of time wasted in this thread flaying that dead cow, anti-Semitism, while ignoring the meaning of Zionism. Is Zionism the belief in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state? Is Zionism the endorsement of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to enable the emergence of a Jewish state? Is Zionism the acceptance of the myth of a humble people who went to an empty land and made it bloom?
     
    Zionism, prior to, and of my childhood in the 70's and 80's, was an idea beckoning Jews the world over to establish homestead on their ancestral land; the idea of a shared destiny, which did not ban by edict Arabs and other folk, guardians of the land for centuries, but rather invite them to eagerly contribute, harvest, rejoice and bequeath the land and its gifts. It did nevertheless argue for a Jewish majority.

    I cannot name the beast that prowls the land today. All that is left is to tame its basest instincts and salvage a semblance of Justice for the Pals.

    Are you alleging that the “funding membership” of the Israel Lobby are the only real Zionists?
     
    Not a bit given my sentiments above. They are though, travellers on the beast, some, of their own volition, many transported by their mute complicity.

    Perhaps it’s verboten to say that (most) Jews support a Jewish state in Palestine? (I’m speaking about American Jews, but I assume this holds true elsewhere.)
     
    Nothing should be forbidden, least of all wagging tongues that speak much truth [and much bollocks that self countervail]

    At the moment I can only think of a handful of Jews who aren’t devoted to a Jewish political entity, and except for my friend Bob they’re all Israeli — Atzmon, Miko Peled and his sister, and maybe Gideon Levy. All this is not to say that I don’t recognize the value of numerous Jewish organizations, even J-Street who are very effective and reviled by the hard-liners.
     
    Essentially true. People have lives to lead and make cost-benefit analyses all the time. I gather you consider the Jewish political entity to be, on balance, undesirable? If so you would be faced with innumerable dilemmas, and possibly realise as I have, that man isn't equipped to solve all his problems endogenously - a measure of Justice is the most we can aspire to. These days I find myself granting passage on many of these matters, to hard-headed pragmatism even as I set a set of morally grounded ballasts of my own choosing, ones which keep pure reason at bay.
    , @Sam Shama
    btw upon re-reading, my sentence re: wagging tongues was not directed at you, just so you know ;)
    , @SolontoCroesus

    This is about where Jr. accused me of being anti-Semitic, which I promptly rebuffed
     
    http://www.unz.com/article/israels-friends-against-the-first-amendment/#comment-1387965
  155. @Sam Shama
    You are confused. Trump is most decidedly not anti-semitic, nor would he wear that label as you do. His daughter is a giyoret [a convert to judaism] as I am sure you know, and he is very close to the in-laws. Many of his business partners are of Jewish extraction as well.

    The trouble as I am beginning to gather, about some in the Alt-Right, is their acute inability to take nuanced positions. Therefore, if and when Trump assumes power, their hopes of Judenrein is almost surely going to be dashed.

    ”Trump is most decidedly not anti-semitic, nor would he wear that label as you do. His daughter is a giyoret [a convert to judaism]”

    ”Goym” mentalitet

    Jews tend to be hyper-pragmatic as well a lot of ”gentile” leaders.

    Read More
  156. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @Rurik
    Hi JR, always nice to see your input

    I don't walk around with a sign on that says "anti-Semite", because unless it's in context, then people will just go wtf?

    but when I see these terms slung around like a mental patient smearing his feces all over the walls, I like to point out how pathetic the people who use that word are. Or others, like the way they call Trump supporters "racists". Or the way they call historians "Holocaust deniers" for honestly questioning some aspect of the holy dogma.

    It's sort of like in that move Spartacus with Kirk Douglas and Crassus wanted to know which guy was Spartacus, so he could make an example of him to terrorize the others into submission. And then Tony Curtis stands up and says "I'm Spartacus". And if we all stand up and say "I'm an anti-Semite", or "I'm a Holocaust denier" or "I'm a climate denier!", then it sort of makes a mockery of these loaded smear terms that they try to use to bludgeon people into silence with.

    But you have to have the nads to deal with those screeching mavens of Moloch who want to keep the scam alive. It not doubt, has served them very well in the past.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cD-hnRxMoY

    Just wanted to begin with saying, I’m not gonna be around so pardon if any response goes un-answered for awhile.

    And then Tony Curtis stands up and says “I’m Spartacus”. And if we all stand up and say “I’m an anti-Semite”, or “I’m a Holocaust denier” or “I’m a climate denier!”, then it sort of makes a mockery of these loaded smear terms that they try to use to bludgeon people into silence with.

    I understand what you are saying in terms of wanting to take the power out of the word, but you are defining yourself with a derogatory term. I would liken it to when a Black Person calls themselves the “N word”. (On a side note, here’s a funny clip from Louis CK about people saying “N word” instead of the full word https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waehONGY-yI ) The excuse of “it’s a term of endearment” or “taking the power out of the word” just doesn’t cut it when you realize that referring to yourself as a derogatory term is degrading. As the late great Richard Pryor spoke about after returning from a trip to Africa:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AltWj4iAmno

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    take the power out of the word, but you are defining yourself with a derogatory term.
     
    I don't see it that way Jr.

    http://www.joycematthewsportfolio.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/kirk-douglas-and-tony-curtis-in-the-film-spartacus-gabriel-t-toro-682x230.jpg

    I'm not playing the game. The US has destroyed several countries in the last decade or so, and well over a million lives, and all done so on behalf of the racial supremacist regime currently in power in Israel today. Right now the US is busy with saber rattling provocations against Russia and China, basically telling Putin (and his wingman in China) to get out of Syria.

    You see the destruction of Iraq was simply part of Israel's agenda of total domination of the Middle East, and Saddam and a prosperous and thriving Iraq was considered an obstacle. So my country went in there, (all based on lies as usual) and showed the world that the fiend is very much alive and well, and perfectly willing to wage wholesale slaughter on innocent civilians willy-nilly; when it comes to serving Israel's Nazi regime. But then of course that wasn't enough, (it's never enough), so then we destroyed Libya, but that was part of larger agenda to destroy Syria so that Israel can steal the resource rich Golan Heights.

    But Putin stepped in and saved Syria, at least sort of, and so now we're pissing in his face telling him to get out of Syria and accept his role as yet another lickspittle to Zion, like most of the leaders of Europe have become. But he's not that kind of man, so now we have Bibi vs. Putin being waged by proxy using the US military and assorted "moderate" rebels all trying to slaughter the last obstacles to the complete destruction of the Syrian state, so that - yep, you got it, Israel can steal the Golan Heights.

    Now, you may wonder why I've wandered so far from a simple debate over that loaded term 'anti-Semite', and vexed over my country's behavior as a drooling, bloodstained fiend on the world's stage. But they are very much related.

    You see my agenda in posting here, is and always has been to try to do my small part to defuse the pigs of war. And so that's why I often rail against the perps who're really responsible for 911. Because that crime was deliberately intended as a ruse for using the US to crush all of Israel's enemies. OK? So between trying to expose the demons who murdered those people on that day, and trying to make the pretexts for war in Syria exposed as a fraud, there's one place I always keep coming back to. And that is the snake pit of Bibi's regime in Tel Aviv. Where 911 was planned, and where the motivations to destroy Iraq are emanating from, and also where the orders to destroy Syria and piss in Putin's face are coming from. Fine.

    So, now to the point. Every time I try to make progress with being a peace maker, I run into that same old, tiresome, tedious invective. You can't critizice Bibi or Israel or say they have anything to do with foisting these wars, because to do so is "anti-Semitic"!

    And this seem to work with people. Like that lady in the video said, 'they use it all the time'. It shuts down criticism and puts a cork in the debate. The exact same way they use "climate denier" or Holocaust denier" or heavens- "racist" to shut down debate. And if we want to put an end to the madness of Eternal Wars for Israel, and finally express our outrage over the appalling treatment of the Palestinians, and do not want a war with Russia so that Israel can steal the Golan Heights, then we have to remove any power from these smear words, and laugh at them for the pathetic attempts at bullying that they are.

    Jimmy Carter

    Mel Gibson

    Judge Goldstone

    Helen Thomas

    Rodger Waters

    Ron Paul

    John Stewart

    Norman Finkelstein

    Bernie Sanders

    Jean Marie Le Pen

    Gary Oldman

    Pat Buchanan

    Louis Farrakhan

    John Mearsheimer

    Rurik

    ...

    http://www.greatamericanthings.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Spartacus-by-hercxena.wikiadotcom.jpg

  157. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama

    Yes, and the fact that by any impartial evaluation they are the hands down most successful lobby with perhaps the NRA being a very distant 2nd is one of the reasons one could say that they have earned the right to be referred to as the Lobby.
     
    Maybe so, and as I said earlier I am agnostic to the usage, reason to follow in my response to your other queries.

    I have read many of your comments and have the understanding that you are not happy with the current positions of the Israeli government in regards to the entire Palestinian conflict.
     
    Yes I think Netanyahu's positions, cobbled together with those of the conveniently biblical parasites, are both repulsive and inimical to the long-term interests of Israeli citizens. A saner policy would have been a sincerely demonstrated desire for the 2SS.
    [Now I have my own thoughts regarding the economic and civil viability of a state run by less than capable Pal leadership and population, but that is another story]

    That idea being rendered an unicorn and the 1SS increasingly taking the shape of nothing more than a god awful bantustan for the Pals [they have nowhere near the rights and resources compared to Israeli Arabs and Druze], I see a financial solution with relocation as an alternative for discussion. Its really a question of which alternative has the best chance of success while maximising the monetary rewards to the affected Pals.


    I am baffled by the idea that you think it is okay to use Jewish lobby interchangeably with Israel lobby. As you point out many members and contributors are not Jewish, this negates the idea that the lobby is a lobby composed of Jewish people.
     
    I am unaware of any other issue that any Jewish lobby has lobbied for [or lobbed at] POTUS and Congress. I am honestly unaware. [The wars waged by the USA being exceptions, since as I recall, while a number of Jewish administration leaders were with Bush II in crafting the second one [as were a greater many Christians etc], Jews in general were very ambivalent, and in fact less supportive of it than the general public, despite their [somewhat lukewarm] desire to support Dubya broadly. Also I am yet to be persuaded that Israel was behind those wars. Talking about PNAC etc. I consider an exercise of data fitting by peeking at the rear-view mirror. One could just as easily retrofit it as a reaction to a combination of world-powers' chess-moves on the region plus Dubya's own hubris. Did Israel benefit from it? Maybe.]

    On a related note. I notice a dog that is not barking. Netanyahu is obviously trying to bring Obama to heel on the aid package, yet I haven’t noticed any of our fellow commenters speaking out against a foreigner trying to manipulate our Prez.
     
    Quite sure that Obama effectively told Bibi to go get stuffed, with Congress quaking at the prospect of having to deal with Trump.

    Jews in general were very ambivalent, and in fact less supportive of it than the general public, despite their [somewhat lukewarm] desire to support Dubya broadly. Also I am yet to be persuaded that Israel was behind those wars.

    There you go again, Sam. Who do you think you’re fooling? Let me guess: the dumb goy?

    So Zionists were opposed to the idea of remaking the ME by regime changing those countries deemed hostile to the Zionist entity, all in an effort to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle? If they were indeed ambivalent, it was because of concern about the potential of backlash from the dumb goy.

    You wouldn’t happen to have a bridge to sell us, would you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Jews in general were very ambivalent, and in fact less supportive of it than the general public, despite their [somewhat lukewarm] desire to support Dubya broadly.

    This was in the article by M & W that you referenced. The level of American Jewish support for the 2nd Iraqi war was significantly less than the support by Americans as a whole.
    , @Sam Shama
    Hi Geo pls look at Iffen's reply and my agreement. The farthest thing in my mind is this notion that I am trying to fool anyone [btw were I to consider it, the UR would be the last place to attempt it]. All I do is thresh out my thoughts, share them with uncommonly clever people and receive criticism - and a measure of opprobrium along the way as well :)

    Did you get the chance to read the rest of my reply to Iffen #150, especially the part which speaks to the post hoc ergo propter hoc criticism that can very plausibly be directed to any thesis which attaches singular causality to PNAC?
  158. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    S2C I can honestly recount the following. There is a fair bit of dis-information emanating from all sides. When I speak to friends in the IDF, I sense frustration and resignation at the prospect of having to police civilian areas, where they might easily get injured or killed. They also repudiate the charge that orders are given to deliberately shoot at children. They typically do not shoot when stones are thrown [they can shoot blanks and stun grenades in retaliation to firebombs].

    I know that many videos circulating are doctored.

    Do I doubt that many children were killed? Absolutely I do not. I think those are overwhelmingly the acts of the gun-toting settlers.

    Writing on these incidents leaves one immediately vulnerable to the charge of acting as an apologist, which I suppose is fair game, and I really don't care; the truth as always is somewhere in the middle.

    I await the inevitable barrage.

    I await the inevitable barrage.

    Just curious, Sam. Why do you think Miko Peled, an Israeli Jew, says this:

    It’s important for people to stop talking about the occupation or the occupied territories.. as though they are limited parts of Palestine…. All of Israel is occupied Palestine, all of Israeli cities and towns are illegal settlements. And we have to start talking about it in those terms, otherwise we will never reach a solution, which relies on understanding this, and accepting the fact that we need to push for a transformation and the establishment of a democratic regime in Palestine.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/sanders-put-everything-on-the-line-for-palestine-because-bds-movement-has-changed-us-conversation-peled/

    Read More
  159. bondo says:
    @Sam Shama
    S2C I can honestly recount the following. There is a fair bit of dis-information emanating from all sides. When I speak to friends in the IDF, I sense frustration and resignation at the prospect of having to police civilian areas, where they might easily get injured or killed. They also repudiate the charge that orders are given to deliberately shoot at children. They typically do not shoot when stones are thrown [they can shoot blanks and stun grenades in retaliation to firebombs].

    I know that many videos circulating are doctored.

    Do I doubt that many children were killed? Absolutely I do not. I think those are overwhelmingly the acts of the gun-toting settlers.

    Writing on these incidents leaves one immediately vulnerable to the charge of acting as an apologist, which I suppose is fair game, and I really don't care; the truth as always is somewhere in the middle.

    I await the inevitable barrage.

    dissembler
    dissembling

    Read More
  160. iffen says:
    @geokat62

    Jews in general were very ambivalent, and in fact less supportive of it than the general public, despite their [somewhat lukewarm] desire to support Dubya broadly. Also I am yet to be persuaded that Israel was behind those wars.
     
    There you go again, Sam. Who do you think you're fooling? Let me guess: the dumb goy?

    So Zionists were opposed to the idea of remaking the ME by regime changing those countries deemed hostile to the Zionist entity, all in an effort to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle? If they were indeed ambivalent, it was because of concern about the potential of backlash from the dumb goy.

    You wouldn't happen to have a bridge to sell us, would you?

    Jews in general were very ambivalent, and in fact less supportive of it than the general public, despite their [somewhat lukewarm] desire to support Dubya broadly.

    This was in the article by M & W that you referenced. The level of American Jewish support for the 2nd Iraqi war was significantly less than the support by Americans as a whole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Exactly, as well reported by all major newspapers.
    , @geokat62

    This was in the article by M & W that you referenced. The level of American Jewish support for the 2nd Iraqi war was significantly less than the support by Americans as a whole.
     
    Take a closer look at what I wrote:

    "So Zionists were opposed to the idea of remaking the ME by regime changing those countries deemed hostile to the Zionist entity, all in an effort to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle? If they were indeed ambivalent, it was because of concern about the potential of backlash from the dumb goy."

    I wasn't denying the results of some poll. We all know how truthful people are in answering some poll questions. I was merely noting what the true sentiments of most Zionists must have been at the prospects of knowing that their continuous financial investment in the Lobby was finally going to payout a substantial dividend, in the following form:

    "It is hoped that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power will set in motion a ‘domino effect,’ will end the Palestinian Intifada, bring about the end of Yasser Arafat’s regime and eradicate the threat to Israel from Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.”
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/25/israel-american-jews-and-the-war-on-iraq/

     

    If we were to ask those who responded to these poll questions to voluntarily ingest a truth serum, do you really believe they would say they did not support the Lobby's efforts to get the US to remake the MENA by regime changing those countries deemed hostile to the Zionist entity, all in an effort to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle?

    Sam, are you willing to ingest the truth serum?
  161. iffen says:
    @Rurik

    Have you thought about the possibility that it would be easier to not be anti-Semitic
     
    >>sigh<<

    the point is this stupid charge of "anti-Semite" is an outrageous lie, (duh)

    97% of the people you and everyone else calls an anti-Semite are not (duh)

    they're just people who've grown weary and disgusted by some of the thing some Jews do

    but you can't resist this disgusting tactic because it has served Zionists (and Wall Street fraudsters and assorted villains who also happen to be Jews) as a cover for the criminal and obnoxios things that they do. duh

    Every time Bibi drops bombs on children, there you and he are, sanctimoniously pointing the finger and screeching "anti-Semites!!!" at all the people who're justifiably horrified at what he's doing over there.

    And if the world decided to say 'fuck you Bibi, we're all anti-Semites as far as you're concerned', then there's iffen saying 'well then stop being anti-Semites!

    ..and stop criticizing what Bibi's doing!

    Bibi is Jewish, and if you criticize him, that means you're a Nazi and an anti-Semite and want to push little Jewish girls into ovens!!!!

    well I say fuck all that. Fuck your tiresome narrative that any criticisms of Zionism can be silenced with smears and pathetic attempts at character assassination. Bibi is a war criminal who's guilty of myriad atrocities and crimes against humanity, and he should hang by the neck until his ugly white face turns purple and he dies an ignoble death to the thunderous cheers of 7 billion heartfelt voices thanking God almighty for long over due justice. And it isn't the slightest bit anti-Semitic to say that. And if anyone did, then I'd be the first to say that IF saying Bibi is a war criminal = means a person is anti-Semitic, then count me as the proudest anti-Semite in the whole fucking world.

    Now, having explained that, all I have to do is sit back and wait for the imbeciles to say, why do you hate Bibi? Why do you hate all Jews? Why are you an anti-Semite.

    And I admit I really don't know if they're that fucking stupid, or just that fucking rotten

    I am giving up on you. You either have poor reading comprehension or you are deliberately imputing thoughts and statements to me that I have not expressed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    deliberately imputing thoughts and statements to me that I have not expressed.
     
    there’s iffen saying ‘well then stop being anti-Semites!

    ..and stop criticizing what Bibi’s doing!

    Bibi is Jewish, and if you criticize him, that means you’re a Nazi and an anti-Semite and want to push little Jewish girls into ovens!!!!

    it's hyperbole; over-the-top sarcasm. No one read that thinking you had said those words. I wasn't quoting you, I was 'interpreting' the meaning of that word taken to its logical conclusion.

    when people equate criticism of Israel as proof of anti-Semitism (hatred of Jews for simply being Jewish), the intention is to smear all critics of Israel as racist, bigoted Adolf Hitlers who want to gas Ann Frank. That's how the meme has been constructed. That's how the narrative/paradigm works. And they've spent a lot of effort in Hollywood and elsewhere to make sure that's how it works.

    But I refuse to play along with that dishonest charade.

    For the record (Jr.), I couldn't be farther from an "anti-Semite" if I tried. I've loved and respected far too many people who happen to be Jews in my life to ever have anything but great affection for (many of) these people. But just as they can be very, very good ~ Jesus Christ, (Carl Sagan is a person hero of mine [RIP]) they can also be very, very bad - Benjamin Netanyahu, Abe Foxman, et al.

    And I don't shrink from mocking any and all who would try pathetically to use smear words to shut me down. ;)

  162. iffen says:
    @RobinG
    Lots of time wasted in this thread flaying that dead cow, anti-Semitism, while ignoring the meaning of Zionism. Is Zionism the belief in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state? Is Zionism the endorsement of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to enable the emergence of a Jewish state? Is Zionism the acceptance of the myth of a humble people who went to an empty land and made it bloom?

    Are you alleging that the "funding membership" of the Israel Lobby are the only real Zionists? Of course there is leadership, and there are big donors. But even though there are many Jews who don't list Israel in their top concerns, who don't consider themselves religious, etc., etc., very, very few would aver that Israel has no intrinsic right to exist as a Jewish state. (And BTW, wasn't that somebody's definition of anti-Semitism?) This applies even to most of those Jews who now detest Israeli policies --- hence Atzmon's designation "Anti-Zionist Zionists".

    Last year I posted a quote (James Petras?) about how the majority of Jews acquiesce to (and thereby support) the policies of the AIPAC leadership. No doubt many fear losing friends or being called self-hating Jews, but how much silence is needed to assume consent? This is about where Jr. accused me of being anti-Semitic, which I promptly rebuffed. Perhaps it's verboten to say that (most) Jews support a Jewish state in Palestine? (I'm speaking about American Jews, but I assume this holds true elsewhere.)

    At the moment I can only think of a handful of Jews who aren't devoted to a Jewish political entity, and except for my friend Bob they're all Israeli --- Atzmon, Miko Peled and his sister, and maybe Gideon Levy. All this is not to say that I don't recognize the value of numerous Jewish organizations, even J-Street who are very effective and reviled by the hard-liners.

    that dead cow, anti-Semitism

    if true, then why the rebuff?

    Jr. accused me of being anti-Semitic, which I promptly rebuffed

    Do you think that it is correct to use Jewish lobby interchangeably with Israel lobby?

    Every nation state has myths, foundational creeds, cultural or religious glue, sacred writings, etc. Why should Israel be considered any different. Why should Zionism be considered different from any other foundational myth?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    "The anti-Semitism “crisis” in Britain’s Labor party is a smoke screen to shield Israel and its supporters by changing the discourse from Israeli crimes...

    "... in the UK over ninety percent of Jews polled said that Israel forms some part of their identity, and therefore they view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.

    " A serious discussion on racism and intolerance is a good thing but a superficial discussion on anti-Semitism that is used as a smoke screen for Israel is never a good thing and needs to be exposed."

    http://ahtribune.com/human-rights/872-anti-semitism-is-everywhere.html
  163. Rurik says:
    @Junior
    Just wanted to begin with saying, I'm not gonna be around so pardon if any response goes un-answered for awhile.

    And then Tony Curtis stands up and says “I’m Spartacus”. And if we all stand up and say “I’m an anti-Semite”, or “I’m a Holocaust denier” or “I’m a climate denier!”, then it sort of makes a mockery of these loaded smear terms that they try to use to bludgeon people into silence with.
     
    I understand what you are saying in terms of wanting to take the power out of the word, but you are defining yourself with a derogatory term. I would liken it to when a Black Person calls themselves the "N word". (On a side note, here's a funny clip from Louis CK about people saying "N word" instead of the full word https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waehONGY-yI ) The excuse of "it's a term of endearment" or "taking the power out of the word" just doesn't cut it when you realize that referring to yourself as a derogatory term is degrading. As the late great Richard Pryor spoke about after returning from a trip to Africa:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AltWj4iAmno

    take the power out of the word, but you are defining yourself with a derogatory term.

    I don’t see it that way Jr.

    I’m not playing the game. The US has destroyed several countries in the last decade or so, and well over a million lives, and all done so on behalf of the racial supremacist regime currently in power in Israel today. Right now the US is busy with saber rattling provocations against Russia and China, basically telling Putin (and his wingman in China) to get out of Syria.

    You see the destruction of Iraq was simply part of Israel’s agenda of total domination of the Middle East, and Saddam and a prosperous and thriving Iraq was considered an obstacle. So my country went in there, (all based on lies as usual) and showed the world that the fiend is very much alive and well, and perfectly willing to wage wholesale slaughter on innocent civilians willy-nilly; when it comes to serving Israel’s Nazi regime. But then of course that wasn’t enough, (it’s never enough), so then we destroyed Libya, but that was part of larger agenda to destroy Syria so that Israel can steal the resource rich Golan Heights.

    But Putin stepped in and saved Syria, at least sort of, and so now we’re pissing in his face telling him to get out of Syria and accept his role as yet another lickspittle to Zion, like most of the leaders of Europe have become. But he’s not that kind of man, so now we have Bibi vs. Putin being waged by proxy using the US military and assorted “moderate” rebels all trying to slaughter the last obstacles to the complete destruction of the Syrian state, so that – yep, you got it, Israel can steal the Golan Heights.

    Now, you may wonder why I’ve wandered so far from a simple debate over that loaded term ‘anti-Semite’, and vexed over my country’s behavior as a drooling, bloodstained fiend on the world’s stage. But they are very much related.

    You see my agenda in posting here, is and always has been to try to do my small part to defuse the pigs of war. And so that’s why I often rail against the perps who’re really responsible for 911. Because that crime was deliberately intended as a ruse for using the US to crush all of Israel’s enemies. OK? So between trying to expose the demons who murdered those people on that day, and trying to make the pretexts for war in Syria exposed as a fraud, there’s one place I always keep coming back to. And that is the snake pit of Bibi’s regime in Tel Aviv. Where 911 was planned, and where the motivations to destroy Iraq are emanating from, and also where the orders to destroy Syria and piss in Putin’s face are coming from. Fine.

    So, now to the point. Every time I try to make progress with being a peace maker, I run into that same old, tiresome, tedious invective. You can’t critizice Bibi or Israel or say they have anything to do with foisting these wars, because to do so is “anti-Semitic”!

    And this seem to work with people. Like that lady in the video said, ‘they use it all the time’. It shuts down criticism and puts a cork in the debate. The exact same way they use “climate denier” or Holocaust denier” or heavens- “racist” to shut down debate. And if we want to put an end to the madness of Eternal Wars for Israel, and finally express our outrage over the appalling treatment of the Palestinians, and do not want a war with Russia so that Israel can steal the Golan Heights, then we have to remove any power from these smear words, and laugh at them for the pathetic attempts at bullying that they are.

    Jimmy Carter

    Mel Gibson

    Judge Goldstone

    Helen Thomas

    Rodger Waters

    Ron Paul

    John Stewart

    Norman Finkelstein

    Bernie Sanders

    Jean Marie Le Pen

    Gary Oldman

    Pat Buchanan

    Louis Farrakhan

    John Mearsheimer

    Rurik


    Read More
  164. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    Jews in general were very ambivalent, and in fact less supportive of it than the general public, despite their [somewhat lukewarm] desire to support Dubya broadly.

    This was in the article by M & W that you referenced. The level of American Jewish support for the 2nd Iraqi war was significantly less than the support by Americans as a whole.

    Exactly, as well reported by all major newspapers.

    Read More
  165. Rurik says:
    @iffen
    I am giving up on you. You either have poor reading comprehension or you are deliberately imputing thoughts and statements to me that I have not expressed.

    deliberately imputing thoughts and statements to me that I have not expressed.

    there’s iffen saying ‘well then stop being anti-Semites!

    ..and stop criticizing what Bibi’s doing!

    Bibi is Jewish, and if you criticize him, that means you’re a Nazi and an anti-Semite and want to push little Jewish girls into ovens!!!!

    it’s hyperbole; over-the-top sarcasm. No one read that thinking you had said those words. I wasn’t quoting you, I was ‘interpreting’ the meaning of that word taken to its logical conclusion.

    when people equate criticism of Israel as proof of anti-Semitism (hatred of Jews for simply being Jewish), the intention is to smear all critics of Israel as racist, bigoted Adolf Hitlers who want to gas Ann Frank. That’s how the meme has been constructed. That’s how the narrative/paradigm works. And they’ve spent a lot of effort in Hollywood and elsewhere to make sure that’s how it works.

    But I refuse to play along with that dishonest charade.

    For the record (Jr.), I couldn’t be farther from an “anti-Semite” if I tried. I’ve loved and respected far too many people who happen to be Jews in my life to ever have anything but great affection for (many of) these people. But just as they can be very, very good ~ Jesus Christ, (Carl Sagan is a person hero of mine [RIP]) they can also be very, very bad – Benjamin Netanyahu, Abe Foxman, et al.

    And I don’t shrink from mocking any and all who would try pathetically to use smear words to shut me down. ;)

    Read More
  166. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    Jews in general were very ambivalent, and in fact less supportive of it than the general public, despite their [somewhat lukewarm] desire to support Dubya broadly. Also I am yet to be persuaded that Israel was behind those wars.
     
    There you go again, Sam. Who do you think you're fooling? Let me guess: the dumb goy?

    So Zionists were opposed to the idea of remaking the ME by regime changing those countries deemed hostile to the Zionist entity, all in an effort to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle? If they were indeed ambivalent, it was because of concern about the potential of backlash from the dumb goy.

    You wouldn't happen to have a bridge to sell us, would you?

    Hi Geo pls look at Iffen’s reply and my agreement. The farthest thing in my mind is this notion that I am trying to fool anyone [btw were I to consider it, the UR would be the last place to attempt it]. All I do is thresh out my thoughts, share them with uncommonly clever people and receive criticism – and a measure of opprobrium along the way as well :)

    Did you get the chance to read the rest of my reply to Iffen #150, especially the part which speaks to the post hoc ergo propter hoc criticism that can very plausibly be directed to any thesis which attaches singular causality to PNAC?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    post hoc ergo propter hoc

    Clever Jews produced Bolsheviks in power >Hitler to power > WWII > Holocaust > British and American support secured for Jewish homeland in Palestine.

    Clever.
  167. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama

    Yes, and the fact that by any impartial evaluation they are the hands down most successful lobby with perhaps the NRA being a very distant 2nd is one of the reasons one could say that they have earned the right to be referred to as the Lobby.
     
    Maybe so, and as I said earlier I am agnostic to the usage, reason to follow in my response to your other queries.

    I have read many of your comments and have the understanding that you are not happy with the current positions of the Israeli government in regards to the entire Palestinian conflict.
     
    Yes I think Netanyahu's positions, cobbled together with those of the conveniently biblical parasites, are both repulsive and inimical to the long-term interests of Israeli citizens. A saner policy would have been a sincerely demonstrated desire for the 2SS.
    [Now I have my own thoughts regarding the economic and civil viability of a state run by less than capable Pal leadership and population, but that is another story]

    That idea being rendered an unicorn and the 1SS increasingly taking the shape of nothing more than a god awful bantustan for the Pals [they have nowhere near the rights and resources compared to Israeli Arabs and Druze], I see a financial solution with relocation as an alternative for discussion. Its really a question of which alternative has the best chance of success while maximising the monetary rewards to the affected Pals.


    I am baffled by the idea that you think it is okay to use Jewish lobby interchangeably with Israel lobby. As you point out many members and contributors are not Jewish, this negates the idea that the lobby is a lobby composed of Jewish people.
     
    I am unaware of any other issue that any Jewish lobby has lobbied for [or lobbed at] POTUS and Congress. I am honestly unaware. [The wars waged by the USA being exceptions, since as I recall, while a number of Jewish administration leaders were with Bush II in crafting the second one [as were a greater many Christians etc], Jews in general were very ambivalent, and in fact less supportive of it than the general public, despite their [somewhat lukewarm] desire to support Dubya broadly. Also I am yet to be persuaded that Israel was behind those wars. Talking about PNAC etc. I consider an exercise of data fitting by peeking at the rear-view mirror. One could just as easily retrofit it as a reaction to a combination of world-powers' chess-moves on the region plus Dubya's own hubris. Did Israel benefit from it? Maybe.]

    On a related note. I notice a dog that is not barking. Netanyahu is obviously trying to bring Obama to heel on the aid package, yet I haven’t noticed any of our fellow commenters speaking out against a foreigner trying to manipulate our Prez.
     
    Quite sure that Obama effectively told Bibi to go get stuffed, with Congress quaking at the prospect of having to deal with Trump.

    Quite sure that Obama effectively told Bibi to go get stuffed, with Congress quaking at the prospect of having to deal with Trump.

    Alternative: How about Bibi telling Obama to get stuffed while salivating at the prospect of dealing with Hillary?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Killary won't win, unless she is able to get Bernie on the ticket, which offer, given his age and the likely desire to not leave behind a dishonourable legacy, he will not accept. Trump will wipe the floor with her in the debates. What she lacks in charisma, integrity and inspiration can hardly be balanced by corpulence, avarice and dreariness.

    Bibi, my advise to him would be, " practice eating crow".
  168. Sam Shama says:
    @RobinG
    Lots of time wasted in this thread flaying that dead cow, anti-Semitism, while ignoring the meaning of Zionism. Is Zionism the belief in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state? Is Zionism the endorsement of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to enable the emergence of a Jewish state? Is Zionism the acceptance of the myth of a humble people who went to an empty land and made it bloom?

    Are you alleging that the "funding membership" of the Israel Lobby are the only real Zionists? Of course there is leadership, and there are big donors. But even though there are many Jews who don't list Israel in their top concerns, who don't consider themselves religious, etc., etc., very, very few would aver that Israel has no intrinsic right to exist as a Jewish state. (And BTW, wasn't that somebody's definition of anti-Semitism?) This applies even to most of those Jews who now detest Israeli policies --- hence Atzmon's designation "Anti-Zionist Zionists".

    Last year I posted a quote (James Petras?) about how the majority of Jews acquiesce to (and thereby support) the policies of the AIPAC leadership. No doubt many fear losing friends or being called self-hating Jews, but how much silence is needed to assume consent? This is about where Jr. accused me of being anti-Semitic, which I promptly rebuffed. Perhaps it's verboten to say that (most) Jews support a Jewish state in Palestine? (I'm speaking about American Jews, but I assume this holds true elsewhere.)

    At the moment I can only think of a handful of Jews who aren't devoted to a Jewish political entity, and except for my friend Bob they're all Israeli --- Atzmon, Miko Peled and his sister, and maybe Gideon Levy. All this is not to say that I don't recognize the value of numerous Jewish organizations, even J-Street who are very effective and reviled by the hard-liners.

    Hi Robin. You ask too many difficult questions lass! :-)

    Lots of time wasted in this thread flaying that dead cow, anti-Semitism, while ignoring the meaning of Zionism. Is Zionism the belief in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state? Is Zionism the endorsement of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to enable the emergence of a Jewish state? Is Zionism the acceptance of the myth of a humble people who went to an empty land and made it bloom?

    Zionism, prior to, and of my childhood in the 70′s and 80′s, was an idea beckoning Jews the world over to establish homestead on their ancestral land; the idea of a shared destiny, which did not ban by edict Arabs and other folk, guardians of the land for centuries, but rather invite them to eagerly contribute, harvest, rejoice and bequeath the land and its gifts. It did nevertheless argue for a Jewish majority.

    I cannot name the beast that prowls the land today. All that is left is to tame its basest instincts and salvage a semblance of Justice for the Pals.

    Are you alleging that the “funding membership” of the Israel Lobby are the only real Zionists?

    Not a bit given my sentiments above. They are though, travellers on the beast, some, of their own volition, many transported by their mute complicity.

    Perhaps it’s verboten to say that (most) Jews support a Jewish state in Palestine? (I’m speaking about American Jews, but I assume this holds true elsewhere.)

    Nothing should be forbidden, least of all wagging tongues that speak much truth [and much bollocks that self countervail]

    At the moment I can only think of a handful of Jews who aren’t devoted to a Jewish political entity, and except for my friend Bob they’re all Israeli — Atzmon, Miko Peled and his sister, and maybe Gideon Levy. All this is not to say that I don’t recognize the value of numerous Jewish organizations, even J-Street who are very effective and reviled by the hard-liners.

    Essentially true. People have lives to lead and make cost-benefit analyses all the time. I gather you consider the Jewish political entity to be, on balance, undesirable? If so you would be faced with innumerable dilemmas, and possibly realise as I have, that man isn’t equipped to solve all his problems endogenously – a measure of Justice is the most we can aspire to. These days I find myself granting passage on many of these matters, to hard-headed pragmatism even as I set a set of morally grounded ballasts of my own choosing, ones which keep pure reason at bay.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    The past couple weeks have been surprisingly productive, and along the way I've thought warmly of some of your comments. One thought is that we each do what we are able. (You go to your synagogue, I go to Congress, etc.) Another is incrementalism, on which I concur. If this nibbling increases exponentially....who knows. There has also been useful advice from surprising sources, and I'm now following the lecture schedule at the local Hebrew Congregation.

    However, I am so sorry, but the Zionism of your youth was a fiction, a fantasy, a myth. It may be what you were told, what you believed, but it was never true. I'm always citing Miko, and it's well explained in his book, but I have my own example. When Israel was the topic in my discussion group, one of the resource persons leading the meeting was an Israeli professor from a local university. She was supposed to represent Israel, but (due to her expertise and honesty) did almost the opposite. When one of our members (a woman in her 70's) asked whether things were as bad in the early days, when she had spent summers in kibbutz, the Israeli said it was always bad if you were a Palestinian. You could literally see this realization pressing down on the elderly woman. She was reduced almost to tears. Was it the fact of Israeli aggressions, or that she had personally been so duped, so deluded?

    Someone like Geo is sure to have the quotes at hand that show that early Zionists (from the 1890's even) were fully aware that there was a Palestinian population, and they intended to expel them. Perhaps the average Jews were idealistic, and that is why the leadership kept the brutal truth from them. And why they worked so hard in the early days after '48 producing their fantasy founding stories for gullible Americans.

    The "beast that prowls the land today" is exactly the same beast. The only difference is that its true nature has been revealed.

    You've used some peculiar turns of phrase lately ("keep pure reason at bay" and 'Jewish Lobby' etc.). Maybe you're reacting to the malice, sparring Jackie Chan style, or maybe you're brooding about something.
    "
  169. Anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer

    Wherᥱ opportunities abound, it gives tߋ toss
    үоur financial web online.

    Monetizing уօur expertise — ѡһether іn transcribing ߋr social network — іѕ one way whiⅼe resting
    ɑt your сomputer аt hⲟme to maake money.

    Read More
  170. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    Quite sure that Obama effectively told Bibi to go get stuffed, with Congress quaking at the prospect of having to deal with Trump.

    Alternative: How about Bibi telling Obama to get stuffed while salivating at the prospect of dealing with Hillary?

    Killary won’t win, unless she is able to get Bernie on the ticket, which offer, given his age and the likely desire to not leave behind a dishonourable legacy, he will not accept. Trump will wipe the floor with her in the debates. What she lacks in charisma, integrity and inspiration can hardly be balanced by corpulence, avarice and dreariness.

    Bibi, my advise to him would be, ” practice eating crow”.

    Read More
  171. Sam Shama says:
    @RobinG
    Lots of time wasted in this thread flaying that dead cow, anti-Semitism, while ignoring the meaning of Zionism. Is Zionism the belief in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state? Is Zionism the endorsement of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to enable the emergence of a Jewish state? Is Zionism the acceptance of the myth of a humble people who went to an empty land and made it bloom?

    Are you alleging that the "funding membership" of the Israel Lobby are the only real Zionists? Of course there is leadership, and there are big donors. But even though there are many Jews who don't list Israel in their top concerns, who don't consider themselves religious, etc., etc., very, very few would aver that Israel has no intrinsic right to exist as a Jewish state. (And BTW, wasn't that somebody's definition of anti-Semitism?) This applies even to most of those Jews who now detest Israeli policies --- hence Atzmon's designation "Anti-Zionist Zionists".

    Last year I posted a quote (James Petras?) about how the majority of Jews acquiesce to (and thereby support) the policies of the AIPAC leadership. No doubt many fear losing friends or being called self-hating Jews, but how much silence is needed to assume consent? This is about where Jr. accused me of being anti-Semitic, which I promptly rebuffed. Perhaps it's verboten to say that (most) Jews support a Jewish state in Palestine? (I'm speaking about American Jews, but I assume this holds true elsewhere.)

    At the moment I can only think of a handful of Jews who aren't devoted to a Jewish political entity, and except for my friend Bob they're all Israeli --- Atzmon, Miko Peled and his sister, and maybe Gideon Levy. All this is not to say that I don't recognize the value of numerous Jewish organizations, even J-Street who are very effective and reviled by the hard-liners.

    btw upon re-reading, my sentence re: wagging tongues was not directed at you, just so you know ;)

    Read More
  172. Art says:
    @Sam Shama
    S2C I can honestly recount the following. There is a fair bit of dis-information emanating from all sides. When I speak to friends in the IDF, I sense frustration and resignation at the prospect of having to police civilian areas, where they might easily get injured or killed. They also repudiate the charge that orders are given to deliberately shoot at children. They typically do not shoot when stones are thrown [they can shoot blanks and stun grenades in retaliation to firebombs].

    I know that many videos circulating are doctored.

    Do I doubt that many children were killed? Absolutely I do not. I think those are overwhelmingly the acts of the gun-toting settlers.

    Writing on these incidents leaves one immediately vulnerable to the charge of acting as an apologist, which I suppose is fair game, and I really don't care; the truth as always is somewhere in the middle.

    I await the inevitable barrage.

    When I speak to friends in the IDF, I sense frustration and resignation at the prospect of having to police civilian areas, where they might easily get injured or killed.

    Sam – I see and you and Netanyahu see eye to eye on the most moral army in the world.

    Every day things like this happen to Palestinians in your Israel.

    For Most Israelis, Palestinian Lives Don’t Matter

    http://lobelog.com/for-most-israelis-palestinian-lives-dont-matter/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I really don't understand your point re: Netanyahu, I agree with him??

    Also before you start pushing all that pious #ChristianLoveMoralitySomethingOrtheOther, you should look at this interactive map of all locations of historic battles fought from the year 2500 BC to present [Thanks to Talha for producing it]. Notice something about Christian Europe??

    http://battles.nodegoat.net/viewer.p/23/385/scenario/1/geo/fullscreen
  173. Sam Shama says:
    @Art

    When I speak to friends in the IDF, I sense frustration and resignation at the prospect of having to police civilian areas, where they might easily get injured or killed.
     
    Sam - I see and you and Netanyahu see eye to eye on the most moral army in the world.

    Every day things like this happen to Palestinians in your Israel.

    For Most Israelis, Palestinian Lives Don’t Matter

    http://lobelog.com/for-most-israelis-palestinian-lives-dont-matter/

    I really don’t understand your point re: Netanyahu, I agree with him??

    Also before you start pushing all that pious #ChristianLoveMoralitySomethingOrtheOther, you should look at this interactive map of all locations of historic battles fought from the year 2500 BC to present [Thanks to Talha for producing it]. Notice something about Christian Europe??

    http://battles.nodegoat.net/viewer.p/23/385/scenario/1/geo/fullscreen

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Hmm - How many of those battles did the Rothschild’s finance?

    p.s. Tribalism is a very bad thing - to bad Zionist Israel has it in spades.

    p.s. Big Jew tribalism is the worst in the world right now ---- sorry for you.
  174. Art says:
    @Sam Shama
    I really don't understand your point re: Netanyahu, I agree with him??

    Also before you start pushing all that pious #ChristianLoveMoralitySomethingOrtheOther, you should look at this interactive map of all locations of historic battles fought from the year 2500 BC to present [Thanks to Talha for producing it]. Notice something about Christian Europe??

    http://battles.nodegoat.net/viewer.p/23/385/scenario/1/geo/fullscreen

    Hmm – How many of those battles did the Rothschild’s finance?

    p.s. Tribalism is a very bad thing – to bad Zionist Israel has it in spades.

    p.s. Big Jew tribalism is the worst in the world right now —- sorry for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Hmmm you need to work on sharpening your deductive reasoning.

    The map spans from 2500 BC; "Rothschild Finance" which you and others mostly bandy around without a shred of reason, leave alone anything which amounts to a semblance of proof beyond lengthy copy and paste from obscurantists; and were I [in a generous moment] to accept the allegation, still leaves the conclusion intact and obvious to all but zealots.

    Take a count of the various shades of yellow and red, relate to dates and then re-assess your position.
  175. Sam Shama says:
    @Art
    Hmm - How many of those battles did the Rothschild’s finance?

    p.s. Tribalism is a very bad thing - to bad Zionist Israel has it in spades.

    p.s. Big Jew tribalism is the worst in the world right now ---- sorry for you.

    Hmmm you need to work on sharpening your deductive reasoning.

    The map spans from 2500 BC; “Rothschild Finance” which you and others mostly bandy around without a shred of reason, leave alone anything which amounts to a semblance of proof beyond lengthy copy and paste from obscurantists; and were I [in a generous moment] to accept the allegation, still leaves the conclusion intact and obvious to all but zealots.

    Take a count of the various shades of yellow and red, relate to dates and then re-assess your position.

    Read More
  176. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    Hi Geo pls look at Iffen's reply and my agreement. The farthest thing in my mind is this notion that I am trying to fool anyone [btw were I to consider it, the UR would be the last place to attempt it]. All I do is thresh out my thoughts, share them with uncommonly clever people and receive criticism - and a measure of opprobrium along the way as well :)

    Did you get the chance to read the rest of my reply to Iffen #150, especially the part which speaks to the post hoc ergo propter hoc criticism that can very plausibly be directed to any thesis which attaches singular causality to PNAC?

    post hoc ergo propter hoc

    Clever Jews produced Bolsheviks in power >Hitler to power > WWII > Holocaust > British and American support secured for Jewish homeland in Palestine.

    Clever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    LOL

    Some like S2C [and Art] actually trace a much longer timeline all the way from the Pharaoh of Egypt, Esther in Persia .....> homeland Palestine.

    With that sort of foresight and planning, you gentiles don't have a prayer. :)

    Whenever I encounter a stupid Jew [including myself every morning, as I negotiate the NYC traffic] I am still blinded by our relative brights!

  177. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    post hoc ergo propter hoc

    Clever Jews produced Bolsheviks in power >Hitler to power > WWII > Holocaust > British and American support secured for Jewish homeland in Palestine.

    Clever.

    LOL

    Some like S2C [and Art] actually trace a much longer timeline all the way from the Pharaoh of Egypt, Esther in Persia …..> homeland Palestine.

    With that sort of foresight and planning, you gentiles don’t have a prayer. :)

    Whenever I encounter a stupid Jew [including myself every morning, as I negotiate the NYC traffic] I am still blinded by our relative brights!

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Hmmmmm, how did all those Jews end up in Russia in the early 20th C? Very suspicious.

    Of course! No Pharaoh, no Exodus.

    , @iffen
    Sam,

    I have an idea as to why Jews have been given such a hard time in so many countries for so many centuries.

    God has it in for you.

    It derives from the Curse of Ham. This curse obviously came about from patriarchal and tribal infighting and was made up by some scribe to facilitate power politics. God found out about it and it really ticked him off. He said, “A curse? A curse! I’ll show you f***ers a curse”!
  178. Rurik says:
    @Sam Shama
    This video is a fake.

    This video is a fake.

    how do you know?

    is there a link to it being debunked?

    I looked but I didn’t see anything

    there’s this

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/11/israeli-troops-accused-children-gaza

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    more:

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/video-israeli-soldiers-celebrate-shooting-palestinian-teen-1460932

    http://www.viralalternativenews.com/2015/09/video-shows-idf-snipers-shooting.html

    http://muslimvillage.com/2014/09/02/57458/appalling-video-evidence-idf-snipers-shoot-palestinian-children/
  179. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    LOL

    Some like S2C [and Art] actually trace a much longer timeline all the way from the Pharaoh of Egypt, Esther in Persia .....> homeland Palestine.

    With that sort of foresight and planning, you gentiles don't have a prayer. :)

    Whenever I encounter a stupid Jew [including myself every morning, as I negotiate the NYC traffic] I am still blinded by our relative brights!

    Hmmmmm, how did all those Jews end up in Russia in the early 20th C? Very suspicious.

    Of course! No Pharaoh, no Exodus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    how did all those Jews end up in Russia in the early 20th C?
     
    maybe they were all Khazars in the first place (with zero ties to the land of Palestine)

    is Sam looking at a Khazar when he looks in the mirror every morning?

    does a member of a tribe from ancient Eurasia have more right to live in a land in the Middle East than the people who've lived there for millenniums?

    these are just some questions that the rest of us ponder from time to time when we're being anti-"Semitic" ;)

  180. Rurik says:
    @iffen
    Hmmmmm, how did all those Jews end up in Russia in the early 20th C? Very suspicious.

    Of course! No Pharaoh, no Exodus.

    how did all those Jews end up in Russia in the early 20th C?

    maybe they were all Khazars in the first place (with zero ties to the land of Palestine)

    is Sam looking at a Khazar when he looks in the mirror every morning?

    does a member of a tribe from ancient Eurasia have more right to live in a land in the Middle East than the people who’ve lived there for millenniums?

    these are just some questions that the rest of us ponder from time to time when we’re being anti-”Semitic” ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    We are on different pages.

    I don’t give a ff whether you are anti-Semitic or not.
  181. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    LOL

    Some like S2C [and Art] actually trace a much longer timeline all the way from the Pharaoh of Egypt, Esther in Persia .....> homeland Palestine.

    With that sort of foresight and planning, you gentiles don't have a prayer. :)

    Whenever I encounter a stupid Jew [including myself every morning, as I negotiate the NYC traffic] I am still blinded by our relative brights!

    Sam,

    I have an idea as to why Jews have been given such a hard time in so many countries for so many centuries.

    God has it in for you.

    It derives from the Curse of Ham. This curse obviously came about from patriarchal and tribal infighting and was made up by some scribe to facilitate power politics. God found out about it and it really ticked him off. He said, “A curse? A curse! I’ll show you f***ers a curse”!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Sam,

    If it were not for the Rothschild bankers after WWI, the Commie Jews that ran Russia, and now Israel in the ME - the West would have had peace long ago.

    I know those big picture facts hurt - but they must be said.

    Sorry - Art

    p.s. The troubles that the West has had in the past, were with humanity from the start.

    p.s. It is Christianity that has begun to change things.

    p.s. We Christians acknowledge our faults - we acknowledge our tribalism.

    p.s. Your turn.
    , @Sam Shama
    Hahaha, right.

    For a quick moment there, upon setting my eyes on 'Curse of Ham', thoughts flashed 'Golly, did we really? Eat the stuff once and have regretted it ever since?' [cue Charleton Heston striking down as the heavens part]

    Interesting speculation re: power politics though. Speaking of which rumours abound re: Trump VP might be a kyke....
  182. iffen says:
    @Rurik

    how did all those Jews end up in Russia in the early 20th C?
     
    maybe they were all Khazars in the first place (with zero ties to the land of Palestine)

    is Sam looking at a Khazar when he looks in the mirror every morning?

    does a member of a tribe from ancient Eurasia have more right to live in a land in the Middle East than the people who've lived there for millenniums?

    these are just some questions that the rest of us ponder from time to time when we're being anti-"Semitic" ;)

    We are on different pages.

    I don’t give a ff whether you are anti-Semitic or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    I don’t give a ff whether you are anti-Semitic or not.
     
    you were the one that called me that

    I didn't bring it up, so when I'm smeared and slandered, I like to make sure things are clear

    had you not called me that, it would have been a non-issue ;)

    duh
  183. Art says:
    @iffen
    Sam,

    I have an idea as to why Jews have been given such a hard time in so many countries for so many centuries.

    God has it in for you.

    It derives from the Curse of Ham. This curse obviously came about from patriarchal and tribal infighting and was made up by some scribe to facilitate power politics. God found out about it and it really ticked him off. He said, “A curse? A curse! I’ll show you f***ers a curse”!

    Sam,

    If it were not for the Rothschild bankers after WWI, the Commie Jews that ran Russia, and now Israel in the ME – the West would have had peace long ago.

    I know those big picture facts hurt – but they must be said.

    Sorry – Art

    p.s. The troubles that the West has had in the past, were with humanity from the start.

    p.s. It is Christianity that has begun to change things.

    p.s. We Christians acknowledge our faults – we acknowledge our tribalism.

    p.s. Your turn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Sorry Artie,
    If that is what you believe, that we've planned all these elaborate centuries-spanning events, that Rothschild and his proxies had had and continues to have full control over your lives, then you are basically fucked mate [I know its late and my reserve is failing].
    And Jesus the Jew was complicit with his tribe, and ain't gonna help you.

    p.s. We Jews acknowledge our power.

  184. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    Sam,

    I have an idea as to why Jews have been given such a hard time in so many countries for so many centuries.

    God has it in for you.

    It derives from the Curse of Ham. This curse obviously came about from patriarchal and tribal infighting and was made up by some scribe to facilitate power politics. God found out about it and it really ticked him off. He said, “A curse? A curse! I’ll show you f***ers a curse”!

    Hahaha, right.

    For a quick moment there, upon setting my eyes on ‘Curse of Ham’, thoughts flashed ‘Golly, did we really? Eat the stuff once and have regretted it ever since?’ [cue Charleton Heston striking down as the heavens part]

    Interesting speculation re: power politics though. Speaking of which rumours abound re: Trump VP might be a kyke….

    Read More
  185. Sam Shama says:
    @Sam Shama
    Hahaha, right.

    For a quick moment there, upon setting my eyes on 'Curse of Ham', thoughts flashed 'Golly, did we really? Eat the stuff once and have regretted it ever since?' [cue Charleton Heston striking down as the heavens part]

    Interesting speculation re: power politics though. Speaking of which rumours abound re: Trump VP might be a kyke....

    Not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Not ham. Ham. Curse of Canaan.

    Geez, don't you even read your own Bible.
  186. geokat62 says:
    @iffen
    Jews in general were very ambivalent, and in fact less supportive of it than the general public, despite their [somewhat lukewarm] desire to support Dubya broadly.

    This was in the article by M & W that you referenced. The level of American Jewish support for the 2nd Iraqi war was significantly less than the support by Americans as a whole.

    This was in the article by M & W that you referenced. The level of American Jewish support for the 2nd Iraqi war was significantly less than the support by Americans as a whole.

    Take a closer look at what I wrote:

    “So Zionists were opposed to the idea of remaking the ME by regime changing those countries deemed hostile to the Zionist entity, all in an effort to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle? If they were indeed ambivalent, it was because of concern about the potential of backlash from the dumb goy.”

    I wasn’t denying the results of some poll. We all know how truthful people are in answering some poll questions. I was merely noting what the true sentiments of most Zionists must have been at the prospects of knowing that their continuous financial investment in the Lobby was finally going to payout a substantial dividend, in the following form:

    “It is hoped that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power will set in motion a ‘domino effect,’ will end the Palestinian Intifada, bring about the end of Yasser Arafat’s regime and eradicate the threat to Israel from Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.”

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/25/israel-american-jews-and-the-war-on-iraq/

    If we were to ask those who responded to these poll questions to voluntarily ingest a truth serum, do you really believe they would say they did not support the Lobby’s efforts to get the US to remake the MENA by regime changing those countries deemed hostile to the Zionist entity, all in an effort to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle?

    Sam, are you willing to ingest the truth serum?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I was merely noting what the true sentiments

    Sent by God to reveal what is "true"?

    Sam can volley with you mental midgets, not me.
    , @Sam Shama
    Hey Geo
    I'll ingest whatever serum. Any money back guarantees?

    So you actually, seriously, believe that Iffen's little satire is not a satire, but in fact the genuine article ?

    That is



    post hoc ergo propter hoc

    Clever Jews produced Bolsheviks in power >Hitler to power > WWII > Holocaust > British and American support secured for Jewish homeland in Palestine.

     

    Come on.
  187. Rurik says:
    @iffen
    We are on different pages.

    I don’t give a ff whether you are anti-Semitic or not.

    I don’t give a ff whether you are anti-Semitic or not.

    you were the one that called me that

    I didn’t bring it up, so when I’m smeared and slandered, I like to make sure things are clear

    had you not called me that, it would have been a non-issue ;)

    duh

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    It's definitely your reading comprehension.

    I didn't call you anti-Semitic. I said that if someone claims the victim provoked their persecution that would be self-justification. If we are talking about Jews then it would be anti-Semitic. You said that was not your intent.

    Again, I don't care whether you are or not.
  188. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    Not.

    Not ham. Ham. Curse of Canaan.

    Geez, don’t you even read your own Bible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Aye, I recognised Ham [took a few seconds since Shem and Japheth were nowhere to be found], but as you know pigs being a special obsession for us, the attempt at wit clearly fell flat.

    I'll try better next time. And read the Bible

  189. iffen says:
    @Rurik

    I don’t give a ff whether you are anti-Semitic or not.
     
    you were the one that called me that

    I didn't bring it up, so when I'm smeared and slandered, I like to make sure things are clear

    had you not called me that, it would have been a non-issue ;)

    duh

    It’s definitely your reading comprehension.

    I didn’t call you anti-Semitic. I said that if someone claims the victim provoked their persecution that would be self-justification. If we are talking about Jews then it would be anti-Semitic. You said that was not your intent.

    Again, I don’t care whether you are or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    I didn’t call you anti-Semitic. I said that if someone claims the victim provoked their persecution that would be self-justification. If we are talking about Jews then it would be anti-Semitic. You said that was not your intent.

    Again, I don’t care whether you are or not.
     
    Say, are you saying that the Jews do not deserve the condemnation of the world for their treatment of the Palestinians?

    How could an honest person say that?

    p.s. Me thinks that you DO care!

    p.s. Hmm - there is that honesty question again?

    p.s. Why does dishonesty always swirl around Jew matters?
    , @Rurik

    I didn’t call you anti-Semitic.
     
    iffen to Rurik:

    "Have you thought about the possibility that it would be easier to not be anti-Semitic"

    "You are blaming Jews for creating anti-Semitism, that’s anti-Semitic."

    and your entire schtick on this thread has been a relentless smear of all the people appalled at the treatment of the Palestinians as somehow motivated by 'anti-Semitism', because 'why don't we all care just as much about the other genocides going on all over'.

    now when called on it, you hide under a rock and say you never called me an anti-Semite and you could care less who is or who isn't or anything about any of it. Why am I even bringing it up?!

    but the truth is the people who honestly could care less are the ones who didn't bother to comment on this thread about the subject. Not the ones who deliberately made a point of smearing good and compassionate people as "anti-Semites" - clearly as an apologist for Zionism and the occupation and ethnic cleansing and murder and theft and racial supremacism as it's being practiced today in the holy land.

    for the record ;)
  190. iffen says:
    @geokat62

    This was in the article by M & W that you referenced. The level of American Jewish support for the 2nd Iraqi war was significantly less than the support by Americans as a whole.
     
    Take a closer look at what I wrote:

    "So Zionists were opposed to the idea of remaking the ME by regime changing those countries deemed hostile to the Zionist entity, all in an effort to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle? If they were indeed ambivalent, it was because of concern about the potential of backlash from the dumb goy."

    I wasn't denying the results of some poll. We all know how truthful people are in answering some poll questions. I was merely noting what the true sentiments of most Zionists must have been at the prospects of knowing that their continuous financial investment in the Lobby was finally going to payout a substantial dividend, in the following form:

    "It is hoped that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power will set in motion a ‘domino effect,’ will end the Palestinian Intifada, bring about the end of Yasser Arafat’s regime and eradicate the threat to Israel from Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.”
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/25/israel-american-jews-and-the-war-on-iraq/

     

    If we were to ask those who responded to these poll questions to voluntarily ingest a truth serum, do you really believe they would say they did not support the Lobby's efforts to get the US to remake the MENA by regime changing those countries deemed hostile to the Zionist entity, all in an effort to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle?

    Sam, are you willing to ingest the truth serum?

    I was merely noting what the true sentiments

    Sent by God to reveal what is “true”?

    Sam can volley with you mental midgets, not me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Sam can volley with you mental midgets, not me.
     
    I didn't realize I was interacting with a Titan of Thought... apologies there Mr. Einstein.
  191. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    Not ham. Ham. Curse of Canaan.

    Geez, don't you even read your own Bible.

    Aye, I recognised Ham [took a few seconds since Shem and Japheth were nowhere to be found], but as you know pigs being a special obsession for us, the attempt at wit clearly fell flat.

    I’ll try better next time. And read the Bible

    Read More
  192. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    This was in the article by M & W that you referenced. The level of American Jewish support for the 2nd Iraqi war was significantly less than the support by Americans as a whole.
     
    Take a closer look at what I wrote:

    "So Zionists were opposed to the idea of remaking the ME by regime changing those countries deemed hostile to the Zionist entity, all in an effort to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle? If they were indeed ambivalent, it was because of concern about the potential of backlash from the dumb goy."

    I wasn't denying the results of some poll. We all know how truthful people are in answering some poll questions. I was merely noting what the true sentiments of most Zionists must have been at the prospects of knowing that their continuous financial investment in the Lobby was finally going to payout a substantial dividend, in the following form:

    "It is hoped that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power will set in motion a ‘domino effect,’ will end the Palestinian Intifada, bring about the end of Yasser Arafat’s regime and eradicate the threat to Israel from Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.”
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/25/israel-american-jews-and-the-war-on-iraq/

     

    If we were to ask those who responded to these poll questions to voluntarily ingest a truth serum, do you really believe they would say they did not support the Lobby's efforts to get the US to remake the MENA by regime changing those countries deemed hostile to the Zionist entity, all in an effort to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle?

    Sam, are you willing to ingest the truth serum?

    Hey Geo
    I’ll ingest whatever serum. Any money back guarantees?

    So you actually, seriously, believe that Iffen’s little satire is not a satire, but in fact the genuine article ?

    That is

    post hoc ergo propter hoc

    Clever Jews produced Bolsheviks in power >Hitler to power > WWII > Holocaust > British and American support secured for Jewish homeland in Palestine.

    Come on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    So you actually, seriously, believe that Iffen’s little satire is not a satire, but in fact the genuine article ?
     
    Sam, my comment to you had nothing to do with the Titan of Thought's "little satire." I was merely pointing out that 1) if most American Jewry consider themselves to be Zionists, something if I'm not mistaken you alerted us to in one of your previous comments, and 2) given that most Israeli Jews celebrated the invasion of Iraq as part of the wars to remake the MENA designed to enhance their security, then 3) I am skeptical of polling results that suggest American Jewry did not support these wars. That's it... nothing more, nothing less.
  193. Sam Shama says:
    @Art
    Sam,

    If it were not for the Rothschild bankers after WWI, the Commie Jews that ran Russia, and now Israel in the ME - the West would have had peace long ago.

    I know those big picture facts hurt - but they must be said.

    Sorry - Art

    p.s. The troubles that the West has had in the past, were with humanity from the start.

    p.s. It is Christianity that has begun to change things.

    p.s. We Christians acknowledge our faults - we acknowledge our tribalism.

    p.s. Your turn.

    Sorry Artie,
    If that is what you believe, that we’ve planned all these elaborate centuries-spanning events, that Rothschild and his proxies had had and continues to have full control over your lives, then you are basically fucked mate [I know its late and my reserve is failing].
    And Jesus the Jew was complicit with his tribe, and ain’t gonna help you.

    p.s. We Jews acknowledge our power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    p.s. We Jews acknowledge our power.

    So did all these Jews!

    Then they got kicked out!

    Hmm

    YEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PLACE

    250 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Carthage
    415 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Alexandria
    554 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Diocèse of Clermont (France)
    561 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Diocèse of Uzès (France)
    612 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Visigoth Spain
    642 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Visigoth Empire
    855 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Italy
    876 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sens
    1012 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mainz
    1182 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France
    1182 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Germany
    1276 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Upper Bavaria
    1290 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - England
    1306 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France
    1322 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France (again)
    1348 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Switzerland
    1349 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hielbronn (Germany)
    1349 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Saxony
    1349 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hungary
    1360 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hungary
    1370 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Belgium
    1380 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Slovakia
    1388 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strasbourg
    1394 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Germany
    1394 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France
    1420 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lyons
    1421 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Austria
    1424 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fribourg
    1424 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Zurich
    1424 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cologne
    1432 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Savoy
    1438 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mainz
    1439 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Augsburg
    1442 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Netherlands
    1444 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Netherlands
    1446 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bavaria
    1453 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France
    1453 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Breslau
    1454 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wurzburg
    1462 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mainz
    1483 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mainz
    1484 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Warsaw
    1485 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vincenza (Italy)
    1492 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Spain
    1492 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Italy
    1495 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lithuania
    1496 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Naples
    1496 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Portugal
    1498 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nuremberg
    1498 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Navarre
    1510 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brandenberg
    1510 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prussia
    1514 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strasbourg
    1515 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Genoa
    1519 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Regensburg
    1533 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Naples
    1541 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Naples
    1542 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prague & Bohemia
    1550 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Genoa
    1551 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bavaria
    1555 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pesaro
    1557 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prague
    1559 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Austria
    1561 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prague
    1567 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wurzburg
    1569 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Papal States
    1571 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brandenburg
    1582 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Netherlands
    1582 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hungary
    1593 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brandenburg, Austria
    1597 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cremona, Pavia & Lodi
    1614 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Frankfort
    1615 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Worms
    1619 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Kiev
    1648 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ukraine
    1648 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Poland
    1649 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hamburg
    1654 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Little Russia (Beylorus)
    1656 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lithuania
    1669 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Oran (North Africa)
    1669 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vienna
    1670 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vienna
    1712 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sandomir
    1727 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Russia
    1738 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wurtemburg
    1740 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Little Russia (Beylorus)
    1744 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prague, Bohemia
    1744 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Slovakia
    1744 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Livonia
    1745 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Moravia
    1753 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Kovad (Lithuania)
    1761 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bordeaux
    1772 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Deported to the Pale of Settlement (Poland/Russia)
    1775 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Warsaw
    1789 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Alsace
    1804 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Villages in Russia
    1808 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Villages & Countrysides (Russia)
    1815 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbeck & Bremen
    1815 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria
    1820 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bremen
    1843 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Russian Border Austria & Prussia
    1862 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Areas in the U.S. under General Grant's Jurisdiction[1]
    1866 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Galatz, Romania
    1880s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Russia
    1891 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Moscow
    1919 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bavaria (foreign born Jews)
    1938-45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nazi Controlled Areas
    1948 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Arab Countries
    , @helena
    "we’ve planned all these elaborate centuries-spanning events"

    'planned' only in an HBD way - different groups of people develop in different ways - Jewish culture is different from European (Indo-European) culture. Anti-Semitism properly used is a measure of Semitisation of European culture. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy. Jewish morality allows behaviour that Christian morality did not (and vice versa). Jewish morality, as a mode of existence, seems to have more popular appeal than Christian morality.

    "you are basically fucked mate"

    'fckd' in the sense of culturally in decline, agree.

    "Jesus the Jew"

    Or, the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier/officer?
    , @Art
    And Jesus the Jew was complicit with his tribe, and ain’t gonna help you.

    Sam,

    Your obvious contempt for the goodness of Jesus Christ is telling. Jesus is part of Western culture - He is with us every day. You do tell one truth - you Jew are working to kill Jesus again.

    Art

    Every religion has two components to it – first it explains one’s connection to a god and then it provides a prescription for living with others – each religion has a philosophy for living. Jesus Christ was an idealist – that is why through the last two thousand years He has been embraced by good people. The Christian philosophy is the champion of having hope, saying that life is sacred, saying to love your neighbor as you love yourself, of seeking truth, of forgiving, and of extending grace to all. All these fine things are ideals. None of these ideals is 100% reachable. The beautify of Christian idealism is that in order to prosper, one does NOT need to reach these ideals all the time.

    Whether Jesus was the son of god, or the result of a virgin birth, or arose from the dead is immaterial. One does not have to believe these thing to love Jesus. One does not have to believe these things to gather with others and celebrate His life and embrace His ideals.

    Christianity must be grateful to Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. It brought on a freedom for the individual Christian - the Catholic Church of that time wheeled a most crushing un-Christian power over its adherents. But Protestantism also created a problem, in its search for an authority to govern itself, it embraced the Old Testament Bible over Christ’s idealist teaching. It brought back the Old Testament into prominence which is 100% different from the teachings of Christian Philosophy. This is where Christianity goes wrong.

     

  194. Art says:
    @iffen
    It's definitely your reading comprehension.

    I didn't call you anti-Semitic. I said that if someone claims the victim provoked their persecution that would be self-justification. If we are talking about Jews then it would be anti-Semitic. You said that was not your intent.

    Again, I don't care whether you are or not.

    I didn’t call you anti-Semitic. I said that if someone claims the victim provoked their persecution that would be self-justification. If we are talking about Jews then it would be anti-Semitic. You said that was not your intent.

    Again, I don’t care whether you are or not.

    Say, are you saying that the Jews do not deserve the condemnation of the world for their treatment of the Palestinians?

    How could an honest person say that?

    p.s. Me thinks that you DO care!

    p.s. Hmm – there is that honesty question again?

    p.s. Why does dishonesty always swirl around Jew matters?

    Read More
  195. Art says:
    @Sam Shama
    Sorry Artie,
    If that is what you believe, that we've planned all these elaborate centuries-spanning events, that Rothschild and his proxies had had and continues to have full control over your lives, then you are basically fucked mate [I know its late and my reserve is failing].
    And Jesus the Jew was complicit with his tribe, and ain't gonna help you.

    p.s. We Jews acknowledge our power.

    p.s. We Jews acknowledge our power.

    So did all these Jews!

    Then they got kicked out!

    Hmm

    YEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PLACE

    [MORE]

    250 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Carthage
    415 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Alexandria
    554 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Diocèse of Clermont (France)
    561 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Diocèse of Uzès (France)
    612 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Visigoth Spain
    642 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Visigoth Empire
    855 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Italy
    876 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Sens
    1012 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Mainz
    1182 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France
    1182 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Germany
    1276 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Upper Bavaria
    1290 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – England
    1306 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France
    1322 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France (again)
    1348 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Switzerland
    1349 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hielbronn (Germany)
    1349 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Saxony
    1349 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hungary
    1360 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hungary
    1370 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Belgium
    1380 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Slovakia
    1388 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Strasbourg
    1394 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Germany
    1394 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France
    1420 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Lyons
    1421 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Austria
    1424 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Fribourg
    1424 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Zurich
    1424 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Cologne
    1432 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Savoy
    1438 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Mainz
    1439 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Augsburg
    1442 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Netherlands
    1444 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Netherlands
    1446 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Bavaria
    1453 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France
    1453 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Breslau
    1454 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Wurzburg
    1462 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Mainz
    1483 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Mainz
    1484 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Warsaw
    1485 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Vincenza (Italy)
    1492 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Spain
    1492 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Italy
    1495 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Lithuania
    1496 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Naples
    1496 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Portugal
    1498 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Nuremberg
    1498 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Navarre
    1510 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Brandenberg
    1510 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prussia
    1514 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Strasbourg
    1515 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Genoa
    1519 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Regensburg
    1533 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Naples
    1541 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Naples
    1542 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prague & Bohemia
    1550 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Genoa
    1551 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Bavaria
    1555 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Pesaro
    1557 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prague
    1559 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Austria
    1561 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prague
    1567 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Wurzburg
    1569 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Papal States
    1571 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Brandenburg
    1582 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Netherlands
    1582 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hungary
    1593 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Brandenburg, Austria
    1597 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Cremona, Pavia & Lodi
    1614 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Frankfort
    1615 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Worms
    1619 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Kiev
    1648 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Ukraine
    1648 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Poland
    1649 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hamburg
    1654 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Little Russia (Beylorus)
    1656 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Lithuania
    1669 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Oran (North Africa)
    1669 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Vienna
    1670 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Vienna
    1712 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Sandomir
    1727 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Russia
    1738 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Wurtemburg
    1740 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Little Russia (Beylorus)
    1744 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prague, Bohemia
    1744 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Slovakia
    1744 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Livonia
    1745 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Moravia
    1753 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Kovad (Lithuania)
    1761 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Bordeaux
    1772 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Deported to the Pale of Settlement (Poland/Russia)
    1775 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Warsaw
    1789 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Alsace
    1804 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Villages in Russia
    1808 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Villages & Countrysides (Russia)
    1815 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Lbeck & Bremen
    1815 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria
    1820 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Bremen
    1843 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Russian Border Austria & Prussia
    1862 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Areas in the U.S. under General Grant’s Jurisdiction[1]
    1866 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Galatz, Romania
    1880s – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Russia
    1891 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Moscow
    1919 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Bavaria (foreign born Jews)
    1938-45 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Nazi Controlled Areas
    1948 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Arab Countries

    Read More
    • Replies: @bondo
    2020 ------------ palestine
    , @Sam Shama
    How many 'Art' s are on this group shared name, may one ask? [I distinctly recall Art telling us that 'Hey Sam little Jew, I don't know JEW history"

    You see the trouble with that little list is, can you guess?

    clue: Et in Arcadia ego
  196. helena says:
    @Sam Shama
    Sorry Artie,
    If that is what you believe, that we've planned all these elaborate centuries-spanning events, that Rothschild and his proxies had had and continues to have full control over your lives, then you are basically fucked mate [I know its late and my reserve is failing].
    And Jesus the Jew was complicit with his tribe, and ain't gonna help you.

    p.s. We Jews acknowledge our power.

    “we’ve planned all these elaborate centuries-spanning events”

    ‘planned’ only in an HBD way – different groups of people develop in different ways – Jewish culture is different from European (Indo-European) culture. Anti-Semitism properly used is a measure of Semitisation of European culture. There doesn’t need to be a conspiracy. Jewish morality allows behaviour that Christian morality did not (and vice versa). Jewish morality, as a mode of existence, seems to have more popular appeal than Christian morality.

    “you are basically fucked mate”

    ‘fckd’ in the sense of culturally in decline, agree.

    “Jesus the Jew”

    Or, the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier/officer?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    There doesn’t need to be a conspiracy.

    No, it could just be a variety of magic dust.

    Whatever it is, I feel sorry for them. They have landed on the Final Solution in Israel and Palestine and it is the Catch 22 tar baby from Hell.
    , @Sam Shama
    Helena, its an interesting proposition.

    Jewish "behaviour" [code word for greed?] being inexorably driven by genetic forces. Its possible of course, and perhaps even concordant with broader popular urban myth, the same one that has,

    "Wops wear silk suits and will 'off' yer for little reason"

    or,

    "Trouble always from them damn Cat-lick Fenians!" or something something something.

    Helena, I am not attempting to guilt bait you, as a matter of fact I have always wondered about the exegesis of stereotypes, holding the view that at least some of it must be based on some common experience and observation. I am unaware of any genetic studies that have isolated specific gene networks explaining greed, violence or whatever. There are some psychology papers, attempting to gain greater rank via 'genetics' but they are not very satisfying [you know identical twins life-time behaviour] in the sense they are indirect, inferential and at most indicative rather than definitive.

    However, if I were to concede that Jewish culture and behaviour has taken hold globally,
    [which I really don't; I behave quite varyingly, depending on whether I am in the U.K. - far more reserved, polite smiles, not directly staring at strangers in the eye when walking in London, voices lowered when in Oxfordshire. etc, vs louder, open with opinions, preferences, and generally effused with sang froid when in New York and good god, certainly in Tel Aviv! I find the changes almost involuntary tbh] can you craft an opinion re: its agreeableness or otherwise?
  197. geokat62 says:
    @iffen
    I was merely noting what the true sentiments

    Sent by God to reveal what is "true"?

    Sam can volley with you mental midgets, not me.

    Sam can volley with you mental midgets, not me.

    I didn’t realize I was interacting with a Titan of Thought… apologies there Mr. Einstein.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I didn’t realize I was interacting with

    In fairness to you, how would you be able to figure that out?

    Maybe you should recalibrate your approach to "people the likes of you[me]."

  198. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    Hey Geo
    I'll ingest whatever serum. Any money back guarantees?

    So you actually, seriously, believe that Iffen's little satire is not a satire, but in fact the genuine article ?

    That is



    post hoc ergo propter hoc

    Clever Jews produced Bolsheviks in power >Hitler to power > WWII > Holocaust > British and American support secured for Jewish homeland in Palestine.

     

    Come on.

    So you actually, seriously, believe that Iffen’s little satire is not a satire, but in fact the genuine article ?

    Sam, my comment to you had nothing to do with the Titan of Thought’s “little satire.” I was merely pointing out that 1) if most American Jewry consider themselves to be Zionists, something if I’m not mistaken you alerted us to in one of your previous comments, and 2) given that most Israeli Jews celebrated the invasion of Iraq as part of the wars to remake the MENA designed to enhance their security, then 3) I am skeptical of polling results that suggest American Jewry did not support these wars. That’s it… nothing more, nothing less.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Ok Geo, I got your points. Just don't completely agree with your suspicions re: (3). As for (2), I concede that many American Jews are Zio Lite , whatever, on account of their mute complicity [life gets in the way and cheques are written mechanically]
  199. iffen says:
    @helena
    "we’ve planned all these elaborate centuries-spanning events"

    'planned' only in an HBD way - different groups of people develop in different ways - Jewish culture is different from European (Indo-European) culture. Anti-Semitism properly used is a measure of Semitisation of European culture. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy. Jewish morality allows behaviour that Christian morality did not (and vice versa). Jewish morality, as a mode of existence, seems to have more popular appeal than Christian morality.

    "you are basically fucked mate"

    'fckd' in the sense of culturally in decline, agree.

    "Jesus the Jew"

    Or, the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier/officer?

    There doesn’t need to be a conspiracy.

    No, it could just be a variety of magic dust.

    Whatever it is, I feel sorry for them. They have landed on the Final Solution in Israel and Palestine and it is the Catch 22 tar baby from Hell.

    Read More
  200. bondo says:
    @Art
    p.s. We Jews acknowledge our power.

    So did all these Jews!

    Then they got kicked out!

    Hmm

    YEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PLACE

    250 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Carthage
    415 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Alexandria
    554 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Diocèse of Clermont (France)
    561 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Diocèse of Uzès (France)
    612 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Visigoth Spain
    642 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Visigoth Empire
    855 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Italy
    876 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sens
    1012 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mainz
    1182 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France
    1182 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Germany
    1276 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Upper Bavaria
    1290 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - England
    1306 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France
    1322 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France (again)
    1348 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Switzerland
    1349 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hielbronn (Germany)
    1349 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Saxony
    1349 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hungary
    1360 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hungary
    1370 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Belgium
    1380 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Slovakia
    1388 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strasbourg
    1394 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Germany
    1394 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France
    1420 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lyons
    1421 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Austria
    1424 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fribourg
    1424 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Zurich
    1424 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cologne
    1432 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Savoy
    1438 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mainz
    1439 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Augsburg
    1442 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Netherlands
    1444 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Netherlands
    1446 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bavaria
    1453 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France
    1453 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Breslau
    1454 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wurzburg
    1462 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mainz
    1483 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mainz
    1484 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Warsaw
    1485 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vincenza (Italy)
    1492 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Spain
    1492 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Italy
    1495 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lithuania
    1496 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Naples
    1496 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Portugal
    1498 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nuremberg
    1498 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Navarre
    1510 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brandenberg
    1510 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prussia
    1514 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strasbourg
    1515 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Genoa
    1519 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Regensburg
    1533 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Naples
    1541 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Naples
    1542 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prague & Bohemia
    1550 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Genoa
    1551 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bavaria
    1555 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pesaro
    1557 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prague
    1559 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Austria
    1561 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prague
    1567 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wurzburg
    1569 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Papal States
    1571 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brandenburg
    1582 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Netherlands
    1582 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hungary
    1593 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brandenburg, Austria
    1597 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cremona, Pavia & Lodi
    1614 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Frankfort
    1615 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Worms
    1619 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Kiev
    1648 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ukraine
    1648 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Poland
    1649 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hamburg
    1654 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Little Russia (Beylorus)
    1656 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lithuania
    1669 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Oran (North Africa)
    1669 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vienna
    1670 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vienna
    1712 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sandomir
    1727 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Russia
    1738 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wurtemburg