Hillary Clinton, in a June 2, 2015, letter to billionaire donor and Israel supporter Haim Saban:
“I am writing to express my alarm over the boycott, divestment, and sanction [BDS] movement. … I know you agree that we need to make countering BDS a priority. … I am seeking your advice on how we can work together — across party lines and with a diverse array of voices — to reverse this trend with information and advocacy, and fight back against further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel. … Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world — especially in Europe — we need to repudiate forceful efforts to malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.”
Hillary Clinton, speaking to AIPAC on March 21, 2016:
“Many of the young people here today are on the front lines of the battle to oppose the alarming boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement known as BDS. Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, especially in Europe, we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate, and undermine Israel and the Jewish people. I’ve been sounding the alarm for a while now. As I wrote last year in a letter to the heads of major American Jewish organizations, we have to be united in fighting back against BDS.”
The @NCAA is right to pull tournament games from North Carolina because of the anti-LGBT HB2 law. Discrimination has no place in America. -H
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 13, 2016
Could someone explain why it’s noble, enlightened, justifiable, and progressive to boycott an American state, but hateful, bigoted, retrograde, and evil to support a boycott of a foreign country that has been imposing a brutal, discriminatory, and illegal occupation for many decades, a boycott that is led by people with virtually no political rights? How did that happen? Hillary Clinton is far from the only person espousing this bizarre distinction — New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, as but one example, is punishing companies that support a boycott of Israel while forcing state employees to honor the boycott of North Carolina — but what could possibly justify U.S. politicians drawing the moral and ethical lines about boycotts in this manner?
it’s just exposing the fact that America is under Israeli’ control
i think it is not anti-americanism, it’s just exposing the fact that amrica is controlled by israel
What could make them do it??
MONEY!!
So Clinton has different opinion on boycotting 2 different political entities, in a completely different political situation, for different reasons, aiming at a completely different end goals?!?! God… the hypocrisy on her.
It is well known that if someone is in favor of one boycott he must be in favor of them all. But to be honest, i’m kind of a hypocrite myself in a similar manner – I think this article is stupid, and yet I do find other articles on the interwebs quite insightful.
“This site promotes extreme anti-Americanism above and below the line, but you don’t need Mehdi Hasan to explain why Israel is singled out.”
Simply because one does not support Israel does not mean one is anti-semitic, or in this case, a hater of Jews. Israel has singled itself out to the world because of its own racial/religious hypocrisy.
Mr. Summers would do better if he studied his Israeli history. In 1917 it was Chaim Weizmann, a Zionist, who persuaded the British government to issue a statement favoring the establishment of a Jewish national home in “Palestine”, not in “Israel.”
As to The Intercept being “anti-American”, some of us have lived and learned long enough (I am a U.S military veteran) to chose not to go along indulging ourselves in our government’s hypocrisy. We welcome those who expose it.
We chose not to be members of the Bewildered Herd.
And to close, that “land of milk and honey” allegedly promised to the Jews in Exodus 16;14, “…sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina”, is nothing more than an ‘alleged signal’ from god to go an rob someone else of their property. Now, what kind of ‘just god’ would do that?
Someone else already occupied that land, and it clearly wasn’t Israel, and hence, the problem today.
Great comparison.
Mona-I bet you would be a whizz if you would parse the hitorical implications of:
1) Jewish settlement in early Manhattan, for a handful of beads and trinkets
2) the direct historicl implication of Haym Salomons contribution to the US revolution
3) the phrase ‘first we take Manhattan, then Palestine.” By Leonid Kohanim
That would shut that literal motherfucker Craig Summers up. He smells really fishy.
CraigSummers v CraigSummers
The Twit Strikes Back at Himself: Episode MCMX
craigsummers Sep. 14 2016, 7:50 p.m. wrote:
The post lightly [edited] for clarity:
“General (retired) Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO on DemocracyNow, March 2, 2007, said:
“. . .So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the secretary of defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.”
Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn on Head to Head, July 29, 2015, confirmed to Mehdi Hasan that not only had he studied the DIA memo predicting the West’s backing of an Islamic State in Syria when it came across his desk in 2012, but even asserts that the White House’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (that would emerge as ISIL and Nusra) against the Syrian regime was “a willful decision.”:
Flynn: “I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.”
Hasan: “A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?”
Flynn: “It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing”
George Friedman, Founder and CEO of Stratfor, the ‘Shadow CIA’ firm, said of the overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych that occurred on February 22, 2014:
“It really was the most blatant coup in history.”
Even Glen Greenwald attempted to pin the problems in Brazil on US interference in Brazilian politics without a shred of evidence ([except for the US government’s explicit policy stated and restated repeatedly for over 150 years arrogating to itself the right to interfere throughout the Western Hemisphere, realized in dozens of coups and acts of terrorism committed throughout Latin America by the US ever since]).
[Here’s] part of an article written by Mehdi Hasan providing the reasons “we” (the radical left and Islamists) single out Israel[; I will now destroy his arguments in my usual way:] His reasons are total bullshit.
Here is how you define the radical left – and their political motivations:
Extreme leftism begins with extreme anti-Americanism (the [Pentagon, the NATO High Command, and American-based private security firms], for example), but colonialism and (white) racism form the foundation for the extremist ideology. [Ronald Reagan, for example, one of the last hold-outs among world leaders to support apartheid South Africa, or George Wallace, when he was the governor of Alabama, or Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina – all were taken in by “extreme leftism” that began with “extreme anti-Americanism.” On the other hand, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were the furthest thing there is from the “extreme ideology” of the left].
The above quotes [by Flynn – now a Trump advisor, Clark, Friedman] are classic, but typical extreme left positions i.e., the war in Syria is the fault of the US; the war in Ukraine is the fault of the US. . . Note that some of the following may also be elements of the far right (sometimes indistinguishable) and the list may not be entirely complete [or more than just something I made-up]:
1. Anti-Americanism/anti-Israelism are . . .
[The Pentagon, the NATO High Command, and Stratfor] promote extreme anti-Americanism above and below the line, but you don’t need [me] to explain why Israel is singled out; [I haven’t a clue].
Mona writes: “But in your whataboutery quest, you focus on the specific issue of homelessness caused by the Olympics. ”
Yes I am focusing on those that were displaced with Dilma’s approval that Glenn found to be a problem only after she was being impeached. So what?
The Baathist supporters and their fellow travelers will only allow certain arguments to be made. Like the dictators they support they want to rule what they view their purview which in this case is this board.
I made two very simple points in my first post in answer to Glenn’s question.
1) Hillary decides what she will speak out against based on political reasons.
2) Glenn does the same.
I gave my evidence for number two. But the Baathist’s instead denounced this was whataboutery because they really could not refute my points, and in the manner of their tyrant heroes they then announce that they have refuted the claims. Like tyrants do when they are frustrated some of them go on unrelated rants which have nothing to do with the discussion. This is pretty comical coming from the those screaming about said whataboutery.
Gil, what you did was complain that Zionists are frequently called out for whataboutery — this is true for the simple reason that Zionists are arguably the group most likely to promiscuously resort to that fallacy. You implied this is unfair because Glenn Greenwald hasn’t written about the specific issue of the Rio Olympics having resulted in homelessness in that city, but did choose to write about the impeachment of Dilma.
The two are not related. Glenn did not commit whataboutery. I shall simply restate and add to part of a comment I posted below, quoting you:
Well, no, that’s just one of the most common incidences of it in the current era. It became very notable during the Cold War when deployed by the Soviets. Very often when they were accused of any of their myriad human rights violations they’d bring up racism, lynching, Jim Crow & etc. in the U.S. That is, they pioneered whataboutery in recent times. Israel apologists have renewed its popularity.
That’s right, it isn’t. Do read the article, Gil. For you see, Hillary Clinton herself has raised both issues, but treats them in a decidedly different manner. Greenwald is asking to know the reasoning that could justify this disparate approach.
Pay attention Gil: Asking why Person A champions X for Z, and this same Person A announces that X is immoral for not-Z, is not whataboutery. Your argument about Glenn takes this form: Because Person B writes in objection to Bad Thing X happening to Y, Person B commits whataboutery by not noting that Y is associated with Bad Thing W. That is logically wrong.
You are conceptually confused if you cannot understand that. Or, you don’t want to understand it.
“Gil, what you did was complain that Zionists are frequently called out for whataboutery”
Huh where did I do that Mona? What I did was make two points in answer to Glenn’s question. You couldn’t address those points honestly so had to resort to the common tactics of tyrants and attempt to set bogus perimeters on what speech is permitted.
“You implied this is unfair because Glenn Greenwald hasn’t written about the specific issue of the Rio Olympics having resulted in homelessness in that city, but did choose to write about the impeachment of Dilma.”
Huh? Read what I said again Mona. What I said was the Glenn only choose to write about destitute Brazilians displaced by during Dilma’s presidency by the Olympics after Dilma was going to be impeached.
What I said was Glenn is as hypocritical as Hillary allowing politics to dictate what and when he rights about and then I proved my point.
“Do read the article, Gil. For you see, Hillary Clinton herself has raised both issues, but treats them in a decidedly different manner”
Did you read what I posted I said it was politics. Yes Hillary treats them in a decidedly different manner. The same way Glenn treats the issue of people displaced by the Olympics in Brazil. Glenn ignores them while Dilma is in power and responsible for their plight and takes up there cause when Dilma is to be impeached. GET IT? Glenn (person A) announces the displacement of the poor by the Olympics was immoral when the PT lost power, and this same person ‘A’ ignored their plight when the PT who was actually responsible in every way for their plight was in power. GET IT?
You are not only confused but so blinded by your devotion to Glenn that you can’t understand what is a pretty simple concept.
Now tell me again about how you have a life unlike me who posts all the time. You are a stitch Mona.
Having scanned that, I feel no need for further substantive reply; I am content to rest on what I’ve written on the whataboutery/Rio/homless/Olympics topic.
If another reader whom I deem to be asking in good faith feels that anything you’ve posted merits rebuttal, I will reply.
You have yet to make any substantive reply. You just keep yelling “whataboutery” . I made two simple points you were unable to refute.
Sure thing, Gil. I’m now taking my leave of this thread — you, Mani and Craig Summers can have a field day, posting one new post after another of whataboutery, unsupported hasbara, and all manner of other illogical tripe. Make the top twenty comments such dreck no readers happening upon this old thread would wade through it. And be sure to finish each comment — all three of you — shrieking of how you’ve won, your victory is total, and no one can rebut you so we’ve all “fled,” and on and on in that vein.
Knock yourselves out.
That’s the second time you said you were leaving. Cant even tell the truth about that, can you Mona?
No, you israel-worshiping Zionist turd, you are pointless. And very simple.
No, you utterly pointless Zionist cretin, it’s because you really are a self-refuting waste of oxygen.
Oh lol has her panties in a knot again, and needs to show off how many bad words she knows.
“Oh lol has her panties in a knot again, and needs to show off how many bad words she knows.”
No, you frustrated israel-worshiping Zionist turd, you are projecting, again.
Just a woderful comeback. Your mommy must be proud.
Yes, you frum israel-worshiping Ziopath, and your mommy isn’t.
“frum” ? I love when those pretending to be anti-Zionists out themselves as Jew haters. Not uncommon for the ignorant to be bigots.
Yes, needy little self-hating israel-worshiper. Frum.
Careful, Jew-bait, you are projecting your ziopathic hatred of Jews, again. Not uncommon for ignorant ziopathic israel-worshiping bigots to be oblivious of their pathological disdain for Jews.
You girls are so easy to get out of the closet. Too funny.
Interesting that a site that is supposedly progressive in its view point attracts so many racist bigots.
No, Jew-bait, you are projecting your ziopathic hatred of Jews, again. Your Zionism induced brain damage isn’t funny.
No, you needy and predictable little israel-worshiper, it’s neither interesting nor surprising that a site like this one attracts so many racist ziopathic bigots.
Too funny lets see if you can explain how my writing “You girls are so easy to get out of the closet. ” is projecting my “ziopathic hatred of Jews”.
I have a bet with Mona you can’t do it. Make me lose. HAHAHA
I’m not here to teach reading comprehension to brain-damaged Zionist cretins, Jew-bait.
Zionism already saw to that, you needy little loser.
how would that be teaching reading comprehension?
hey LOL get a tissue and wipe the spittle off your chin.
It wouldn’t be teaching reading comprehension because I’m not here to teach reading comprehension to brain-damaged Zionist cretins.
ROFL…Yea, you brain-damaged, comprehension-challenged, israel-worshiping Zionist cretin, and why don’t you go get a tissue so you grab some alone-time with your precious little “israel”.
Before you read down the comments, just a reminder that the core of Apartheid was, and is (both in law and the common understanding) the denial of citizenship and residency rights to members of the legal population of a state intended to transform a minority ethnic group into the ‘majority of the citizens’ of said state.
Hey Rich what do you call 15000 dead children and using poison gas on your own people.
Oh that’s right you already told me it’s called demonizing Syria.
correction it’s not Syria, but the Syrian gov’t of Assad that Richard believes is being demonized. There is nothing more pathetic and transparent than a Baathist who pretends he is interested in human rights.
Richard Pearce is a Baathist!? I’m sure you have evidence for that, right Gil?
He said that 15000 reported dead children and the reports of poison gas being used by the Syrian gov’t were false and being used to demonize the Assad gov’t. .
As I thought. You dislike Richard’s position on the various factions in Syria and so you outrageously spewed that he is a “Baathist” with no reasonable basis at all for having done so.
No I disliked that he claimed that the reports of 15000 children killed by the conflict and and reports of poison gas being used by the gov’t were just an effort to demonize Assad. There was no discussion about various factions that is all your own delusional thinking. Are you taking drugs again Mona? I would like to believe you have an excuse for defending someone who denies these war crimes. If not you are beneath contempt.
“How did that happen?”
The inconsistency you pointed out… seems to me there is a better example. The French socialists take pride in their social safety net, being all sensitive, loving, liberal. Yet they ban burkas!
Great point.
“Whataboutery” just has too many letters to keep typing over and over, so I propose the solution from the old story about prisoners who had heard the same jokes so often that they just called out the associated numbers. We can use letters.
W.
Yesterday, I replied to one of GilG’s whataboutery posts by simply pointing out that it was whataboutery.
This morning, I quickly scanned the subthread to see that Mona had, as usual, thoroughly dissected and effectively refuted Gil’s predictable, repetitious and specious arguments.
And, there, at the end of a subthread full of his whataboutery and deflection, is Gil’s post:
X = Whataboutery3 + Perseveration2
Solve for X.
Well, I just found another HTML tag the comment software doesn’t implement. Those numbers should be superscripts.
Nonsense Doug Mona didn’t refute any part of my argument. She just made her usual false accusation and then claimed my my reason of politics was too general. Face it you and Mona are never actually able to counter my arguments. You usually run away and then post later insisting you’ve refuted my post. Mona makes excuses for not answering my direct question. How did either of you dissect anything I posted, other than to go to your tired catchall phrase W which you pull out whenever you can’t refute with logic.
This appears to be a bad habit for you. You’ve applied it to someone new here about something that happened in another venue. And now you’ve hurled at me, and at Doug.
Maybe you block out time and do nothing but engage people in threads at political sites. Most of the rest of us, however, have lives that include other matters. Not immediately replying, or at the end of a stale thread, not replying at all, is normal for normal people. It implies zero about any inability to counter what you expect should be addressed on your timetable — or addressed at all.
As I asked before: Self-absorbed much, Gil?
Yours is the ploy of an intellectually insecure person, similar to the types who have to continually declare they’ve “won,” have a “victory” over you, have “crushed” you & etc. If your substantive arguments are compelling, intelligent readers will see that without your having to insist that you won and/or that your opponent “fled,” & yada, yada.
You are transparent in your insecurity, Gil.
“Maybe you block out time and do nothing but engage people in threads at political sites.”
You really didn’t just say that did you Mona? OMG. Wow just wow, earlier I said Richard was the least self aware person I had ever encountered. Now I think its a tie.
“Not immediately replying, or at the end of a stale thread, not replying at all, is normal for normal people.”
Umm It was your buddy Doug who replied to me in what was a stale thread. Not the other way around Mona. And like you he didn’t do it to refute anything I said but just to report that I was refuted.
“As I asked before: Self-absorbed much, Gil?”
You mean the person who continually cites herself on thread is calling me self-adsorbed” Wow again.
And you still have not refuted one thing I have posted on this thread. Too funny.
You are transparent in your dishonesty Mona.
Not only did I write it, I’m going to repeat it: “Maybe you block out time and do nothing but engage people in threads at political sites. Most of the rest of us, however, have lives that include other matters. Not immediately replying, or at the end of a stale thread, not replying at all, is normal for normal people. It implies zero about any inability to counter what you expect should be addressed on your timetable — or addressed at all.”
Too funny. “Writers frequently cite themselves when they’ve previously addressed a point.”
But you are NOT A WRITER you are someone who posts in the comment section, adds stuff to Wikipedia pages, and makes false claims about being asked to be a writer by TI, which no one believes. Not even your buddy Doug who came back to a stale thread not to refute anything I posted but to call me out and claim I had been refuted. The funny thing is not only has neither of you refuted anything I said you haven’t even been able to honestly answer my questions to you.
Gil, you really need to get a new spiel. No one who knows me will support an assertion that I “usually run away.”
I do have other chores that sometimes interfere with full-time posting at TI. ;^) And I do sometimes grow bored with whataboutery and impatient with perseveration.
But don’t worry. As long as you and your fellow hasbarists are here to attempt to defend the indefensible, I won’t be gone for long — assuming life and health, of course.
let’s see someone whose only response to anything that’s been posted is its “whataboutery” tells me I need a new spiel.
The same person that is always there to repeat Mona’s talking points and congratulate her. I think you and Mona are one in the same. You are becoming more like Trump all the time. Using an alias and pretending not to be your own PR person.
Nonsense, ziopath, you didn’t provide any “argument”.
Zionists turn to McCarthyism: Canary Mission
McCarthyite blacklisting is a rather recent and odious Zionist weapon. In the U.S. perhaps the premier such project is “Canary Mission.” The Jewish magazine, Tablet, describes the project and it’s site thus:
Part of the purposes is to list pro-Palestinian activists so they can be harassed online. But the more worrisome purpose is that they intend to silence pro-Palestinian student activists and faculty withthreats of destroying their careers.
As MintPressNews reported:
I say this often, but that’s because when focusing on Zionism and Zionists the idea occurs so often: Zionism kills Palestinian bodies and Jewish souls.
The ugliest and mos corrupted human being I have ever seen. She will be the perfect and most qualified person for the presidency of the US. Say no more.
I will continue to have growing support for BDS until Israel moves back within its own borders. This includes doing what I can to influence those in power to either support BDS or at least stand aside on the issue.
At the point that it does move back within its own borders, I will resume the support that I have historically held for Israel. This is not complicated!!
Israel doesn’t have complete borders, there is the partician plan, armistice lines of 48 (Green line) , lines of control after 67, border with Sinai per treaty, border with Jordan per treaty, blue line with Lebanon per UN demarcation, Golan was annexed in the 80/s. Believing there is a border just shows how uninformed you are. The purpuse of BDS is the destruction of Israel (Just like the Arab boycott) not borders, read the history of it founders and leaders. Your willingness to comment on something you clearly know nothing about is astonishing.
Your belief that the officially declared borders of Israel that were part and parcel of its recognition as a UN member state don’t count as borders shows just how misinformed, and resistant to being correctly informed, you (and the rest of the supporters of the Israeli regime) are. If there was any evidence that pointing out the facts to you would have even as much effect on you as it has on Trump (repeated and sustained efforts to educate him on things like Obama having been born in the US does eventually result in him admitting that that is factually true, though he quickly goes back to denying it, whereas the supporters of the Israeli regime never even have that moment of admitting to reality) I’d detail all your errors (and possibly even cite or link to the evidence) but your persistence in insisting the lies are facts, and knowledge of them ignorance shows my time would be better spent trying to teach calculus to my dog.
That’s generally true, of hasbara-ists, and just standard Zionists. But I used to be an avid Zionist until I encountered the truth from online sources, beginning about ten years ago.
It was literally shocking — I haven’t done such an 180 degree turn on any issue in my adult lifetime. The extent of the lies and bullshit embedded in the dominant Zionist narrative were incredible, and it took a good bit of time to accept the enormity of the deception and to then be ready to “listen” to voices of truth.
So, I figure continuing to spread that truth where I can is worthwhile, even if the hardcore Zionists can’t and won’t be persuaded. Other readers will be. I was once one of those other readers.
Clinton’s positions may seem contradictory, yet they are consistent. She takes orders from those who pay for the privilege. In cases above North Carolina didn’t purchase that rite, so boycott it is.
Boycotting Middle East regimes that execute gay people, oppress women, and call for the eradication of Israel from the face of the earth?
Not even a blip on the radical left’s radar.
Should be your screen name
There was world-wide movement to boycott apartheid South Africa. There was no such movement against horrible dictatorships in black Africa.
George Washington was more angered by British taxes than by American slavery.
Rightwingers like you (I’ve seen you in action on other topics– you are a wingnut) never evinced other than hostility for gay rights and feminism until deploying them to pinkwash Israel’s crimes.
In their quest to portray the US as the most violent terrorist state Glenn Greenwald, Scahill, and their lapdogs (Mona and co.) always repeat Malala’s opinion about drone strikes.
Malala has made it clear that she is against drone strikes and she claims they create more terrorism.
1) Malala does not live in Pakistan as the self proclaimed “well informed” lapdog Mona claims. She lives in the UK and when she lived in Pakistan she did not write about drone strikes. Malala is not an expert in terrorism and she has not conducted any research to establish a link between drone strikes and terrorist attacks.
2) The best way to assess the opinion for and against drone strikes would be to ask people mostly affected by drone strikes. That means Pakistani themselves living in areas where drones strikes are prevalent. Most polls conducted around the world showed massive opposition to drone strikes. However, authors of most of those polls admit they did not interview individuals from areas mostly affected by drone strikes in the FATA areas. For instance, Pew conducted interviews in mostly urban areas. What about those researchers who managed to obtain data from the areas mostly affected by drone strikes?
a) Understanding FATA (2011) from Naveed Ahmad Shunwari
63% of respondents were the opinion that drone attacks were never justified. Only 6% of respondents considered this military option to be justified.
BUT
GREATEST SUPPORT FOR DRONE ATTACKS WAS RECORDED IN THE FRONTIER REGIONS OF BANNU, LAKKI, AND TANK, ALSO KURRAM AGENCY AND NORTH WAZIRISTAN….PARTICIPANTS FROM LOWER KURRAM SUPPORTED THESE ATTACKS BECAUSE THEY FELT THEY WERE ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF TALIBANISATION.
Conclusion: Most Pakistanis in FATA are opposed to drone strikes, but the minority that supports drone strikes is mostly located in areas mostly affected by drones.
b) Prof. Aqil Shah University of Oklahoma (May, 2016)
147 interviews with adults living in North Waziristan in summer and winter 2015.
79% of respondents endorsed drones. Most locals prefer drone strikes to the Pakistani aerial offensives that cause more damage to civilian life. LESS THAN 15% OF RESPONDENTS SUPPORTED THE REVENGE THESIS. As the author correctly pointed out Talibans openly attack markets, parks killing hundred of innocent civilians and assassinate hundreds of tribal leaders. So, the revenge motive should drive the people to target the Taliban!
Conclusion: A minority of Pakistanis support drone strikes. That minority is mostly located in areas mostly affected by drone strikes.
As the lapdog (Mona) stated: “I’ll take (Malala’s) intelligent, personal testimony about matters in her own country over your fallacious spewing any day of the week, and so will any bright reader here”
Will she take the personal testimony of hundreds of Pakistanis living in their own country (not in the UK) in areas mostly affected by drone strikes?
NO! Why? Because those FACTS contradict the idea that the US is the most violent terrorist state on earth. So, they will ignore those data and focus on the 90% (or more) of people living in Islamabad, Venezuela, Brazil..who are against drone strikes, but have not experienced any of them. Again, welcome to the comedy show!
Mani is a troll, and I have reverted to my usual habit of ignoring him. Mani frequently lies about other commenters, often mischaracterizing their words when “quoting” them, and he very seldom documents his claims. To learn why I and any reasonable person wouldn’t take him seriously — and could opt to ignore him — please see this old sub-thread where his dishonest and hysteria-ridden MO are in full bloom.
Not engaging such as Mani is useful for avoiding thread pollution, and I encourage it for one and all.
“……Mani frequently lies about other commenters, often mischaracterizing their words when “quoting” them, and he very seldom documents his claims…..”
Interestingly enough Mona, this typical reply only applies to people that disagree with you. No one who agrees with you could possibly stoop to such depths in a political debate (that you are accusing Mani of). You are such a fraud Mona.
She is not only a fraud. She is a a spoiled lapdog. As the most favorite lapdog she is well aware that TI will never ban her, therefore she sees the comment sections as her private site. She lies about me, she invents stories about me and she essentially accuses me of being a criminal. She starts long and inapt arguments with commenters and brags about her ability to get them banned at the end for “crapflooding”. The irony is that TI becomes a comedy show thanks to people like her. Writers publish articles loaded with distorted stories, and omitted information. Lapdogs like her quickly praise those articles and make sure whoever challenges those articles with clear facts are banned from the site. At least the show is free!
For about six months I have 95% ignored Craig, at the request of other readers. He’s desperate for my attention and so keeps spewing insults at me, but when I engage him he pollutes the board with endless walls of bullshit-text that annoy others. So I listened to the other readers requesting that I stop, and have been almost completely ignoring Craig since last March.
He shares this distinction with Mani. It truly does improve the quality of the discussion when I abide by these wishes of other readers.
“Mani frequently lies about other commenters, often mischaracterizing their words when “quoting” them, and he very seldom documents his claims.”
Mona (Aug 10, 2016) to Mani:
“You are a hasbara troll, as has been obvious since you showed up here a few months ago with multiple accounts. Now you’re adding silly name-calling rants about various topics to your repertoire of rabid spewing in defense of the ethno-religious supremacist state you adore: Israel”
Mani (me) has used one account since commenting here. The above comment was in a thread following an article about Brazil. The article had nothing to do with Israel. Nevertheless, Mani (me) NEVER WROTE ANYTHING to support the government of Israel. Mona CANNOT find ONE statement from Mani supporting the government of Israel.
Mona to Mani:
“I know exactly who you are. Multiple of your accounts showed up at the same time. You’ve been banned many times. Should you continue, I will explain to readers the viciousness, REAL WORLD-BASED ATTEMPT TO HARM, in which you have engaged and which has gotten you banned at more than one site.”
Mani ( me ) has never been banned on any sites. I have used the same email address, the same nickname for months. I would not be surprised that Mona and any of TI lapdogs get me banned as I ridicule their arguments with FACTS. Moreover, accusing me of attempting to “harm” anybody in the “real world” is not only ludicrous as I do not know any of you and do not wish to know any of you, but it is also repugnant. You are essentially accusing me of being a criminal. I hope you know the legal repercussions of such accusations.
Mona (Aug 29 2016) writing about Mani:
“And I really don’t get this thing he has about my supposedly “questioning his religion”. I HAVE NEVER REMOTELY SAID A THING PERTAINING TO WHATEVER HIS RELIGION IS”
Mona (Aug 16, 2016)
” Mani is a vicious hasbara troll who despises Muslims”
Mani (Aug 16, 2016) to Mona:
” I am Muslim”
Mona ( (Aug 16, 2016) to Mani:
” No, you are not” ( a Muslim)
Mona ( Sep 14, 2016) 3:55 PM: “Malala Yousafzai LIVES IN PAKISTAN”
False: Malala Yousafzai lives in the UK not in Pakistan
Mona (Sep 14, 2016) 5:13 PM: “But Indonesia (opinion of the US), which you keep citing, is essentially irrelevant. It’s Asian, nowhere near the Middle East where we ( the US) have kept meddling”
The 2004 Defence Report was about MUSLIMS perception of the US not just Arabs, not just Aghans, not just Iranians, but Muslims. Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country. The US has been meddling in Indonesia since its independence and it supported Suharto for 30 years while the CIA called him a mass murderer. The US has been provided weapons to Indonesia for the “war on terror” even after protests from human rights groups such as Amnesty.
Mona (Sep 14 2016, 7:06PM)
” And there’s this from Pew on results in 2015:…Across the seven Muslim- majority countries and territories surveyed…considerable shares also called Westerners other negatives adjectives”
“That’s entirely consistent with what the Defense Science Board reported in 2004″
The Board Report in 2004 was about US policy, not Hungarian or Swedish policy. The Pew report Mona cited related to Muslim perception of Westerners not specifically the US. That particular survey never asked Muslims about what they think about Germans or Swedish or Swiss or Americans. The questions were about they think of Westerners. Moreover, the Pew report does not explain why Muslims have negative views of Westerners. When Pew specifically researched US favorability among Muslims the same year the results were an increase in US favorability in many Muslim countries since 9/11 even in the Palestinian Ter. Other surveys (Arabyouthsurvey) confirmed that trend with 63% of young Arabs seeing the US as an ally in 2016 and 85% of young Arabs in the GCC seeing the US as an ally.
You are not only a liar, you are also a deranged individual.
Wow Mona! You’re so incredibly good taking on a legion of professional “deflectionists”. I’m going to have to hang around GG’s comments section more often. You’re more knowledgeable about the Israeli Palestinian issue than many intellectuals around here, and I’m from Lebanon.
[blush] Thank you.
I’m fact-based and read a great deal of material on the topics I comment on. Therefore, when another commenter posts falsehoods and/or inanity I nearly always know where to go to find the source debunking them.
That makes me wildly unpopular with the hasbara-ists and assorted other trolls. I don’t care — all I care about is keeping the facts straight for other readers. (In general, I don’t respond to the silly ad hominem attacks on me, trolls’ declarations of “victory” & etc., as that is diversionary. I rely on intelligent readers to discern who knows what she is talking about and who does not.)
Mr. Greenwald
According to the New York Times:
“……..RIO DE JANEIRO — Federal prosecutors in Brazil filed corruption charges Wednesday against Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the former president who has wielded influence across Latin America for decades, portraying him as the mastermind of a sprawling graft scheme intended to maintain his party’s grip on the presidency……..Dallagnol, a prosecutor, called Mr. da Silva the “ultimate commander” of bribery and kickback schemes that allowed his leftist Workers’ Party to build coalitions in Congress, describing him as “the general” at the helm……Prosecutors accuse Mr. da Silva and his wife of illegally receiving about $1.1 million in improvements and expenses for a beachfront apartment paid for by a large construction company seeking public contracts……..beyond the specific charges, which must still be accepted by a judge, the prosecutors said Mr. da Silva had been instrumental in a bigger corruption scheme that has thrown Brazil’s political system into turmoil for more than two years……..prosecutors contended that Mr. da Silva had overseen a far-reaching system of illicit payments, kickbacks and campaign donations in which the construction company O.A.S. paid as much as $26 million to obtain contracts from Brazil’s oil giant, Petrobras.”…….”
A conviction would cost Lulu a chance to become President in 2018.
You’re posting on the wrong comment thread again, CraigSummers.
Yeah, wrong thread, but few would have noticed, but for the RIO DE JANEIRO all-caps dateline.
Cuz few read very far in Craig’s screeds.
It doesn’t matter what thread I post this on. I doubt very much that Greenwald will write a negative article about Lulu. Democracy is important to Greenwald when the right threatens it, not when the left undermines it. By the way, seen any articles on Venezuela lately?
What is it about Lulu which arouses your disdain?Are you Brazilian?
It is obvious that once they deposed the president,that they would go for her mentor and socialist predecessor.
Another neoliberal criminal act taking place with the full permission of zion and their absent MSM concern,who hated the fact that the Brazilians were Palestinian supporters and dissed the settler ambassador the scumbags tried to foist on Brazil.
Hence your support for the crime.
Richard Pearce writes:
“…….Secondly, you have answered my question despite your attempt at burying it under the campaign to demonize the Syrian government for daring to not let the US dictate who governs Syria…..”
Dave Salzmann writes:
“…….To the extent that Russia may be assisting ethnic Russians to defend themselves. . . what the fuck did anyone think would happen, while they were plotting the coup?…..”
Doug Salzmann writes:
“……The aggressors in Ukraine have been the US, NATO and its in-country client-oligarch-stooges……”
DocHollywood responds to Doug:
“……I know it’s nonsense, Doug……”
Even Glen Greenwald attempted to pin the problems in Brazil on US interference in Brazilian politics without a shred of evidence (essentially a coup). Mona post part of an article written by Mehdi Hasan providing the reasons “we” (the radical left and Islamists) single out Israel. His reasons are total bullshit. Here is how you define the radical left – and their political motivations:
Extreme leftism begins with extreme anti-Americanism (the Intercept, for example), but colonialism and (white) racism form the foundation for the extremist ideology. The above quotes are classic, but typical extreme left positions i.e., the war in Syria is the fault of the US; the war in Ukraine is the fault of the US. Even Greenwald advanced the theory that the US was behind the political upheaval in Brazil. Note that some of the following may also be elements of the far right (sometimes indistinguishable) and the list may not be entirely complete:
1. Anti-Americanism/anti-Israelism are almost always in tandem and completely predictable. The radical left has an extreme hatred of the Jewish state which they believe is just another European colonial state “equivalent” to apartheid South Africa. What is really prevalent within the extreme left is the amount of (left wing) lies promoted to attempt to support the BDS campaign and destroy the Jewish-majority state (like in this article). A couple of classic far left positions which pertain specifically to Israel:
(a). Zionism is racism
(b). Israel is an apartheid state
(c). Israel is not a democracy
(d). Israel is an ethno supremacist state
(e). Opposition to a Jewish state i.e., support the one state solution
(f). Israel is a colonialist venture
(g). The history of antisemitism and the roots of Zionism are marginalized so as to not give any legitimacy to the Zionists movement.
2. Jews have too much power and/or run the US and European governments (US policies are in the interests of Israel).
3. Belief that the US and Israel are two of the most dangerous countries in the world. One example constantly cited is that America was the only country to use nuclear weapons.
4. The Belief that the US is behind all political activism/coups such as in Syria, Ukraine, Brazil, Venezuela or Honduras. Wasn’t the US really behind the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR in 1979?
5. Support for the rise of counter balances to US power such as anti-democratic China and Russia.
6. Colonialism is the foundation of the far left: five hundred years of western imperialism and racism.
7. The west is driven by racist policies – especially regarding Muslims and the greater Middle East (Obama has bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries).
8. Anti-corporatism and inequality (obsessively).
9. Climate and environmental extremism.
10. Anti-globalization/anti-neoliberal policies.
11. Anti-Christian bigotry and hatred (intolerance).
This site promotes extreme anti-Americanism above and below the line, but you don’t need Mehdi Hasan to explain why Israel is singled out. It is a lot simpler than that.
Funny how the fascists, both in Israel & elsewhere, always deny reality & facts.
“Anti-Americanism/anti-Israelism are almost always in tandem and completely predictable.”
That’s what the Zionazis would want you to believe. They are spending a lot of energy and other resources to plant into our minds the belief that the Zionazis and their bandit ‘state’ are ‘just like us’.
Of course, we ARE becoming like them and that’s quite ‘deplorable’ if I may quote a high, US-based and Zionazi-aligned intellectual.
Florida’s Jews give a 41 point edge to HRC,I read somewhere today.
Trump the American nationalist,is disdained by Israeli nationalists,who then try to put it over that anti Americanism and anti zionism are the same.
You clowns are transparent in your BS.
Sorry Arth,meant for the village idiot.
Many Christian Fundamentalists & AIPAC plus cowardly politicians.
The post lightly [edited] for accuracy:
“Mr. Greenwald
How many times [have I made up crap that exposes my hypocrisy] to you? The BDS campaign has nothing to do with [anything] Israel [has ever done]. The BDS campaign punishes Israel for [its perfection]. That is a completely different argument than [anything anyone has ever offered] (not that [I] would ever consider such [dishonesty to be beneath me]).
[No matter what] the founders of the BDS campaign stated they were boycotting Israel for, it’s unlikely Hillary would support even a limited boycott[, a point which negates my irrational objections to the article in the first place]. You interviewed Omar Barghouti – one of the founders of the BDS movement. He was not shy about [saying something completely different from how I misrepresented it in the first place]
I am not sure why this even warrants [a post from me, especially one this self-contradicting”
Your claim is rather like saying that those diehard, lifelong Republicans who’ve announced they’re not supporting Trump are doing so not because of his lies, his truths (openly racist and sexist campaigning to a significant portion of the Republican base), or the damage he is doing to the reputation of the Republican Party, but merely because they irrationally hate him. Indeed, this theme, fairly common amongst the commenters in support of the Israeli regime (and pretty universal amongst the heads of the regime, too) puts them firmly in the same category as Trump. (Indeed, about the only thing good about Trump’s campaign is that it provides a shorthand parallel to the Israeli regime supporters campaign that most Americans will recognize)
The rethugs hate Trump because those who butter their bread,AIPAC,and assorted zionist moles,want them too.
The only other thing I could wring out of that maze was that Trump and Israelis are nationalists.So?
Interesting that anti-Zionists are allowed all sorts of excuses for singling out Israel including “well we have to start somewhere” , but no one else is allowed to determine what issues are important to them. How come Glenn Greenwald ignored populations being displaced in his home country of Brazil for the Olympics while Dilma was in charge? Could it be about politics perhaps? Hilary doesn’t claim boycotts in general are wrong she picks and chooses which evils she is going to speak out about based on her politics. Just like those who suddenly were concerned about what was happening to the poor in Brazil when the PT was no longer in charge.
But, whatabout ______ ?!?!?!
Exactly where Glenn started. Hey what about Israel.
Nah, Gil. It’s perfectly understandable. Mehdi Hasan explained why extremely well: We Single Israel Out Because We in the West Are Shamefully Complicit in Its Crimes
I get it Mona. You guys especially hate Israel so you make special rules for them and expect everyone else to feel the same way. Whataboutery is allowed when Israel is the object. Otherwise it’s not. We don’t talk about Brazil displacing the poor when the PT is in charge as soon as they are out we are appalled. I answered Glenn’s question honestly, try addressing my post .
Most of the world isn’t inherently anti zionist,they just don’t like zionism running their own nations.
I believe even most Arabs and Muslims would say they know why Jews would want a homeland,they just don’t want it on their backs.
When zionism has to take off the training wheels(Western protection and enablement),maybe they’ll make nice.They’d better, for their own existence’s sake.
Israel has a strong domestic weapons industry. The Arabs import all their advanced weaponry. If the rest of the world minded its own business the gap in strength between Israel and the Arabs would be even greater. Zionism plays no role in any country but Israel, you clearly don’t know what Zionism is. It is merely the belief the Israel is Jewish Homeland and Jews should build their state on it.
Which shows even you don’t know what true Zionism is about.
Would you go for a mutual weaponry embargo on both Israel and the Palestinians?
I didn’t think so.
When Israel treats others the way it wants to be treated,boy o boy.
And again,yes the Jewish people need a homeland,safe and secure from all alarm.And when their neighbors get that same treatment,voila,peace at last!
And no,zionism has a lock on the demoncrats and the rethug anti-Trump scum.Yoyos for Yahoo was the topper.And Obomba releasing Pollard,that was a thumb in our eye.
I’m inherently anti-Zionist, for the simple reason that Zionism is an ideology based on ethnic supremacy, an ugly abomination which we should have seen the back of with the defeat of Nazi Germany.
If you’re in any way confused at to just what ethnic nationalism is then read on: http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/10/14/fearsome-words/
Yes,it is racist,but if they are contained in their own sandbox,who cares?
They’ll rip each others eyes out,as they seem to hate each other more than they hate us.A bunch of crazy rabid criminals(look at the rap sheet for every leader)almost funny if it wasn’t so pathetic and psychotic.
Except being ‘contained in their own sandbox’ isn’t in line with Zionist ideology, which seeks to colonize all the land between the river and the sea.
Look,as an American,I have no dog in the fight.
I do recognize,barring a massacre of zionists which I can’t see happening with their overwhelming military edge,that Arabs and Muslims will have to deal with the entity as a fact,no matter their feelings.
Dead enders on both sides will never be happy.
@Ghazi28: the article you link to is truly amazing. It should be compulsory reading in all high-schools !!
So, Gilg, can you suggest a better starting place than a crime against humanity that has been allowed to continue for over 30 years? What tops YOUR list? (It’ll be interesting to see if what tops it is even a real thing, or a myth along the lines of ‘Obama is foreign born’)
Firstly how about addressing my post rather than deflecting. Secondly is the war in Syria and the 15000 children killed a myth ? How about the recent use of chorine gas by govt forces in Aleppo Rich?
How is addressing, directly, the central thesis of your post ‘deflecting’?
Secondly, you have answered my question despite your attempt at burying it under the campaign to demonize the Syrian government for daring to not let the US dictate who governs Syria. Your answer boils down to ‘Israel must be the last issue ever raised’, which, BTW, shows why you think it is unfair to ever address the crimes (including the crime against humanity, Apartheid) of the Israeli regime.
Rich, the “central thesis” of my post is clearly that Hillary for one and Glenn for another choose what causes they support or ignore based on politics. That is why in a post that is 4 sentences long I write about them being politically motivated. No where in my post do I cover up any ” crimes against humanity” or in anyway defend any crimes of any sort. I’m not sure if you don’t understand what the term “central thesis” actually means you you lack the ability to comprehend posts written in English. I can’t think of any other reason you could have for stating what you did. I would really be curious to know how someone could draw the conclusion you did based on what I wrote.
The really mind boggling part of your post Rich is that you make the false claim that I think it is unfair to address a crime against humanity and then say that my thinking we could start at the deaths of 15000 children and the recent use of poison gas in Syria is just demonizing the Syrian gov’t. If you are sincere in what you wrote you may possibly the least self aware person I have encountered in my life. Seriously do you realize you falsely accuse me of doing exactly what you then did? Are those 15000 deaths a myth?
clarification “That is why in a post that is 4 sentences long I write about them being politically motivated. ”
should
That is why in a post that is 4 sentences long I write about them being politically motivated in 2 of the sentences.
It is rather ironic to be berated by someone about my lack of reading skills/comprehension by someone who writes 5 sentences, but claims there are only 4, TWICE.
Now, if you insist, I could run your 5 sentence blurb by a couple of people with PhDs in English, or a couple of English professors, but:
First (and longest sentence) introduces a (common) thesis/meme.
Second sentence reinforces the thesis/meme by providing a claimed example
Third sentence provides a supposed motivation for those the meme condemns
Fourth sentence reinforces the message of the third
Fifth sentence uses the supposed motivation and the claimed example to drive the thesis/meme home by personalizing it.
While in long form essays and dissertations one can start with a secondary thesis, in a précis, it is expected (and really the only way to provide coherency) that one will start with the central thesis, and finish with a summing up that ties back to the opening sentence. If you don’t know the basic rules of writing a clear précis, proclaiming that those who do are at fault for your lack of clarity is ironic.
Yes I’ll admit my error in counting but that is not nearly as ironic as you dismissing 15000 dead children and poison gas being used as campaign to demonize the Syrian government. So go ahead Rich ignore the substance of my post and concentrate my error in counting the number of sentences. Forget that you can not back up your claim about my central thesis and pretend that posting on message boards is the same as writing a précis, it’s not. Why not ask one of your PhD’s if it is. Face it Rich you are not only a hypocrite but a pompous one at that.
Arguing with these serial liars only feeds their inner troll.
They care not one iota for all the dead from their 70 year project from hell.Not even their own,as if they did,they’d end this nonsense of Old Testament garbage in the 21st century.I guess they think its 2016BC.
“Would an apartheid state award its top literary prize to an Arab? Israel honored Emile Habibi in 1986, before any intifida might have made the choice politically shrewd. Would an apartheid state encourage Hebrew-speaking schoolchildren to learn Arabic? Would road signs throughout the land appear in both languages? (Even the proudly bilingual Canada doesn’t meet that standard.) Would an apartheid state be home to universities where Arabs and Jews mingle at will, or apartment blocks where they live side by side? Would an apartheid state bestow benefits and legal protections on Palestinians who live outside of Israel but work inside its borders? Would human rights organizations operate openly in an apartheid state? They do in Israel. In fact, every year the prime minister responds on the record to the report of Israel’s leading human rights group.”
Manifestly, the answer is “yes,” if Israel did that.
You are a hasbara troll who has been shown time and time again the legion of international legal scholars and human rights activists who designate Israel as an apartheid state, and as often you have seen me explain why they are right. As I co-wrote (citations omitted, and you’ve been shown this dozens of times):
Ahh Mona citing Mona as an authority.
“Palestinian Arabs are prevented from using certain Israeli-only and settler-only roads”
Can these roads be used by Israeli Arabs Mona?
Actually, Mona writing with knowledgeable others in a heavily documented — i.e., with citations — manner.
Hahahaha! Another frum little israel-worshiping ziopath who wants to play Court Zio:
These “roads” being the abhorrent Jew-only apartheid roads connecting all those atrocious Jew-only crimes against humanity being committed by Jews, in Palestine, for you.
And by “Israeli Arabs” you mean the indigenous Palestinians your precious zio-Jew colonizer terrorist murderer scum weren’t able to ethnically cleanse from Palestine. The Palestinians who were subjugated under an inhuman regime of martial law for nearly twenty years. The Palestinians your precious zio-Jew colonizer terrorist murderer filth put in forced labor camps. Those Palestinians who today are being subjected to the atrocious raft of “defense and emergency regulations”, which were enacted during the mandate period and used against Jews—“The regime built in Palestine on the Defense Regulations has no parallel in any civilized nation. Even in Nazi Germany there were no such laws” exclaimed your zios in 1946, before going one better than even the Nazis when they incorporated those very same “Defense Regulations” into the legal system of the “Home of the Jewish People”, and then promptly proceeded to change the “legal” status of those “internally displaced” indigenous Palestinians by classifying them as “present absentees”, preventing them from returning to their homes and their lands to this very day. It‘s those “present absentee” Palestinians whose lands were expropriated and whose property was pillaged and then converted for the exclusive use of psychotic foreign (mostly White European) zio-Jew lunatics (all apparently in competition with each other, to see who can suck the most dick for Ha-Yishuv) who you’re referring to?
No, you toxic Zionist turd, you abomination, these “roads” cannot “be used” by those Palestinians.
Your wrong.
Mona knows I am right that’s why she didn’t respond back.
No, you disgusting ziopathic turd, you abomination, you are wrong in the head, which is why you can’t point out where I was “wrong”.
No, you needy little israel-worshiping ziopath, you are projecting your cancerous ziopathic patholgy, again.
aww, somebody needs a nap. do you kiss your mommy with that mouth?
Aww, the needy malignant ziopath can’t point out where I was “wrong”. You need to stop embarrassing your mother, anti-Semite.
The roads are open to all Israeli citizens — Muslims, Christians, Druze and Circassians included.
The AP Jan 13 2010 “In some versions of a Dec. 29 story about a Supreme Court ruling on highway usage, The Associated Press erroneously reported that Israel has a network of roads reserved for Jews. These roads are open to all Israeli citizens, including Arabs, as well as foreigners and tourists, while banning virtually all Palestinians.”
Now let’s see your proof you were right. ahh this keeps getting better.
Sure, anti-Semite, sure, after you provide “proof” that these “roads” your precious Zio ethnic cleansers, occupiers, colonizers, thieves and murderers have opened, these roads that “are open to all Israeli citizens, including Arabs, as well as foreigners and tourists, while banning virtually all Palestinians”, are in “israel”.
Nah, you malignant little ziopath, you just can’t point out where I was “wrong”, and keep getting needier.
I pointed out exactly where you went wrong. You on the other hand have been unable to point out where you went right. You lose :).
Nah, you inane little israel-worshiping Palestinian ethnic-cleanser, you “pointed out exactly where you” are wrong in the head. You’ve lost your fucking mind, Ziopath.
Correction:
Nah, you inane little israel-worshiping Palestinian ethnic-cleanser, you and I “pointed out exactly where you” are wrong in the head. You’ve lost your fucking mind, Ziopath.
As for the rest of the specific claims in that paragraph, you are again quoting lies, which you’ve done before. Some of that is straightforward lies, other of it is grossly misleading.
You are a hasbara troll. You lie, and so do your sources, as I have demonstrated before.
Evidence?
Jack, there are two levels of Apartheid, big, and small. One refers to all the ways the regime discriminates against the majority, and the other refers to the regime’s policy of denying citizenship (and residency) to enough of the majority to create the illusion that a minority is the majority.
The interesting thing is, even though there are differences in the details, though not the effects, of Israel’s version from the Afrikaaner state’s version, the differences are nowhere near as great as you seem to think. Indeed, consider the life of the only (officially admitted to by the regime) political prisoner held on Robin Island. Not only was he able to attend some of the best schools that state had to offer, right next to the elite of the Afrikaaners, he was even hired as a lecturing professor at the top university (though they did deny him the title of professor) and held that position right up until his arrest and conviction for ‘incitement’ (well, the SA apartheid regime used a different term for the same ‘crime’ of inspiring others to demand their rights).
Two ironies:
1) it wasn’t until I was standing on Robin Island, listening to a convicted terrorist, that I learned this, despite that political prisoner (note, the regime tried to present him as a ‘guest of the state’, their version of ‘administrive detainee’, but by this point, thanks to the man in question, the nature of the regime had been rubbed in the noses of the ‘civilized’ world, or ‘free’ world if you’d prefer, so forcefully that the media that usually would have gone along with the soft peddling, didn’t, and kept after the representatives of the regime until they admitted he was a political prisoner
2) The question is posed ‘where is the Palestinian version of Nelson Mandela?’ by those trying to transfer the burden of solving the issue onto the victims of Israel. The thing the regime and its supporters most fear (or should) is the Palestinian version of this other man. Because it was the youth, who regarded Mandela as a failure and soft, following the plan of this man to defy the regime and refuse to cooperate with the petty racist measures, who attracted the attention of the media to the truth about the regime, got them to report it to the PEOPLE of the ‘free world’, and so ‘destroyed’ the Afrikaaner state and ushered in actual democracy to what many had tried to brand ‘the only democracy in Africa’.
Discrimination is not apartheid.
Apartheid is separation.
Sure, that works, but only if you ignore the definition of apartheid:
a·part·heid: “a policy or system of segregation or discrimination…”
1. I showed above the enormous extent of separation of Jews and Palestinians in the WB and Gaza.
2. Apartheid includes both degrees of discrimination and separation; the one feeds into the other.
3. In Israel proper, Israeli Jews grossly discriminate against Arab Israelis: Israeli Supreme Court upholds law allowing housing discrimination against Palestinians
Housing discrimination to keep Arabs out of “Jewish neighborhoods” is rampant in Israel.
Israel is an apartheid state.
Israel also practices pool separation
This is just the most recent such example: Israeli mayor: No Arabs in our pools because their ‘hygiene culture is not like ours’ Some Jews require Arabs to either have their ownb pools, or that Arabs and Jews use the same ones on diffeent days.
Just another piece of data showing that Israel is an apartheid state.
Now, now, Gil, you began the whataboutery. The burden is on you.
And let me note, whataboutery is one of the favorite Zionist fallacies. You aren’t the first, and won’t be the last, to resort to it. As one newspaper editorialist put it at the site’s blog:
It’s common among your ideological kind. Indeed, Craig Summers is a master of whataboutery where Israel is concerned. (On occasion I’ve made it his middle name.) I’ve even seen special pleading, i.e., Israel apologists saying that whataboutery is justified on their one issue.
So we weren’t talking about Israel but I brought it up in a case of what aboutery?
Yes, Gil, we are talking about Israel. This thread is littered with discussion about Israel, for the obvious reason that the article is about BDS visi-a-vis a boycott of North Carolina.
What we are not talking about is the Olympics and homelessness in Brazil.
I was not using Brazil because I was ” ‘overly’ concerned about tragedy X, by forcibly diverting your attention to tragedy Y. ”
I was bringing it up to show how it answered Glenn’s question. Rather than address what I actually posted you try and change the subject by accusing me of something that doesn’t meet you own definition of a made up concept, rather than actually address the point of my post.
Or is it my mentioning Syria in response to a direct question about what tops my list of current war crimes? Is that it? Sheesh Mona.
Wait now I get it “whataboutery” is bringing up any other place besides Israel in a conversation where Israel is mentioned. So it is not whataboutery for Glenn to bring up Israel in response to Hillary mentioning NC. But it is whataboutrey to bring bring up any place other than Israel in response. And the reason this is so is because some unnamed person who you cut and pasted from defined whataboutrey as only applying to Israel.
Are you serious ?
Well, no, that’s just one of the most common incidences of it in the current era. It became very notable during the Cold War when deployed by the Soviets. Very often when they were accused of any of their myriad human rights violations they’d bring up racism, lynching, Jim Crow & etc. in the U.S. That is, they pioneered whataboutery in recent times. Israel apologists have renewed its popularity.
That’s right, it isn’t. Do read the article, Gil. For you see, Hillary Clinton herself has raised both issues, but treats them in a decidedly different manner. Greenwald is asking to know the reasoning that could justify this disparate approach.
Do you have any ideas on that issue, Gil?
“Do you have any ideas on that issue, Gil?”
Yes, and I stated them. The reason Hillary and Glenn have two standards is because of politics? I thought that was pretty clear in my post Mona. If not what part do you need explained?
“Deflectology” The science of deflecting a conversation away from the point by sidetracking the conversation.
That’s so general as to be meaningless. Why does Hillary “repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate, and undermine Israel,” but supports the effort to “malign, isolate, and undermine North Carolina?”
The article is about BDS, North Carolina, and Hillary Clinton’s disparate treatment of boycotts aimed at Israel and the southern state.
Gil, it is you who introduced the Olympics and homelessness in Brazil. That is, if anyone is deflecting, it is you.
How is that general? My contention, and I believes Glenn’s is as well, is that Hillary decides who it is proper to boycott based not on progressive values but on political expedience.
I believe Glenn is also guilty of the same type hypocrisy. I defended my point by pointing out that Glenn did not begin talking about the poor being displaced and social programs being cut due to Olympic spending until after Dilma was facing impeachment. You have yet to address my point. Instead youl try and dictate what is allowed in the course of debate and what is not.
Answer this question. Do you believe Glenn never writes articles to advance a political belief system?
Guess you won’t answer Mona. Not answering is better than having to lie.
I never, ever lie, certainly not in political fora (everybody lies from time to time interpersonally). You however — and I’ve noted this before — frequently accuse others of “fleeing” or not responding as if everyone just sits her to answer GilG with nothing else going on in their lives. Self-absorbed much?
“Hillary Clinton herself has raised both issues, but treats them in a decidedly different manner. ”
And Glenn has only brought up the destitute people displaced in Brazil by the Olympics after it was clear Dilma would be impeached.
He has, in fact, written about homelessness in Brazil, before the Dilma impeachment. He’s also written of the measures she’s taken that many perceive to have harmed the poor of Brazil.
But in your whataboutery quest, you focus on the specific issue of homelessness caused by the Olympics. If that piece of whataboutery had been unavailable, you would have chosen another.
It’s what Israel apologists do.
OMG,myriad Soviet human rights violations can be described in one word;Zionism.Let our people go!
I’m am absolutely sure Russia is much better off wo a bunch of fifth columnists as we are inundated with.
Most of the bastards came here,instead of their promised land.
It’s Crooked Hilary. What else did you expect?
She cherrypicks what she wants and disregard the rest.
The troll known as Mani again spews a trope he’s been riding for many threads:
This has been debunked many, many times, by compelling evidence that Mani utterly ignores. Specifically, in 2004 The Defense Science Board made clear to Donald Rumsfeld that “war on terror” policy was counter-productive when the latter asked the Board to determine why Muslims would be interested in committing terror against Americans. Among the findings in that Report:
Mani ignores that Report, and “replies” with non sequiturs. When told that Nobel Peace Prize winner, Pakistani Malala Yousafzai, told Obama that U.S. drones — killer sky robots buzzing over her country killing thousands of innocents– increase support for terrorism, he glibly sneers that that is “just her opinion.” (She is a person of high repute who, you know, lives there and has herself been victimized by anti-Western forces in her land.)
Mani is a troll and is best ignored for the most part. Certainly until he ceases crapflooding the board with endless and silly ad homs and traffics with non sequiturs and other fallacies when presented with facts he dislikes., And absolutely until he stops misstating the words of the site’s writers and commenters — he does that promiscuously and it’s grossly dishonest.
OMG!!!! A Nobel peace prize winner? Malala Yousafzai must be right about every opinion that she expresses!!! Let’s take a look and see who else should be afforded the same level of trust due to their own status as Nobel Laureates:
1. Yasser Arafat – Palestinian terorist
2. Shimon Peres – Member of Zionist terrorist org., Haganah
3. Yitzhak Rabin – Member of Zionist terrorist org., Irgun Zvai Leumi
4. Henry Kissinger
5. Barrack Obama
1. Malala Yousafzai lives in Pakistan.
2. Unlike the others you list, the Peace Prize for Malala Yousafzai was virtually without objection from anyone serious. She is well-regarded, and considered courageous, by damn near everyone.
OMG!!! Malala Yousafzai is Pakistani… that makes all the difference in the world. Pffft!
Mona believes that consensus opinion is the same thing as the truth (at least so far as when it matches her own opinion).
BTW didn’t Glenn Greenwald go against the progressive grain and respond positively to Obama being awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2009?
God, but you are an idiot:
Glenn Greenwald, OCT 9, 2009:
Another item for me to bookmark to show readers what an abject fool you are. Seriously, dude, do you not ever tire of so easily being shown to be an imbecile?
Wow Mona… you have been caught in another attempt to deceive your fellow commentators by intentionally engaging in the sin of omission. Here is what Glenn Greenwald actually said in the exact same article from which you cherry picked your quote:
Picking up where you left off
Now, exactly how much of this benefit-of-the-doubt rationale proved to be true? But wait, there is more:
THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OWN? Really? The whole article is written from an apologist’s perspective. In the vary act of acknowledging that Obama’s receipt of the Nobel prize was “so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous”, Mr Greenwald went to extraordinary lengths to suggest that Obama’s lack of merit was merely the product of circumstance far beyond his control. Yet it was widely known that Obama was a neoliberal centrist when he entered the Presidential race. Now compare this utter nonsense to what Chris hedges had to say about presidential candidate Barrack Obama a full year before the date of your citation, on April 9,2008:
Corporate America Hearts Obama;
Obama’s campaign message, filled with lofty promises of change and hope, is also filled with repeated reassurances to the corporate elite.
http://www.alternet.org/story/83890/corporate_america_hearts_obama
THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OWN? That is rich!!!
Every time you’re caught saying something incredibly stupid, Karl, you attempt to change the subject.
This was you: “BTW didn’t Glenn Greenwald go against the progressive grain and respond positively to Obama being awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2009?”
This was Glenn in October of 2009: “‘Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize’ — I had the same immediate reaction which I’m certain many others had: this was some kind of bizarre Onion gag …. That’s what makes this Prize so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous.”
The rest of Glenn’s position — and it is not about the merits of the prize which he found “ludicrous” — was reasonable in October of 2009, as the difference between Candidate Obama and President Obama was not all in. But what is utterly clear from that article is that you beclowned yourself claiming GLenn went against “respond[ed] positively to Obama being awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2009.”
He fucking called it “self-evidently ludicrous,” you moron.
He fucking called it “self-evidently ludicrous,” you moron. Just as stupid as what you did here. Remember, Carl?
You had said I “will deny the existence of [COINTELPRO] as well unless her Guru says that it was real.” You didn’t know, when you used that tense, that Glenn had written about it. Moreover, no one with two seconds of familiarity with me would think I was unaware of the Church Committee and the myriad things it investigated, including COINTELPRO.
Moreover, I affirmed your point about Margaret Sanger. Glenn Greenwald has never written one word about her, and yet I knew that what you wrote about her was “real.” How do you explain that, you idiot? I had contradicted your point even immediately before you made it, you imbecile, by verifying what you wrote about Sanger, a topic Glenn has never remotely addressed — God, you are dumb.
We’ve got a tag team zionist effort today.
Ignore them,as they are unreasonable.
Allowing your little grudge against Mona to override fact and reason is indeed idiotic.
Following the same pattern with other commenters on other topics makes it a trend.
The way you allow it to bring you into association with the most pathetic elements here is just disturbing.
I understand holding grudges, but I would suggest a new approach.
Thx Mona/altohone, I’ll give your sockpuppet synopsis exactly the weight it deserves (Zzzzzz)
1) Are you sure Malala LIVES in Pakistan?
2) Nobody doubts Malala’s courage. But she did not provide any evidence that drone strikes are responsible for an increase in terrorism in Pakistan. Did she?
You are suggesting that Malala Yousafzai falls into the category of those on your list? And even if this was true – which its not and its an outlandish, inane comparison – how does this discredit the facts of her story?
“This has been debunked many, many times, by compelling evidence that Mani utterly ignores. Specifically, in 2004 The Defense Science Board ”
Do you know what compelling evidence means?
A report writen in 2004 cannot debunk data analyzed and published in 2010, 2015 or 2016
This is from the same report:
“In the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of AFGHANISTAN and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. ”
In 2016 according to the Arab Youth Survey that TI constantly used 90% of young Iraqis believe the US is an enemy. BUT 63% of Young Arabs say the US is an ally. 85% of young Arabs in the GCC say the US is an ally.
About the Afghans?
In 2010 a poll from BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV showed 7 out 10 Afghans support the presence of US forces and 61% favor the military buildup at that time.
In 2015, the Afghan Centre for Socio Economic and Opinion Research showed 77% of Afghans support the presence of US troops, 8 in 10 say it was a good thing for the US to oust the Taliban, 92% prefer the current government over the Taliban.
About the Muslims?
This is the US favorability from Pew Research in June 2015
Indonesia with 13% of the world Muslim: 38 % in 2005, 62% in 2015
Palestinian Ter : 13 % in 2007, 26% in 2015
Pakistan: 21% in 2004, 22% in 2015
If you were not a deranged lapdog then you would attempt to explain the inconsistencies between that report and the current data. How come surveys after surveys show the Afghans support US policies? How come so many young Arabs see the US as an ally? (Hint : 2004 is not 2016)
Again, Malala did not provide any evidence that drone strikes are even indirectly correlated with an increase in terrorist attacks in Pakistan. She is a Nobel Prize Winner but not an expert in terrorism. Is she?
Is it factually incorrect that most terrorist attacks in Pakistan are against Pakistani civilians? Not against Americans who are directly responsible for drone strikes.
Is it factually incorrect that most Americans or European Muslims who went to the Middle East to join ISIS are killing other Muslims ?
That BS about me being a Zionist troll proves my point that you are a comedian. You are a deranged individual. You cannot have a solid argument because you see this place as your house. Your plan is to chase dissenters by creating weird stories such as they lie about you. It is funny to me because every time you ban somebody who dismantles your views with facts you just prove my point this is a community of lapdog.
Mani, nobody takes Mona seriously. Everyone knows that her primary goal is to generate traffic on the Intercept website. She has been repeatedly exposed for being a troll across the web – and a serial liar to boot. Citing a 2004 report to dispute irrefutable data from the present is just anther example of the way that she chronically relies on false equivalents to support specious arguments. No surprise there… she is an attorney.
Yes, I’m a troll who keeps walking into stuff like this.
Once again with the non sequiturs. NOTHING in your stream of them undermines the 2004 Defense Science Report. You continually act as if Greenwald, I and other writers claim that ALL MUSLIMS in ALL COUNTRIES uniformly hate the U.S. No one has ever uttered that favorite straw man of yours. That includes the Defense Science Board Report.
We broke Afghanistan when we supported the pre-cursors to the Taliban, and now, yes, they expect us to help fix it. (Unlike when we left Vietnam to the tender mercies of the indigenous forces we had infuriated.) Osama bin Laden hailed from the House of Saud, as corrupt a dictatorship as we have ever supported. OBL got plenty of support from various Muslims in many nations because of the horrific thing this nation has done, as the Defense Science Board found.
But Indonesia, which you keep citing, is essentially irrelevant. It’s Asian, nowhere near the Middle East where we have kept meddling.
Nor does this matter:
That doesn’t mean they support DRONES. It also doesn’t mean the drone-murders of many innocent civilians do not generate exactly what Malala says: more support for terrorism.
Again, you are trafficking in non sequiturs.
Mona is officially crazy:
“NOTHING in your stream of them undermines the 2004 Defense Science Report.”
She is referring to a report whose authors relied on several polls to conclude this in 2004:
“In the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of AFGHANISTAN and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. ”
By 2016 surveys after surveys have shown a large majority of Afghans support the US forces in their country. A large majority believe the 2001 intervention was a good thing.
Mona: Those surveys do not undermine that report.
Did she even read that report? Or she read it but could not understand it.
Mona:
“Unlike when we left Vietnam to the tender mercies of the indigenous forces we had infuriated.)”
What’s the US favorability in Vietnam according to the Pew Research Center in 2015? Find out yourself.
“But Indonesia, which you keep citing, is essentially irrelevant. It’s Asian, nowhere near the Middle East where we have kept meddling.”
Are you really that ignorant? Was it you who described yourself as “well informed”? Is that a joke?
Should I teach you about US support for Suharto for 30 years? Even the CIA described him as a mass murderer while they were supporting him.
Even if you stay in the Middle East and you completely disregard the fact that the US actively and openly supported a Muslim dictator who murdered thousands of his Muslim people in the most populous Muslim country and invaded East Timor, the same survey that showed 90% of young Irakis perceive the US as the enemy showed 85% of young Arabs in GCC see the US as an ally. The GCC is part of the Middle East by the way and it includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait. All of them are run by non democratic governments supported by the US.
Why so many young Arabs in the center of the Middle East perceive the US as an ally in 2016? You are definitely insane if you cannot grasp the contradiction between the 2004 report and those current data. It is interesting how you distort current surveys to support that report, but somehow surveys become non sequitur when they undermine the same report.
“That doesn’t mean they support DRONES. It also doesn’t mean the drone-murders of many innocent civilians do not generate exactly what Malala says: more support for terrorism.”
1) Malala made the claim. So she has to prove it. She has not.
2) The 2004 report was not about a specific tactic of the US military. Most people around the world do not support drones. Most Afghans did not support late night raids from US special forces. But as the data showed, they do support US forces in Afghanistan.
That was so epicly inane I’m content to rest on my offerings in this sub-thread confident that anyone with an iota of intelligence will see that you are a trolling fool. Before I revert to ignoring you I wish to highlight this special, arrogant puddle of vomitus from you:
You wretched little man. Malala Yousafzai is a brilliant young woman of incredible courage, while you are a cretinous Internet troll. I’ll take her intelligent, personal testimony about matters in her own country over your fallacious spewing any day of the week, and so will any other bright reader here.
Ignore back on, except when I state that I do usually now ignore you and a link showing why.
1) You do not even know where Malala lives, but somehow you are presenting yourself as the one who knows more about her than anybody else here.
2) Malala lives in the UK by the way. Not in Pakistan as you claim. Malala DID NOT give her opinion about drone strikes when she was living in Pakistan. You take her words because her opinion says something bad about the US.
3) By any means do not take my words. Take the words of Prof Aqil Shah who interviewed adults from North Waziristan the area mostly affected by drones. 79% of those adults endorse drone strikes. 56 % believe drones seldom killed non militants, less than 15 % support the revenge thesis. (WASHINGTON Post May 17, 2016)
Does Malala, living in the UK, know better about drones strikes than adults living in North Waziristan?
And there’s this from Pew on results in 2015:
That’s entirely consistent with what the Defense Science Board reported in 2004, and not a thing you’ve cited or claimed shows otherwise: Muslims do not hate us for our freedoms, they hate us for our policies. And this hatred results in a small fraction of them turning to what we call terrorism..
Who, Mani, is more likely to analyze facts and state why a small fraction of Muslims hate us enough to do things like 9/11 and why there is so much anti-American sentiment in so many Muslim-majority countries? You, Mani, or a group of professionals tasked to report to the Secretary of Defense? (And I’m sure neither Rumsfeld nor the Board realized these findings could be found and used to condemn the very policies Bush, Rumsfeld and many U.S. administrations before it, have inflicted on Muslim nations.)
“That’s entirely consistent with what the Defense Science Board reported in 2004, and not a thing you’ve cited or claimed shows otherwise”
No. It is not big dummy. You have exposed your inability to understand statistics many times.
1) The survey reported views about WESTERNERS not just the US. Westerners include Germany and France that were opposed to the war in Iraq. They also include Switzerland that has not been involved in any wars for a long long long time. The report was about US policy not Swedish policy or Swiss policy.
2) THOSE DATA DO NOT EXPLAIN CAUSATION.
This is how the US is viewed (from Pew Global Research in 2016):
Arrogant: Canada (69%) UK (64%) France (58%)
Greedy: Canada (58%) UK (56%) France (43%)
Violent: Canada (53%) UK (57%) France (48%)
These countries have been doing the same thing in the Middle East. Some of them 100 years before the US. The report does not conclude 57 % of British believe Americans are violent because of US policy in Iraq. It would not make sense anyway since the Brits have been doing the same thing years before the US got involved in the Middle East.
The report does not explain why only 29% of Muslims believe Westerners are generous. Since you are a lapdog, a comedian and obviously a big dummy, then you can dismiss the fact that Americans are not the only Westerners. Westerners also include Germany, the country that accepted 1,000,000 mostly Muslim refugees in one year.
All boycotts are stupid
“All boycotts are stupid.”
~P.W. Botha, Die Groot Krokodil
Since neither party of the duopoly will campaign in any state except where the polls are so even that they present as swing states, all votes for a sure loser in those states are wasted votes. It doesn’t matter if Hillary loses by one vote or by a million votes, she will receive absolutely zero Electoral College votes from that state.
For example, if a state is given up as a lost battle for Hillary with Trump at 60% and Hillary at 40%, then all votes for Hillary are wasted votes because they have absolutely no impact on the number of Electoral College votes Hillary receives because Electoral College votes are allocated by winner-take-all rules.
If millions of votes that would otherwise be wasted in voting for Hillary were instead given to the Green Party, the Green Party would become viable by exceeding the 5% vote total to be recognized as a national party in all states.
Bernie Sanders could campaign for Hillary Clinton in swing states as he has pledged to do from the very beginning and still campaign for the Green Party in states where votes for Hillary would otherwise count for absolutely nothing.
This would further strengthen the electoral power of the very voters that supported Sanders in the primary without splitting the vote and ensuring a Trump win.
I’m reminded of a famous quote:
Galileo, (himself quoting Cardinal Baronius) – “The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
What the cardinal Baronius….and the scientist Galileo both understood, and they understood it in 1615, was that scripture is not science. They understood that religious texts were not scientific works written by historians.
Fast forward to 2016 and Jerry here thinks his religious texts are ancient versions of Hollywood star maps. (Look! There’s Rachel’s tomb!! across from George Clooney’s house!!!)
The thing is, Jerry the more you read, the more you learn, the harder it is to take any one sacred text too seriously. There are the flood myths, the abandoned baby myths, you name it and I can show you different versions of the same stories told in many languages over many years.
I love mythology Jerry…but I don’t confuse it with history. And I certainly don’t want to use cherished religious traditions as an excuse to hold an entire population under perpetual Israeli military rule.
Very bloody well said!
You seem confused.
There is a difference between boycotting a jurisdiction in your own state, and going to war against a state overseas. Americans are responsible for what Americans do. We are not responsible for what the savage Palestinians do; notwithstanding the billions we pay them in jizya each year.
For example – let’s take the worst country in the Western Hemisphere, Brazil. Brazil is truly a satanic society which is intolerant, unimaginably unequal and just ugly. Obviously Brazilians have an obligation to fight their state or to emigrate – anyone who would willingly stay in Brazil isn’t human. Does that mean we should boycott Brazil? No. We should promote our values but have no obligation to change Brazil.
Obviously if I lived in Brazil I would have different obligations – specifically the obligation to eradicate Brazilian culture and to emigrate.
As Americans we have an obligation to eradicate Islam and homophobia and racism at home. We have no obligation to change the whole world to adopt our unique values.
To put it in words that SJWs can understand: Israel is a safe space for Jews.
Are you gonna boycott all the universities like Cal State LA that are rolling out segregated “safe space” housing for black students?
The difference being that Jews really are assaulted around the world and have a proven need for a safe space, while blacks and Muslims are perpetrating a lot of the assaults, and people need a safe space from them.
Placing civilians on the front line in illegal settlements constitutes ‘a safe space’, does it? The apartheid settler colonial state of Israel, which is rightly hated by all of it’s neighbours, constitutes ‘a safe space’?
Another Israel apologist living in a self-created fantasy world.
Nice column, Glenn. Great questions. Posted FB.
There are those who claim that their support of the violent oppression of the part of the Israeli population the Israeli regime denies citizenship and residency to is not due to racist attitudes towards nonJews, but fear of a backlash if the Israeli regime ever did collapse. If their claims were honest, they’d be looking at what happened in South Africa. There, when a regime that engaged in the violent oppression of the part of its population it denied citizenship and residency to collapsed, the backlash was avoided because there were many examples of those the oppression was designed to privilege risking (and all to often, losing) their lives fighting to end the regime. Yes, folks, if you are concerned that despite the Palestinians being clear that Jews will be welcome in democratic, independent Palestine, as long as they are willing to accept equal status, rather than overlord status, there will be a backlash against Jews once the Israeli regime collapses, the winning strategy is not to advocate for delaying that collapse no matter how great the cost is for nonJews, but rather to join, on the front lines, at the risk of your life at the hands of the regime, the effort to bring about the collapse of the Israeli regime.
I’m really not a fan of Israel.. but honestly I don’t know how anyone could really believe that ” that Jews will be welcome in democratic, independent Palestine”. I mean you see what’s going on in Syria right now? And I think Alawites and the Sunni have a lot less hatred toward one another than the Israelis and Palestinians. There’s simply no model of successful democratic pluralism in the history of the ME (and don’t say Lebanon). I especially can’t see how these two peoples would be able co-exist given the Right to Return of millions of Palestinians. I just can’t imagine how Israel wouldn’t end in a mass exodus or slaughter.
You seem to forget history. Since 637-638 AD, Jews have had the right to return to Jerusalem. And, that was after they were denied return for ~600 years. Mass exodus, yes. But, slaughter, no.
Both Jewish and Palestinian zealots would make it necessary for the UN to be involved for some time. Israel has a surging population of ultra-Orthodox crazies, violent hyper-nationalists who are terrorizing and murdering Arabs in the West Bank. In Israel proper Palestinians are generally segregated and discriminated against, and killed by cops and the IDF.
The decades of acrimony will not go away quickly. I have no doubt at all that international peacekeeping will have to be involved.
Where do you get the idea that Palestinians say Jews will be welcome in an independent Palestine? Both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have said many times, and in writing, that Jews will have to leave. Their aim always has been a Jew-free area from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea.
Long ago. No one serious, including Israeli intelligence, believes those positions are still operative.
Mona, the same thing (that the radicals on both sides would spoil any sort of unified state) was said about South Africa, too. Yet it turned out not to be true, first because BDS had driven home the message that the oppressors were effectively on their own, and second because, you guessed it, the oppressed knew that there were those indistinguishable from the oppressors willing to die to end the oppression. We (you, me, any moral person willing to look at the facts) can supply the first ingredient. But it is only Jews (because that is how the regime has rigged the rules) who can supply the second.
The rats are roaring.
Mr. Greenwald
Here is what you said in an article about the political unrest in Brazil:
“………I am not writing in defense of PT. If I were, your critiques – and demand for greater complexity – would be valid. I’m writing in defense of democracy……..”
There has been a clear violation of democratic principles in Venezuela like the arrest of opposition leaders, the killing of 43 people demonstrating against the government and delaying a recall referendum on the Maduro government for political expediency. People have been crossing into Columbia for food because of wholesale food shortages and extreme inflation. Up to 1,000,000 people marched against the leftist government in Caracas. The country (much like Brazil but only worse) is in economic turmoil mostly because of the incompetent Maduro. Polls indicate 80% of Venezuelans want a change in government.
The Intercept has entirely ignored the story (let alone criticize the anti-American government). Were you really writing about Brazil in defense of democracy, or just for political reasons in defense of the corrupt and incompetent left wing Rousseff government?
Left wing or Right wing, for any organizational principles to work they need to be executed competently. Unfortunately most attempts at a leftist government are botched horribly.
I think that the reason is because leftist principles are idealist and utopian which goes directly against common human nature, which is wicked and self centered. Maduro is just like so many other men, wicked and self centered…basically a capitalist. Except instead of dealing in money, he deals in power. He capitalizes on ordinary people’s desire for a better life. Leftism brings that promise, so selling it is easy. Selling it earns him his currency of choice, power.
Once in power though, a person who is a capitalist at heart, trying to actually administer a leftist government is doomed to failure. The results are always the same. Cronyism, corruption and a general pillaging of the nation’s wealth. Maybe there is a genuine attempt to make things works, but that too falls prey to the true nature of the men in power.
True leftists will always be a minority, which is why its important we learn how to identify each other, weed out the wolves in sheep’s cloth, and form our own independent communities and societies.
Good points Casey. Thanks.
“but what could possibly justify U.S. politicians drawing the moral and ethical lines about boycotts in this manner?”
How about campaign and foundation contributions, and huge salaries for do nothing jobs once you step down from power could have something to do with it.
“On a side note-this and other recent GG posts have me wondering: Glenn, do you grudgingly support Donald Trump for President?” Nate
We might never know whether Greenwald supports Donald Trump or not, but it would not be unreasonable to assume that Greenwald would like to see Donald Trump elected.
Greenwald and many others have worked for years to portray the US as the most violent terrorist state on earth. A state whose naive and stupid masses have been heavily propagandized and whose
“overriding mentality is just the crassest and most primitive form of tribalism”
He derides Americans who believe the US is the greatest country on earth. A simple expression of patriotism citizens typically say about their own country. (Shockingly the Germans think their country is the greatest on earth even after it caused millions of deaths in WWII!)
The best way to prove those points is to have a dangerous clown, an openly bigoted president who casually advocates war crimes.
I thought your posts couldn’t get dumber.
or your responses Vic……
Oh look, it’s not- CraigSummers , showing up to pretend to have been here all along but just having taken a long break where he lost his capital letters.
Say hi to Veruca when you see her on the Boulevard, she is grately mist.
Mist! Lustig!
Likewise Vic.., say hello to Mona when she is once again able to rise to a level of consciousness. It must be tough to juggle so many online personas…
I slam you in quite different ways than Mona does. My vocabulary and sentence structures do not resemble hers. I don’t just emerge from left field, but from the left field bleachers. (There’s a sentence that sounds like me, not Mona).
But whatever you need to believe to keep your tortured psyche sane, idiot man. You go hug your truth to your knees, perhaps it will give you a blow job if you buy it dinner.
Donald Trump is the personification of everything Glenn has been trying to fight against for the last 11 years. Torture, extremist exceptionism and homophobic/racist rhetoric. Why would he support a candidate like that? You’re just touting the absurd conspiracy theory used by Clinton supporters to delegitimize her critics. There is no doubt in my mind that Glenn hates Trump and the mentalility he subscribes to, but that’s no excuse to throw journalistic scrutiny out the window when it comes to his opponent.
America is heavily propagandized. It’s evident whenever your politicians talk about proposals saying they “could never work”, even though they’ve been proven to work in the rest of the world. Your politics are so polarized that nuance is almost non-existant in the political discourse. And as far as I know the only other countries in the world currently or recently engaged in torture/extrajudicial killings are the ones on America’s list of terrorist states, so your argument is kind of moot.
I want Clinton to win, but only because the alternative will be horrible. But the notion that she is immune from criticism because of that is ridiculious. Imagine how it would be if the response to criticism was “good point” or “we’ll look into changing that” instead of “TRAITOR!!!”
“But the notion that she is immune from criticism because of that is ridiculious.”
Who even suggested that Clinton was immune to criticism?
“Why would he support a candidate like that?”
It’s not whether he supports him. It’s the fact that the candidate would prove the point he is making : America is a violent terrorist state.
Many individuals do want America to fail. That’s not a conspiracy. This is Jeremy Scahill in 2010:
“The US has basically already lost the war in Afghanistan” He continued to describe the Taliban as thriving as a protest against the failures of the current regime.
The same year a poll from BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV showed 7 out 10 Afghans support the presence of US forces and 61% favor the military build-up at that time.
Five years later in January 2015, the Afghan Centre for Socio Economic and Opinion Research released another poll in which 77% of Afghans support the presence of US troops, 8 in 10 say it was a good thing for the US to oust the Taliban. 92% prefer the current government over the Taliban. (Acsor-surveys)
Writers at The Intercept love waving the Arab Youth Survey in 2016 that indicates that 90% of young Iraqis see the US as an enemy. The same writers never reported that the same survey also indicates that 63% of young Arabs and 85% of young Arabs in the GCC see the US as an ally.
There are more data from Indonesia to Pakistan that showed an increase favorability of Muslims towards the US while certain individuals like Greenwald or Alex Emmons enhance the inaccurate painting of America as the blood thirsty anti Muslim tribe. They call the war in Afghanistan a failure even when the Afghans believe otherwise. They obviously do not care about those data. So, it is reasonable to conclude that their objective is more about proving themselves that America is an anti Muslim terrorist state than finding the truth. Donald Trump is the perfect candidate to prove that point.
Hillary is simply in the pocket of the Zionist billionaires and that’s why she can draw a distinction. Otherwise, she is a “liberal.” What does Trump have to do with this article? Clinton will simply be another lying chief executive.
South Africa Apartheid and Israel Apartheid have one important thing in common: the support of the US, powerful support that made SA and know Israel not to care at all what the rest of the world think about the crimes and atrocities they commit. Natanjahu had the courage to tell Obama in the White House that “he didn’t understand the situation between Palestine and Israel”. Obama did not respond. Then you wonder how much power has Israel on the US politicians. The Clinton are the answer. And Natanjahu couldn’t care less about the Two State solution, he laugh at it. By the way, Hillary, how are you doing with your pneumonia? It looks nice on you.
Actually the Israeli form is worse than the South African form. In South Africa they at least recognized the blacks as being human beings and set aside so-called homelands for them. As opposed to the Israelis, whose leaders describe the Palestinians as animals or worse, and who intend to drive them out to the last man, woman and child.
You would hard pressed to find any Israeli leader who voice such views. Any that did would be on the radical fringe. However, massacring the Jews is mainstream thought among the Pakestinian Arabs. Just yesterday Fatah praised the Munich massacre. You clearly haven’t read Hamas’ charter or Fatahs latest pronouncements calling for genocide. You are very uninformed
There is no apartheid in Israel. The Israeli law applies equally to all citizens. That is why there are Muslim Mk’s in the Knesset, a Muslim on the Supreme Court, Muslim IDF officers and police officers etc. Muslims frequent any business’s and public locations they desire. Muslim doctors, lawyers etc. are part of the fabric of Israel. Israel Druze and Christians are actually outperforming Jews in man respects. You seem to know very little about Israel.
Israeli law may apply equally to all citizens, but it’s painfully apparent that Israel doesn’t apply the law equally to all citizens, and especially not to those living in the Palestinian ghettoes created by Israel.
Having been to Israel multiple times I have seen no evidence the law is applied less equally to Arabs. Israeli courts are extremely liberally and bend over backward for Arabs. Israel never crested Arab ghettoes, where are you talking about exactly?
All your hasbara crap will not dim much less erase the photographs of brave Israeli soldiers firing their tanks’ main guns at Palestinian children who attack them with rocks. Or the photographs of the bombed UN hospitals and schools in Gaza. Or the bulldozing of Palestinian homes to make way for more Zionist land grabbing in occupied Jerusalem or at any one of a myriad of places in the West Bank.
You steal their land, you blockade deliveries of food and medicine, you deny them the right to export their goods, and do everything within your power to discredit their politicians, especially the ones who seek a peaceful settlement. And then you wonder why they attack you, don suicide vests, and fire Katusha rockets at the houses you built on their land. If I were a Palestinian, I’d be doing the same thing. Israel gives the Palestinians no choice but violence. Could it be a secret Jewish death wish?
Glenn finally shed the mask, one scrolls down the blog and it is a frenzy of Hillary bashing…not a single post even slightly critical of Trump. I guess an effect of the Clinton Derangement Syndrome is making Trump an acceptable and truthful candidate…ah well, at least he’s male, right?
Apparently, my doppelganger is at it again on this thread (whispers “Mona”). I cursory inspection of the email and IP address will reveal this fact. I only mention it so that others are made aware of the degree to which my legitimate opinions are deemed a critical challenge to the orthodoxy of Mona and her string of sock-puppets and sycophantic compatriots. Every time that Mona attempts to claim the moral high ground with you all, just remember the depths to which she will sink to undermine legitimate dissenting opinion. She does this in the name of Glenn Greenwald.
You aren’t the first fruit loop to become fixated on me and won’t be the last. My habit of debunking idiots like you with facts and reasoning generates quite a few of you.
Carry on. And remember Karl, I have a link to your stating a falsehood which I totally and incontestably debunked. Nearly everything you spew about me is false.
But do carry on. I know you will.
Under which guise do you now claim to have debunked me? If I had a dime for every time you and you cadre of sockpuppets claimed something to be “true” when it was not, I would have been made a wealthy man years ago.
I and others have so often smacked you around with facts they can’t be counted. One of the last times I blew up one of your inanities was <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/09/11/barbara-lees-lone-vote-on-sept-14-2001-was-as-prescient-as-it-was-brave-and-heroic/?comments=1#comment-279878"here (you had absurdly claimed I’d deny COINTELPRO was real until Glenn wrote that it was), whereupon you attempted to change the subject.
You’re just obsessed with me — very angry that I have so often debunked your various baseless claims.
ROFL!!! Glenn Greenwald has been talking about cointelpro for years! The example that you chose to cite in refutation was a six month old Wikipedia entry that was made by you that only made tangential reference to the psychotic belief of Targeted Individuals that they were being persecuted by such organizations. Even in this thread, Mani takes you to task for attempting to pull exactly the same type of bullshit.
Ka-ching!!! Another lie, another surrender
He leaves the Trump bashing to the leviathan ziomedia where not one major newspaper has any truck with American nationalist Donald Trump.
How could that be possible?
Not one MSM media outlet pro America?Un f*cking believable.
Many others have answered the question, but what it boils down to is that Hillary is an unethical, hypocritical, unbeliever in the supposed values of the country she wants to lead.
If it got her a title and wealth, she would have praised King George and attacked our founding fathers.
It’s interesting to see how liberal Zionists deal with BDS. Some of them support it, even tho they do not support the third plank. Omar Barghouti, the founder of BDS, has described the three goals this way: “three planks in our BDS call of 2005, which is ending the occupation, ending the racial discrimination in Israel and the system of apartheid and right of return [for Arabs].” All Jews in the world have a right of return to the entity called Israel; indigenous Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from the land, in or around 1948, do not.
Some BDS supporters balk at an Arab right of return because it would mean the end of a Jewish majority on Israel — Zionists ethnically cleansed enough Arabs on the ’40s to ensure such a majority, and maintaining it is why 4 million Palestinians remain locked up in the open air prison of Gaza or subjugated in the West Bank.
Altho some liberal Zionist object to the third plank of the BDS movement but support it anyway, the liberal Zionists at J Street have decided they cannot support BDS because of it. But, J Street warns:
It’s too late. Israel has become so far right-wing it’s described as proto-fascist by reasonable people. Netanyahu no longer seeks a 2 state solution, and just keeps swallowing up the rest of the West Bank whit ultra-zealous, murderous and fanatical settlers.
BDS is growing at exponential rates, and the third plank grows with it. At this point there isn’t a practical alternative left.
“Zionists” against BDS
Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky (specially 3rd goal)
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2016/02/noam-chomsky-opposes-cultural-boycott-israel-160201110337640.html
You got your facts all wrong. Firstly, Chomsky is definitely not a zionist. Secondly, Chomsky actually supports BDS for the occupied Palestinian territories (but not for Israel as a whole, esp. its arts and cultural programs). He is totally, totally against the Israeli occupation. Chomsky says just this in the above linked interview.
That’s been his way since he arrived last spring. I and others smacked him around with facts, and so he resorted to childish trolling in this form:
I usually now ignore him, but a few days ago gave him an opportunity to show he could argue a point with relevant facts and logic. He utterly failed, so now I’m back to usually ignoring him.
That’s because you did not get my point. Mona as well as many lapdogs here describe whomever disagree with them as “Zionists” specifically those who dare to criticize BDS. These are two individuals with a long history of supporting Palestinians. According to Mona they should be called Zionists. It makes no sense but hey lapdogs do not care about facts!
Chomsky is a phony loser liar zionist scumbag.
Telling people to vote for a pos aerial lying criminal ziowhore bubbleheaded loser as HRC is a sign of all those adjectives.
A very nice post, with one small but significant error. Netanyahu has never sought a two state solution. He did enter into negotiations, but in my view that was only to buy time while he tested the waters to see how the rest of the world would react to Israeli intransigence. He correctly observed that most of the world, including everyone essential to Israel’s continued existence and prosperity, was too cowardly to do anything more than voice mild objections for the sake of the tiny moral minorities in their countries.
I wish I could find the reference to the article in The New Yorker around a decade ago that described Netanyahu’s relationship with his father, a man who was outspoken about ethnic cleansing in greater Israel. It delved into how devoted a son Bibi was, how he wanted to make his father proud, all the usual Jewish son shtick.
Point taken. I should have said that Netanyahu has dropped even the pretense of seeking a 2-state solution.
Yes, his father was a lieutenant of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the Second Father of Zionism, the one who advocated forcing the Arabs out of Palestine and simply stealing their land. That version of Zionism prevailed and has until this day. So, like father like son.
So he has entered into negotiations, but since in “your view” he wasn’t serious than it is an error to say he wanted a 2 state solution because of course “your view” decides what makes something fact.
“the usual Jewish son shtick” Yes and of course Jewish sons unlike other sons in the world are known for wanting to make their fathers proud. Is your dad proud you are a bigot Jeff?
There was no ethnic cleansing of the Arabs from Israel. If you took the time to read the Arab Newspapers of the day, read the transcript of the Arab radio broadcast of the day, and read the commentary of many Arab leaders of the day, you would quickly learn that the Arabs were advised to leave to make way for the invading Arab armies. They were promised that upon the genocide of the Jews they would not only be able to return but would be able to claim Jewish property. Please take the time to educate yourself.
Oh Glenn!
You, of all people, should be able to see that what this means
is that Hillary Clinton believes that Israel is so Totally GAY that
her devotion to gay dominators will not allow someplace as backward
and self-hating as North Carolina (Charlotte is actually Charlie) to
continue to pretend that bigotry is form of circumcision, er,
I mean, circumspection.
Of course, the premise that there are “states” might imply that
the United States of America is a real place within the global
money machine which Clinton worships and that could help
her keep the suckers in line.
Jerry Hirsch writes:
Oh for fuck’s sake. Pious tradition claims some ancient Hebrews are buried in certain places, and so modern European Jews (that’s what most Israeli Jews are) are justified in kicking out the indigenous Arabs? God, that’s absurd.
Do you have any idea what Zionism has actually wrought for Jews in the West Bank? It has turned them into far-right, murderous, deranged religious fanatics and fascists. (Challenge me on that, and I’ll show you the documentation and analysis by a former director of the Shin Bet, Israel’s FBI.) What would Abraham think of that?
Palestine is the breeding ground for jihadi fanatics…
No, it’s not. The U.S. made two of the best breeding grounds for Islamist terror: ISIS in Iraq (spread now to Libya and Syria) and the Taliban in Afghanistan. We are also best buddies with the sourc of the Islamist terrorism that caused 9/11: Saudi Arabia.
Better hasbara, please.
You sound like the Arabs who claim no Jews ever lived in Israel, Judea and Samaria and that those “ancient Hebrews,” whose burials archeologists found, are all hoaxes. As for the West Bank, when Jordan occupied it from 1948 to 1967, it expelled all the Jews and took their property. That resulted in the Jews moving back being more pissed off than before. Is that enough documentation for you?
How the hell can you say Muslims deny the ancient Israeli presence in the Holy Land when their own religious texts are derived from them and that presence?
So IOW,you are full of shite.
Mohammed consider himself a Jew,btw,another self hating one though.:)
Mr. Greenwald
“…….Could someone explain why it’s noble, enlightened, justifiable, and progressive to boycott an American state, but hateful, bigoted, retrograde, and evil to support a boycott of a foreign country that has been imposing a brutal, discriminatory, and illegal occupation for many decades, a boycott that is led by people with virtually no political rights? How did that happen?……”
How many times does this need to be explained to you? The BDS campaign has nothing to do with punishing Israel for their “illegal” settlements. The BDS campaign punishes Israel for existing. That is a completely different argument than the boycott of North Carolina which penalizes the state government for passing gender identity discrimination laws (not that the Palestinians or any Arab majority country would ever consider such bias against the LGBT community).
If the founders of the BDS campaign stated they were boycotting Israel for their “illegal” settlements, it would be comparable to North Carolina although it’s unlikely Hillary would support even a limited boycott. You interviewed Omar Barghouti – one of the founders of the BDS movement. He was not shy about calling for the end of the Jewish majority state or apartheid Israel as he called it.
I am not sure why this even warrants an article albeit a refreshingly short one.
By your ‘logic’ the founders and supporters of BDS South Africa hated the White majority state, rather than being opposed to the massive, violent, systemic denial of human rights to the ‘foreigners’ (in the eyes of the regime) who were prevented from returning to their homes their because that would make that state not a White majority one.
BDS Israel is all about ending what international law identifies and defines as a crime against humanity (see the ICSPCA) Your opposition to it sounds a lot like the opposition of those who claimed their opposition to Abolition and Emancipation was based on concern about the need to preserve the genteel culture, and not their racist beliefs about the inferiority of Blacks.
You are the one discussing apartheid South Africa which has no application to the Jewish-majority state. By portraying Israel as being no different than the worst regimes of the twentieth century (including Nazi Germany in many cases), BDS supporters hope to develop the same momentum which ended apartheid South Africa. These are classic radical left constructs (i.e., lies) for political reasons. It simply has not and will not work. And it has nothing to do with “inferiority”. Again that is just you injecting racism into the argument. I’m not denying there is racism – only there is racism within both the Jewish and Palestinian populations.
Thanks.
No so.
Not so. BDS sanctions the existing, unacceptable actions of Israel, not nation states, per se.
No so. As with BDS, the boycott of North Carolina targets the unacceptable, existing actions of states, not the state itself.
Because some folks continue to choose not to read and/or fail to comprehend the actual stated goals, methods, and objectives that have been clearly put forth by advocates of the BDS and North Caroline boycotts.
It will be clearer if you say what you mean. For “supporter of Israel,” please say “Jew.”
Money. Control. Power. Favors. Hidden Agendas. And repeat like a musical round.
“Row, Row, Row Your Boat” … can also be an “action” nursery rhyme, whose singers sit opposite one another and “row” forwards and backwards with joined hands.” ~wiki
With Hillary Clinton, it’s always a cash-on-the-barrelhead issue.
Bahrain’s Crown Prince donates $32 million to the Clinton Foundation/Global Initiative; in exchange, Hillary Clinton is silent as the grave on the Bahraini-Saudi action to crush the Arab Spring pro-democracy protests in Bahrain with tanks and torture. In contrast, Gaddafi, who gave nothing, is targeted for regime change and is eventually brutally killed, even though his human rights record was hardly as bad as that of the Saudis in Yemen.
With the Clinton Foundation, well, the Israelis are almost as close to the Clintons as the Saudis were to the Bushes; their support goes back a long ways, as the Haim Saban relationship demonstrates (he’s in the $5-$10 million bracket for Foundation donors).
As far as North Carolina, they only have 4 billionaires in residence, namely Michael Jordan, C.D. “Dick” Spangler (National Gypsum), Jim Goodnight (SAS), and John Sall (SAS). Spangler gives to Republicans, over $100,000 this cycle; Goodnight also gave over $100,000 to Republicans; now Sall, this is a surprise, gave over $130,000 to Democrats; but that wasn’t enough to buy Hillary, I suppose. Michael Jordon seems apolitical.
More importantly, none of them gave to the Clinton Foundation! There’s a “Jordon” donor, but that’s Vernon, not Michael:
http://www.arkansasonline.com/extra/databases/clintondonors/
Thus, North Carolina didn’t pay up; Israel did.
Actually Hillary seems stunningly close to the Saudis as well, having recently slid them $30 billion worth of arms, and counting, while the Foundation has received staggering “donations” from said Saudis. The Clintons, the Bushes, the Israelis, and the Saudis all occupy one very large bed, sliding around in it, slathered in petroleum products and bathed in other people’s blood.
Yes,and the zionist MSM has totally protected the Saudis since 9-11.
O what a tangled web we weave ……….
looks like you didn’t do your homework before you wanted attention talking against Hillary
Have you ever been to New Jersey? (Ba Da Boom!)
Speaking of enlightened progressives, did you ever hear the joke about the enlightened progressive who, upon entering heaven, attempted to mince words with Christ himself?
Christ: Well, what do you have to say for yourself?
Progressive: Sinners are clearly under represented in heaven – this is discrimination.
Christ: Well, maybe you would like me to reserve a special spot in hell for you ?
Progressive: Typical response of an asexual, autocratic, transcendental entity; segregate all dissenters!
Christ: You mean sinners don’t you?
Progressive: I mean indigenous freedom fighters. Sinners would have had to first exist before the redeemed became vogue.
Christ: Ah ha.., so you acknowledge the term “sinner” and its underlying moral implications?
Progressive: Yes, but only in so far as it validates the a priori nature of sin itself as a precondition of human existence.
Christ: Sin is neither a condition or state of being.
Progressive: Now we are getting somewhere.
Christ: Rather it is a thought or action whose very nature undermines the existential capacity of the thinker of doer.
Progressive: Ah ha, I was wondering when you would reveal your pro life bias!
Christ: I am the Living Word that comprises all that is. I am the light that shines on all men. He who betrays the moral integrity of his own nature betrays me as well.
Progressive: So then, you are the walrus that John Lennon was talking about? Oh man, talk about bad Karma!
Christ: I am the breathless dawn of first day that bares witness to the limitless creative potential of He who is Umanifest and Eternal.
Progressive: He? Really? Tim Leary didn’t happen by here recently, did he?
Christ: Leary is the segregation unit.
Progressive: You mean hell don’t you?
Christ: Semantics…
Progressive: Word!
Christ: Now you are getting it…
Another example of why Fox News was never able to create a decent political comedy show. . .
While sanctions may turn North Carolina into an uninhabitable wasteland, the refugees created would be welcome into the other 49 states. Israel doesn’t have this option. So U.S. politicians may be judging the effects of the boycott of Israel to be more severe.
This assumes that North Carolinians would be welcome in other states, and that is perhaps not a watertight assumption. I can easily imagine politicians in neighboring states clamoring to build a wall along their border with North Carolina. So U.S. politicians, for once, may have leapt to conclusions without thinking things all the way through. It’s probably best to acknowledge that sanctions are a form of collective punishment, and should only be deployed if there is a good business reason to do so. There’s no use compromising one’s principles, unless there’s profit in it.
“There’s no use compromising one’s principles, unless there’s profit in it.”
sometimes its just good to keep in practice, compromising one’s principles, so that when a true opportunity shows itself, one is boy-scout-like, completely prepared.
Let’s hope North Carolina (and a majority of other states) boycott the harpy on November 8
Just another example of her idiocy,pissing off an entire state,and the whole country outside of divide and conquerors,her supporters.
She is a bubbleheaded delusional deranged drunk.(looked that way to me,Pneumonia isn’t stumblebum material.)
Okay… let’s see if we can figure this one out for Glenn… hmmm… let’s see if we can figure out how politics works in a big country with some odd rules, every election cycle every candidate falls over themselves in support of ethanol, a ridiculous fuel that doesn’t actually save carbon… hmmmm… oh, I think I just figured it out: Iowa. If you’re running for president you really want to win the corn state of Iowa… Now, let’s see if we can figure out why every politician caters to Israel… hmmmm… money? Sure. But Florida? Ah, there it is, five percent of voters in Florida are Jewish and they come out in much larger numbers than the rest of the population to vote. And Florida is sometimes decided by just a few thousand votes. So, let’s see if we can figure this one out. 1) We know that Hillary Clinton is running for President, 2) We know that Hil wants to win 3) We know she needs to win Florida. 4) We know that there are a lot of voting Jews in Florida. Does it mean she’s a bad person or believes everything she says? No, as we know, even Noam Chomsky had to lie and pretend the Clinton parameters of the summer of 2000 were not designed until Bill invited Arafat to the White House after Bush stole the election because Noam, the old Lefty, just didn’t want to give Bill credit for being the master peacemaker that he was. But yes… if you’re running for President, you have to do and say things that you don’t believe in for various constituencies. Everyone knows that ethanol is a completely idiotic mandate and Hil likely knows that Israel is a very oppressive state.
My word Jimmy. I bet every night when you go to bed, you conclude, in your unerring, self-deluding way, that you’re some sort of genius.
I love this last from Jimmy. “Yes, Hillary lies, but gosh darn it she has to!!!!”
The only thing your candidate and her predecessor, Mr. Nader, will ever achieve is spoiler status to elect psychopaths… Send her back to the all white 1 million dollar median house price Lexington, Ma… she’s a malignant narcissist. Hillary is trying to win the presidency… and it’s not all white Lexington Ma or Vt, for that matter. It’s very big and very diverse. All white elitist like Jill would have to compromise if she ever wanted to be anything else but a vehicle for Trump to win white house.
Slick Willy, the master peacemaker, who peacefully murdered around 1.5 million Iraqis, with the help of his gorgon-in- waiting, Albright, and started, with the help of a diseased NATO, a heinous US/NATO war in former Yugoslavia, who bombed aspirin factories in Sudan, who gave sanctuary to the uber-peaceful Tontons Macoutes, who joyously supported Yeltsin as he attacked his own Duma with tanks…
all in nomine pax
You’re wrong on all accounts. The notion that Bill killed 1.5 million Iraqis is the same mindset as climate denial. That was Saddam Hussein who did that. Yugoslav action saved 300K lives. Bill made the world a far less violent place, and then he did amazing work, despite Arafat’s madness, toward peace. Noam tried to come up with a better plan but couldn’t. You’re a knee jerk fool, making statements no different than Trumpers.
Hillary: “..anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world — especially in Europe..”
How true. Of course, most of those Semites are Arab Muslims whose countries are being destroyed by their fellow “People of the Book”, as Mohammad so charmingly describes the Christians and Jews in the Koran. The word has been ‘modernized’ to mean only Jews, whether of Middle Eastern origin or not.
I wonder how much longer the Palestinians will have to pay for the crimes of the Holocaust. It would have made more sense to annex part of Germany rather than steal land in the desert in order to satisfy the narcissistic myth of God’s Favorite Child.
Clinton and Cuomo are obvious anti American scum,as common American workers in NC have no direct control of governmental edicts,such as the states resistance to the federal law,and are hurt by an economic boycott.
And that they’d also proscribe fellow Americans for directing just ire at Israel,the serial criminal state,is also another sign of the same elitist distaste for their fellow Americans,deplorable as they might be.
And the whole bathroom issue is dumb;As when a transgender man uses the woman’s room,he has to use a stall(no urinals in WR),and the opposite ,a female transgender has to use a stall also(can’t pee standing up),so the whole thing is ridiculous posturing by crud politicians.
Only stinking traitors would call for a boycott of their fellow Americans,and only the good guys call for a boycott of that crummy foreign entity ,Israel.
I guess the demoncrats have written off NC?
Are you trolling or just a moron? Probably both based on that bathroom sidebar. It is quite funny but you do realize a man can pee in a stall OR a urinal? Shocking privilege but it is what it is
Um, Steve, were you trolling, being a moron, or do you honestly believe there are urinals in the Women’s washroom?
But can a woman pee in a urinal?
Yes,that crossed my mind,but as a man,I’m unaware of female capabilities regarding urination techniques.:)
I guess the question would be;Does she want to pee in a urinal?
Most women I’ve met wouldn’t.
This is funny, Anshel Pfeffer actually thinks that Facebook is getting off easy, instead of deleting everything Israel asks it to…as Facebook has agreed to do….Facebook should delete content BEFORE Israel asks…or face Israeli criminal sanction.
It would be fun!!! Facebook-Brazil would ban all anti-coup comments. Facebook-America could remove the sexist Bernie-bros etc. Zuckerberg doesn’t want to go to jail for hosting millions of other people’s comments. And I don’t expect him to. And we’d still have all the cat videos!!!
So Glen calls Hillary a hypocrite. Aren’t all non native Americans who call for the boycott of Israel, including Glen, also hypocrites for occupying non native American lands?
The last line of my previous comment should be “for occupying native American lands?”
Well Glenn lives in Brazil but whatever, Jerry. That’s quite a brilliant point you make.
I suppose since America was taken from the Indians then everyone should take anything anytime. Might makes right, I take it.
Glen was born in the U.S. and lived the majority of his life here. Odd that he never called out against his own injustice of living as an occupier on native lands.
In the case of the Jews it was right made might. The archaeology, the history, and most of all the Jews themselves who proved that a people, a culture, a religion , and a language could remain relatively integrated even after 2,000 years and return to their ancient and rightful homeland.
right made might
Has anybody ever called you an imbecile Jerry, as a term of endearment?
http://mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel
Well not according to actual archaeologists and historians. Some of them Jewish oddly enough.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2014/feb/13/old-testament-camels-zionism-genesis
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Sand
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/10/shlomo-sand-i-wish-to-cease-considering-myself-a-jew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Finkelstein
The Arch of Titus in Rome clearly shows Temple articles, the Gold Menorah, Table of Show Bread, and silver trumpets looted from the Temple in Jerusalem nearly 2,000 years ago.
To say the Jews were not present in the land of Israel then considering the overwhelming evidence is irrational.
Even the most virulent atheists concede that simple fact.
How about carved stone replicas of 2 carat gold and silver plated relics?
https://www.scribd.com/document/45995254/Brief-Primer-on-the-Israeli-Palestinian-Dispute-27-Dec-2010
No.
@ Jerry
I didn’t argue “no Jews” were ever in the region as far back as 2,000 years ago and neither do actual archaeologists or historians like Sand and Finklestein.
But they do argue that they were a small minor “people” relative to all the other people of the region (of which there were many), and that destroys the basis of Zionism that the “region” is the “rightful homeland” of the Jewish diaspora (and only Jews), at least not the area that Zionists claim as “greater Israel”. Which of course is historically and archaeologically inaccurate.
But you keep on believing that, it’s called motivated reasoning or confirmation bias rather than an archaeologically or historically accurate premise.
Abraham is buried in Hebron, in the cave of the Patriarchs in the West Bank. His sons Isaac and Jacob (Israel) are also buried there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs
Jacob’s wife Rachel is buried in Bethlehem, also in the West Bank.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel%27s_Tomb
Joseph, the youngest of Jacob’s children is buried near Nablus, again in the West Bank.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph%27s_Tomb
Is it any wonder that the Jews will never give up the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), an integral part of the Jewish homeland for over 3,000 years?
Jerry Hirsch – “Abraham is buried in Hebron, in the cave of the… “
This reminds me of the old joke:
A Protestant dies and is met by St. Peter at the pearly gates for a tour of heaven. As the tour goes on St. Peter points out all the different denominations, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and so forth. As they come to a certain group way off to themselves, St. Peter draws the man closer and whispers, “Now, for this next group, we need to be really quiet. They are the Catholics and they think they’re the only ones here.”
Tell us more Jerry!! ‘Cause, I guess you think you are the only one to have such religious stories!!!
that was pretty good :)
These beliefs are shared by the Muslims who also claim Ishmael was the son of Abraham.
It is common for Arabs to refer to Jews as Cousins because Ishmael and Isaac were half brothers.
Whether you believe this or not does not matter. The majority directly involved in this conflict do and it will be their decision based on their knowledge on how to settle it.
No Jerry, you empathy-free scum of a human, it’ll be decide by the people with the guns.
Stop pretending like you give a shit.
So! That’s the reason, eh, for the land grabbing. Well, I have the perfect solution: Dig ’em all up and bury them in Tel Aviv. Then get the settlers out of all the illegal settlements, which per you were built solely for the adoration of the holy ones, and get them back to within the 1948 borders.
Thanks also for the bit about the West Bank only being the Jewish homeland [sic] for 3000 years. The hasbara keep telling us god gave it to them, and so, per fundamentalist creationism, that means it belonged to someone else for at least 3000 years before that. Who? The Palestinians, of course! Time to give it back!
The vast majority of Jews left Israel willingly and without force 2000 years ago. Land does not remain yours when you leave it to others for many generations. The Israeli historian Shlomo Sand shows that there is no historical evidence for a forced diaspora despite the meticulous record keeping of the Roman empire.
I put together a non-sensationalist headline that actually uses the words from Clinton’s comments:
Hillary Clinton: The NCAA Boycotting North Carolina Is “right”; Boycotting Israel Is “alarming.”
Talk about Dullsville. On second thought, maybe Glenn was right to spice it up a bit. Get those clicks TI!!
Such a question (obviously rhetorical) would have to first acknowledge that not all boycotts are comparable and that a person could support one boycott while opposing another.
gasp!
Glenn knows the answer to his question would require some actual analysis of the respective boycotts. He also knows that there are legitimate criticisms of BDS as he himself demonstrated during the interview of Omar Barghouti. Yet here we are, weeks away from the election with another Glenn Greenwald Super-Awesome-Hypocrisy-Post™.
On a side note – this and other recent GG posts have me wondering: Glenn, do you grudgingly support Donald Trump for President?
I don’t understand why TI’s most opinionated blogger has failed to opine on who he believes is the best remaining candidate in the 2016 U.S. election. Your articles’ areas of interest suggest the answer to my initial question is “Not Clinton.” Yet they don’t conversely support or condemn the candidacies of Donald Trump, Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson. It strikes me as oddly neutral , and we all know how well you regard that term.
Oh Nate, you are pulling a bunch of bullshit here.
The standards are not set by Donald Trump. Donald Trump is not the baseline by which all criticism is to be judged. We don’t have to all turn off our minds, relax and float downstream because Donald Trump.
Didn’t say that, just asking about the near invisibility of Trump in Glenn’s articles. This is not a call for forced equivalence but trying to delve into why Glenn has been so coy on the Presidential candidates.
Didn’t say that either. This is you just repeating thelast sentence.
Unless you’re a Trump supporter, in which case that’s exactly what you do! The River Ignorance is quite serene I hear.
spoiler alert: Glenn Greenwald is not going to endorse a presidential candidate.
Perhaps, but why wouldn’t he?
It certainly isn’t because of concerns of the following:
* Objectivity (Glenn says it doesn’t exist)
* Opinion, Bias, and Activism (Glenn champions)
* Neutrality (Glenn says that like objectivity, neutrality is illusory, deceitful, and amoral).
You are lying by the way that the only thing Hillary said was that the boycott was “alarming”. For some reason she decided to talk about “anti-Semitism.” Not that she was making a direct connection, oh noooooooo. Nothing like that Nate. I guess that means it doesn’t count.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/10/hillary-clinton-criticizes-group-advocating-boycott-against-israel/?_r=0
Thanks Vic for demonstrating my exact point about the pitfalls of trying to force the connection by weaving statements together as one sees fit.
You’ve clearly ignored the context of the statement (as evidenced by your unnecessary link to the NYT article which cites the letter contained in this very article), which said
I am also very concerned by attempts to compare Israel to South African apartheid. Israel is a vibrant democracy in a region dominated by autocracy, and it faces existential threats to its survival. Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world – especially in Europe – we need to repudiate forceful efforts to malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.”
So no, there wasn’t a direct connection to BDS other than in your mind. And the part about anti-semitism on the rise, especially in Europe – that was well reported at the time of the letter last year.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/05/a-new-exodus-jewish-in-europe
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/jewish-immigration-to-israel-from-france-rising-after-attacks-a-1015014.html
Nate,you are here,spew.What have you got on Trump?Tell us.
The people have a list about a mile long against HRC,the most corrupt and delusional deranged bubbleheaded idiot in POTUS candidate history,although her friends the MSM have another opinion.
They are serial liars in arms.
> why wouldn’t he?
it’s an excellent question. greenwald endorsed obama in 2008, russ feingold in 2010, three candidates for US congress in 2012, and rush holt in a special primary election in 2013 for US senate. so why wouldn’t he make endorsements in 2016? was sanders a less worthy candidate than obama was in 2008? is jill stein?
Interesting. Got any support to back these up?
greenwald endorsements
obama: twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/708676902626697216
obama: twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/693935655638925312
russ feingold: salon.com/2010/09/14/feingold_7/
3 for US congress: salon.com/2012/03/29/3_congressional_challengers_very_worth_supporting/
rush holt: twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/361932943469461505
rush holt: twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/362348778931494912
Thank you sir/ma’am
Perhaps, but why wouldn’t he?
If they ALL suck, why should he endorse? Isn’t rejection of all a valid choice to you?
The hell you didn’t make Donald Trump the standard. You do this bullshit “rhetorical question” in bold type. And this article isn’t about Donald Trump, you are the one who brought him in. And oh my, it’s “weeks from the election” — which only means one thing: concentrate on the danger of TruMP tRUMP trump TRMP trump.
You are seriously overthinking this Vic. Donald Trump is nothing near the “standard,” he will go down as a historical outlier.
And I am not asking for Glenn to begin criticizing Trump, but asking if his lack of focus on Trump represents a grudging support for him.
Don’t try to obfuscate a yes-or-no question.
People who ask bullshit questions usually act like they have a right to answers to those same bullshit questions. But they don’t.
Mama taught me there was no such thing as a bad question. Words to live by! I am not exactly holding my breath that Glenn will answer my question, but it’s possible! That he even engages commenters at all is an awesome and underappreciated trait, in light of so many sites banning comments sections due to reprehensible people.
Also, I claim no “right” to an answer.
Zionists using the historical outlier term for Trump must mean you are mirror free.
Oh,the chutzpah of it all!
Someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I’m quite certain that Glenn never wrote in 2012 an opinion or — what you’re asking for — a fucking endorsement for or of “the best remaining candidate” in the 2012 election, and so, the same goes for now in 2016. Why do you need or expect him to do that? Especially since Glenn has written extensively for years how corrupt, bogus and dishonest and non-representative those who are at the insider controls of the center of the political system are, why would you expect that he’d take your hand and lead you into your next diatribe on what a hypocrite Greenwald is for specifically endorsing some or another puppeteer for the seat of power of the POTUS, whom he has slammed so hard and so often?
What, by the way, do you mean by “remaining candidate?” I’m assuming that you are disregarding Jill Stein. So that would only leave Trump or Clinton. You don’t understand why Glenn Greenwald has yet to endorse either Trump or Clinton? Really?
Oh Kitt, Nate is a realist don’t you know. There ARE only two candidates you know. It’s realistic.
(If you do something else, somehow you exit reality. Sounds good to me!)
Nice try. If Glenn said “no” to Trump and that he supported Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, that would effectively end that question. No follow-ups or talk about realism. Glenn’s a big boy, he already knows this.
You can call it an endorsement, opinion, gag-inducing decision, “shit-sandwich or turd-taco,” whatever! But it is irrelevant to my question and flies in the face of Glenn’s hatred of neutrality.
I don’t need it, nor am I self-centered enough to expect it. I’m genuinely curious (God forbid right!!). Lots of editorials and opinions out there share their choices so mine isn’t exactly a novel question. For all I know, maybe he’s made it clear on his Twitter feed and you all can answer it (judging by the responses, I’m guessing not though)
Then why not support a third party candidate such as Jill Stein or Gary Johnson? You are just making excuses, and for what purpose? As for the possibility that my motive is fuel for a future diatribe: it’s not that calculating, and if it was, who gives a rat’s ass of my opinion of Glenn’s choice should he express one!? Also, don’t suggest that to choose a candidate is to categorically “support” them. Gary Johnson seemingly doesn’t know the first thing about foreign policy but he is infinitely more qualified than Trump. If Trump were to run against Rodrigo Duterte, I’d find some time between dry heaves to vote for Trump.
Don’t assume. I mean that some, myself included, were huge supporters and advocates for Bernie Sanders. Obviously he no longer remains in the running.
No, I’m not invested in whether or not Glenn chooses to endorse someone or not. I am of the opinion that he is not interested in endorsing someone. That’s my opinion based on what I’ve gathered from reading Glenn, not “excuses” or for any “purpose” you might be conjuring in your thoughts.
You can read it a couple of ways. Hillary deeply cares about Israel and the Jewish people or Hillary is playing on their paranoia, exploiting them for political and financial support. Hillary probably goes back and forth on the issue herself.
As long as the money keeps rolling in it probably doesn’t matter.
Hillary deeply cares about killing people, and the Israeli government is really good at killing people, almost as good as Obama. Ergo, Hillary really cares about the Israeli government’s take on any and everything, because it will almost inevitably end in killing a whole bunch of people. And she just loves to go surfin’ them rivers o’ blood.
Palestinians must be “deplorables,” as Hillary calls people she hates. She tells followers to “just eliminate them from your thinking.”
Yes,and the NYTs says the deplorable Russian Orthodox Church is infiltrating Europe with illiberalism.sheesh.
I guess they hate Jesus Christ huh?(yes they do,that first self hating Jew)
How can anyone who wants free speech curtailed ever be considered liberal?
The apologists for Israeli aggression in its many forms and their policy of hypocrisy might benefit from a moment’s introspection as to why antisemitism has been increasing, if in fact it is. They might ask themselves how it has come to pass that the Jews, who earned broad based sympathy and support as a result of the horrors of the Nazis, and who continued to enjoy that support for decades after the establishment of the state of Israel, can find themselves in the situation they so deplore. In particular, they might ask themselves if it is not a product of their own behavior, in which the very treatment they suffered under for centuries is now happily meted out by the Israeli government and its supporters world wide, and how the so-called Jewish tradition of scholarship has been perverted to sell big lies.
I for one do not accept or even tolerate the wild conspiracy theories about Jews being behind all the evil in the world, but my support for justice for the Palestinians and demand that Israel behave like a civilized country have led to my being accused of antisemitism. Well, if speaking truth and seeking justice for all constitutes antisemitism, then I suppose the Zionists have the answer to their question. They have made us into antisemites.
And as for Hillary Clinton, we already knew that she is a bigot, as much of one as Donald Trump.
The Jews are not behind all the evil in the world.
The Inuit have had very little contact with them.:)
In a serious note,no they are not.
They have little control of Japan,China,Russia,Pakistan?,India?,now the Philippines with Duterte,Indonesia,Bolivia,Cuba,North Korea,Mongolia,Finland?,Ireland?and Antarctica.Evil happens there too.And all the evil in the West is of course not all zionist inspired,but most of the statecraft is.
South America is in flux,the once anti zionist Argentina,Brazil,Venezuela and a few others are experiencing a resurgent thug political whore resurrection of Israeli centric scum,and Central America is definitely subject to the banksters whims.
The whole West,excluding Fin,Ire and Iceland are zionist , whores,with America foremost in its capitulation of its citizens welfare for the racist wacko state of Israel,with GB,Germany and France licking their balls also.
And Africa,forgetaboutit;A hellhole of zionist and their lackies greed and destruction,untold misery hidden from our ears and eyes by their terrible MSM.
Oh,and Israels neighbors,everyone but Assad and Hezbollah complete traitors to their peoples wishes and needs,in an evil episode of hatred and arrogance unseen in modern times,a total hegemonic lock on all the subject humanity,assisted by US in our own unbelievable descent into fealty to Unconstitutional criminals.
I’m sure my synopsis is unpalatable to the hasbarists,but to me its gospel.
Sure Israel massacres people under occupation…but then I see violent anti-semitism like this and it makes me wonder…..
How deplorable…to take music and twist it to take away Israel’s right to exist….shocking!!!!!!
Hopefully the Israeli troop can replace the song….Might I suggest “Biko” by Peter Gabriel?
BDS…lazy and useless…(so why are the Americans and the Israelis spending so much to counter it?)
So we’ve established that BDS is something even lazy people can do. And we’ve established that only the Israeli government, and certainly not Brian Eno can forge a peace treaty.
Which is something I’m sure the BDS movement leaders would agree with.
Brian Eno never showed off in his own music with the kind of fakey ostentatious “politics” so beloved by rock critics — most would surely have described him as apolitical if not the dread word “elitist” (LOL) through the 70s and 80s — so it’s a pleasure to see that in the 21st C he has consistently been an outspoken advocate for doing the right thing on a global scale.
Norman Finkelstein would give you a good answer. Have you asked him?
US pledges record $38bn military aid to Israel over next 10 years
Deal represents largest batch of US military assistance to any country ever
largest batch
That is, until Clinton gets a shot at making a deal with the Saudis. ;)
how about
U.S. Govt robs Americans of infrastructure money and hands it to israel to kill Palestinians, steal land, by weapons as straw purchasers and sell them to crazies who then use those weapons to kill U.S. personnel
Some of it will be diverted from Israel to Honduras to perpetuate the fascist government that Hillary Clinton helped put in power in 2009:
https://www.mintpressnews.com/israel-honduras-enter-new-blood-soaked-military-alliance-support-state-sponsored-terrorism/219887/
AIPAC owns congress! They lead the US military around like a Bull with a nose ring.
In the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” they admit that a Texas congressmen gets most of his campaign donations from two Jews, one in California and one in New York.
Zionism is the greatest threat to the world.
If you and dahoit sincerely believed this you would shut the fuck up forever. You are helping discredit all movements against it with your blatant and obvious and pathetic hatred of Jews.
In fact if I were a paranoid conspiracy theorist I would think you and dahoit are working for the Zionists in order to do just that: make it look like all critics were shitheads. But I think you are just an authentic shithead.
So do your cause a favor and go away.
You funny.I don’t lie,so I am incapable of being a zionist.
Of course I am mistaken at times.
A three monkey disciple,he wants no truth to be looked at,heard , spoken or smelled even.
Are you Jewish?
In my lifetime I’ve never met a non Jew who has any real concern over Israel and any critique of it,aside from corrupt politicians.
F*ck Israel and all its adherents here in America,which means you f*ckface.
Apparently Netanyahu isn’t even the most fanatic of the bunch. His defence minister Lieberman wants to cut out Arab areas of Israel, along with the Arab-Israelis living there.
It’s a step beyond what Americans do, gerrymandering. It would be the equivalent of the Republican congress proposing to remove Black and Hispanic areas from the US.
It’s quite a world in which a nation’s leader can tell America’s government to “F themselves”….before signing a record breaking agreement to receive billions in military aid. I wonder if Netanyahu took Lindsey Graham’s advice?
Yeah,shades of last years yoyos for Yahoo in Congress,throwing the American POTUS(a total zionist shill)under the bus of zion.
I bet Mossad has a lot of stuff on Lindsey.How do the people of SC put up with this pos mole traitor?
> what could possibly justify U.S. politicians drawing the moral and ethical lines about boycotts in this manner?
they agree with you on NC but disagree on BDS?
Question: Why hasn’t Clinton “pivoted” on Israeli apartheid yet?
Answer: “It would take a leader with independence and courage to pressure Israel to end its military occupation“
Better leaders than Clinton struggle with this one.
I believe Europe would welcome a massive influx of Zionists fleeing Israel in the wake of a one-state solution that gave Palestinians, Bedouin, and Christians the same voting, land ownership, and immigration rights as Jews. So would New York and Los Angeles. I for one say to them,
Their nuclear weapons, though, that’s a problem. . . well, they can come too! Or perhaps we could split them with the Russians?
Ah,the poem by the nice Jewish immigrant celebrating America,and its people.
1948 made those type of people extinct,sadly.
Hillary is a champion of apartheid worldwide, so why not in Israel as well? She instituted a heady version here with her “super predators” and her extraordinary support for hubby’s pipelines to prison for non-white US citizens, his “effective death penalty”, his crack vs. powder sentencing guidelines etc. etc.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-10-31/news/1995304052_1_crack-cocaine-powder-cocaine-cocaine-crimes
The Clintons generally have a history of siding with apartheid, either race-based or economic. They are quite ecumenical in this respect. In Haiti, where they didn’t have as much of an option making hay in the skin-color arena, they happily went economic route….As long as someone without power is being oppressed and marginalized, they are generally quite happy.
“Could someone explain why it’s noble, enlightened, justifiable, and progressive to boycott an American state, but hateful, bigoted, retrograde, and evil to support a boycott of a foreign country that has been imposing a brutal, discriminatory, and illegal occupation for many decades, a boycott that is led by people with virtually no political rights? How did that happen? ”
Sure, but I think you know the answer, you see there aren’t a lot of media-owning billionaires from North Carolina. And those few rich people that are from North Carolina really don’t two shits about the state. So there’s just not a lot of pushback… On the other hand guys like Saban and Adelson, along much of the progressive media, such as say Slate, care a great deal about Israel and work to shield it from criticism.
Discrimination has no place in America, but it apparently DOES have a place in the DNC, who wantonly and flagrantly discriminated against Bernie Sanders. Thank GOODNESS HRC hired the Discriminator In Chief, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to work for her non-discriminatory campaign!
I like Greenwald but what he doesn’t mention here are the actual issues with BDS. Aside from the obvious point that many many other countries seem to fit their criteria for boycott, there is a myth that BDS is solely a peaceful movement and it is true that some of its leadership do not recognize Israel’s right to exist. They have no intention of finding those on the other side with a common goal and working together on a solution but just their own futile vigilante justice that is a front for many to express their anti-zionist and yes, anti-Semitic views. I know progressives and liberals will deny any existence of antisemitism but it’s not like it’s hidden many times when BDSers will have signs with lines from the Elders of Zion. There was the one instance a few years back on a college campus where a girl came to their meeting to simply say a few things in Israel’s defense and she was literally arrested and taken out by police for just trying to speak. The amazing irony is that everyone in the room was chanting “fascist” at her.
Apparently the past 26 years of trying to find peace but always end up on the loosing side isn’t enough for you Steve!! The Palestinians have had enough of endless lies and promises by the many Israeli governments over the years. Creating a non violent, peaceful, movement to force Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories is a legitimate right of a people under occupation. You, as your fellow Israeli supporters wish to only smear the BDS with dirt and lies to protect Israel from accounting for their crimes against the Palestinians. The good news is that the world has come to see the truth and how you use the term (Anti Semitic) to scare people of supporting the movement. But let me break it to you Dear Steve. Semitic is a term that describes people who spoke ancient languages form the East of the Nile to East of the Euphrates. Arabic, Aramaic, Syrian, Acadian, Ashurian and Hebrew. Which means Palestinians are Semites themselves more so than most of the Jewish population that can’t even speak Hebrew. Perhaps a little bit of education could help you open your Zionist shut eyes and see what Israel truly is.
I won’t even acknowledge your super relevant semantics lesson. I am not even defending Israel here but pointing out the one-sided nature its critics have, with BDS being the symbol of the ignorant and hypocritical ways in which people attack Israel. What am I Iying about? If people were consistent and boycotted the US for example it would be a totally different story but of course not because Israel is the only bad actor and causes all the problems and instability in the world. You can call me whatever you want and shill for BDS all day but I guarantee you it will not amount to any substantial change and as Chomsky said, will only give fodder and fuel for the hardliners in Israel and if anything will only hurt the Palestinian people.
Here is the incident I was referring to at Ohio university:
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/19265/
Is that the best you can do?
No, you?
steve…
When i wake up, i see the sun and smell the coffee.
When you wake up, you smell what, burning gunpowder from having killed a few – what do you call them?
here are some dates for you to connect
15 may 1948
15 april 1865
24 march 1933
22 november 1963
8 june 1967
20 march 2003
T3 to be decided
btw – have you read your YINON PLAN today?
one more thing. How many Palestinians have you murdered?
– careful steve – thats a trick question.
You’re obviously too dumb to see I am not defending any Israeli actions but talking about the problems with BDS. Clearly, nobody here is willing to make that distinction because you are so self righteous and have probably decided long ago to blindly react with scorn and anger whenever they see or hear something they don’t like. Speaking of murder, my grandfather was killed by a Hamas suicide bomber but I guess that date doesn’t fit your narrative there, does it? Or I suppose there is a chance you support that will would only further prove my point.
“The amazing irony is that everyone in the room was chanting “fascist” at her.”
I know that in the Cuomo/Clinton America, it is illegal to point out that Israel is, at present, a Judeofascist state. Apparently, you agree with the Clinton/Cuomo axis.
You ignore that the BDS Israel movement IS reaching out to the other side, in the same way that BDS South Africa did (which is to say, it is looking towards the population that is privileged, by the regime, with ‘citizenship’ and rights denied the majority of the legal population because of their ethnicity, for those willing to give up their privileges and instead demand equality). What neither movement does (quite rightly) is allow people who try and promote the lies about the nature of the regimes in question, or justify the crimes of said regime. Was this girl (or any supporter of the Israeli regime) willing to admit that it was an Apartheid regime? Because if you are trying to defend a crime without first admitting it is a crime, people are right to ridicule you.
if white trash had as much money as adelson and saban (and voted democrat) she’d be fine with bathroom bans and confederate flags and etc.
or maybe when we put “there is no god but he gave us this land” on the same level as “war of northern aggression” we’ll see the similarities. it’s a shame we don’t actually have free speech or these things could be discussed.
“if white trash had as much money as adelson and saban (and voted democrat) she’d be fine with bathroom bans and confederate flags and etc.”
Nice…!
In fact not too long ago, she was touting the “marriage is between a man and a woman…” line, with the best of them,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM
while hubby, as I recall, in good ol’ stars and bars tradition, ran his pale buttocks home to lynch a man before his election…
and Hillary quite conveniently started and finished her gay marriage “evolution” just in time for the current electoral campaign. Talk about punctuated equilibrium. S.J. Gould must be rotating at 20,000 rpm about now.
Furthermore, apparently white trash, in the form of at least one of the Kochs, (his bro got his name on the grand ol’ Ballet House at Lincoln Center (Opry…Ballet… whats a little culture among friends)), does have the money, and seems to be edging its oleaginous way towards Hillary.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/24/charles-koch-says-he-could-possibly-support-hillary-clinton/?_r=0
While her claims of rejecting such support (she never met a billionaire she didn’t like)
https://static.mediaequalizer.com/files/uploads/2015/12/09195307/Trump-Hillary-conspiracy-CNN-4-919×517.png
hold just about as much water as Trump’s rejection of David Duke. And we’ve come full circle. Now all join hands.
I guess it all depends upon which side of your bagel is creamed with cheese on.
Donald Trump was right. Hellary Clinton is a supremacist styled policy racist.
Hellary’s style of racism is white supremacy policies – especially the ones that support wars and coups, neglect American progress, and server moneychanger interests of wallstreet thieves. Supremacy is a peculiar beast. It attracts persons who like power over others. It’s tools are lies and deceipt. It’s rewards are pretentious. It’s consequences are brutal to the innocent.
Someone needs a hug
Yeah, Hillary. By a very large, very hungry grizzly bear.
Nothing, but those doing so, while incapable of advancing a coherent moral or logical “justification”, are nevertheless likely motivated by:
1) money
2) illogic
3) lack of morally coherent worldview
4) false equivalence
5) misunderstanding of proportionality (what Israel does affects more human beings than the NC law, although both are a function of deplorable policies)
6) confirmation bias
7) money
8) political expediency
9) money
10) bigotry
11) money
12) money
13) money
14) political expediency
Technically, money should be listed in every other slot. Quit trying to minimize the problem, eh…..;)
you forgot “money”
If BDS gains traction, I wonder if she’ll “evolve” on the issue as usual. Or perhaps her loyalty to Israel is too strong.
Clinton is the american version of “Michel Fora Temer”. One day she shakes your hands, in the other, stabs you in the back.
That is an easy one. Gays in North Carolina are a powerful American political constituency, so Hillary has to ensure that they are supported almost uncritically.
Palestinians are a stateless, powerless, mostly-non-American non-constituency, so Hillary has to make it clear that she wants them to die.
I can help you. I am most certainly no fan of Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton is a danger to Israel. She started Libya, Syria and supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. These were not good for Any of those countries OR Israel either.
You no doubt read a lot of propaganda that is just not true about Israel. You are going to get furious here, right? How would I convince you otherwise. I will make a few statements and then I will invite you to look at factual information anyone can look up.
Gaza borders Israel AND Egypt. Look it up. Egypt destroyed tens of thousands of houses to create a mile wide buffer zone between them and Gaza. Why? Egypt has lost soldiers and citizens too, to Hamas terrorist government. Is Gaza a democracy? No. Women and men who talk to one another are killed or imprisoned. Look up Crazy waters, water park. No I wish things were different, but the are not. The people put Hamas in power and no they are suffering under the results of that choice. Israel is the only entry point for relief aid that flows in and out of Gaza. Israel searches the items to prevent the flow of weapons and other items that can be used as weapons and then brings in the relief.
Let’s talk about the west bank. Again, the west bank borders Jordan. The borders are shut down to/from Jordan.
Let’s talk about Israel. Despite what you have heard, Israel is a parliamentary democracy and Christians, non-religious, Muslims, whites, blacks, Asians, arabs serve in the Knesset ( congress of Israel ). You are free to look up it’s members and past members at any time. Free and fair elections take place. 25% of the population is NOT Jewish, 50% of Jews are from the region (either Palestine itself or kicked out of Iran, Iraq, Syria when their borders were drawn up after WWI. There are 1.6 million Arab/Muslim citizens in Israel. They hold positions in government, the finest hospitals, ect, ect. There is freedom of religion and speech in Israel.
Palestine is NOT a people. “Palestine” is a region. Ramses III coined the phrase “Paleset” when western invaders from the sea tried to conquer Egypt and Greece. The people were Phoenician, Phillistine – not Arab. Arab settlement in the region came much later after the Persian, then eventually leading up to the Ottoman empire after the Crusades. The region of Judea and Syria were renamed by the Roman after they expelled the inhabitants starting in 70 ad.
People say that Jews were never there, but that is false. See the Moab stone, Sennacherib’s annuls. the Jewish people did not start the war in 45/48 when they became a nation. After the British left, the left a vacuum of power in the region and the Jews living there were systematically attacked by their Arab neighbors. With no safe place to run in Europe, the middle east or elsewhere – their choice was to fight or die.
throughout the centuries, Jews were burned at the stake all over Europe and the world for things like causing the black plague, “killing Jesus, poisoning wells, stealing souls – ALL false of course to a rational educated man. Today similar arguments are made. They steal organs, murder innocent children, ect, ect.
Please educate yourself people. News paper articles are not research. If you are going to use them, listen to all sides and use factual information such as factual census’s, documents of the British empire, Roman history, ancient artifacts and scripts. Find locations on maps. If Gaza is starving then why are the people all fat? Do more research.
“Palestine” is three states. Israel, the PA authority in the west bank and Hamas in Gaza. If you put the PA and Hamas together there would be civil war and mass murder. Look up there governments. How can Israel make peace with two opposing parties? First the Arab/Muslim factions must come to a peaceful agreement and treat their own people with dignity and freedom to speak/choose religions – use their resources for helping their citizens instead of drawing blood and then something can be worked out with reasonable people.
If this does not help explain why, then nothing will. You have closed your eyes and just want to project hate.
Love the part where you say that the israeli zionists hate Palestinians and precipitate their opposition to having their land stolen.
To be clear, you do support the right of any individual or group to BOYCOTT DIVEST and SANCTION israel or any other group or country as an American right of freedom of expression as a function of God’s gift of free will?
#BDS
Disagree on this point: “Israel is a parliamentary democracy…”
You cannot have a democracy when you have to be Jewish to be a citizen.
Really? You know you could easily fact check yourself before you say something completely false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Knesset
Close to 25% of Israeli citizens are not Jewish. Their is a Muslim on its Supreme Court, their are Muslim political parties in the Knesset, their are high ranking Muslim military officers, the police forces have Muslims among it ranks etc. You comment makes no sense at all.
Is it my imagination or are the hasbarists getting even dumber?
It’s interesting that if you changed a few nouns here and there, your reasoning would be virtually indistinguishable from the reasoning historically used to justify marginalizing and murdering Jews. “Palestine is not a people” you wrote. “Jews are not human” wrote Nazis. It doubt it will but that similarity of rhetoric should be enough to give you pause.
#BDSHRC
Her hypocrisy on this is ridiculous: and yet, she’s not the only Dem that goes with this Establishment position.
The American State is being discriminatory, and people are choosing to boycott them because they disagree with a policy of the state. Much like when Arizona was being boycotted during the SB1070 ordeal. As far as Israel being boycotted, I don’t know enough about that to say whether or not it is similar to Boycott North Carolina.
i understand your confusion about the matter.
American media is largely pimped out or whored out to certain zionist wallstreet interests that dont provide information and insight to the israeli plan (Yinon) to occupy and steal land in the middle east.
This is evidenced by the attack that israel made on a ship on 8 June 1967 – the USS LIBERTY, whereupon the israelis killed 34 American service persons who were actually on a mission to gather information for America to witness the events of the israeli attack to steal the sinai peninsula.
Robbing people seems to be a big game for zionists (not Jews) which you may be also confused about as Jews and zions are altogether different.
Your concern for this matter indicates you owe it to yourself to become knowledgable about the zionists – a cult of thieves that operate as organised crime and who were the perpetrators of the american currency system.
have a nice day.
BDS is legitimate and legal, if you agree, you partake, if not, you carry on.
As SecofState CrookdClinton approved of more violence and non-judicial drone assassinations!
“Hypocrisy is vice’s homage to virtue.”
Clinton et.al. logic:
Donald Trump is a despicable bigot for suggesting we build a wall to keep people out.
Israel builds a wall to create a ghetto of Palestinians, and is obviously a good friend and a democracy spreading influence in the Middle East.
All of this is just transparent tribalism where “our tribe” can do whatever the hell they want and it’s all good, while the “other tribe” can’t do anything right and is always wrong.
Israel built the separation barrier after years of Palestinian Arab suicide bombings in Israeli cafes, restaurant, buses, etc. The barrier was not desired by Israel but was necessary to save human life.
And the best thing is the media will never ask her that question.