Comments on: Where’s the Outrage Among Liberal American Jews?

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:30:39 +0000

I see this as a very good reason to support the resident.

By: oldguy

oldguy — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:05:00 +0000

The Jewish left still thinks travelling in boxcars is travelling first class.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:54:19 +0000

rbell:

“He and Mathew make a nice pair. But I think it is a toss up as to who is the most hateful bomb throwing degenerate”

Care to explain how I qualify as a hateful, bomb-throwing degenerate? Is that really the best you’ve got?

Bohemond:

“This is a factually-challenged assertion. Israel has not founded new settlements nor expanded existing ones in years”

*blink*

I’m sorry? Isn’t the current argument with obama about israel wanting to keep expanding existing settlements? Also …

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7136984.stm
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL3140883420080331
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal+Issues+and+Rulings/Summary+of+Opinion+Concerning+Unauthorized+Outposts+-+Talya+Sason+Adv.htm

“And I would suggest that the construction of the existing settlements was ‘ok’ not because of racism, but because the previous owner, Jordan, launched a war of annihilation against Israel and lost”

So let’s get this straight: Your position is that if country A invades country B (even if it’s in self defense), then the individuals living in the area that A occupies automatically forfeit all legal rights to property. Those people have the choice of leaving the area (uncompensated), or living as displaced non-citizens. The state is free to allocate their land to citizens of country A without legal recourse. Have I got that basically right? Is so, are you suggesting that’s the basis for the east jerusalem and west bank settlements?

Have a read:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954967.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/964843.html

““Taken by force” is a real weasel-wording of the events of 1967: are you suggesting that East Prussia should be cleansed of Polish “settlers” and returned to its German “legal owners?””

If the dispute was ongoing, then yes. Or the property lost by individuals should be compensated.

By: rbell

rbell — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:18:25 +0000

78: Yah I think you’ve summed up MOHO quite nicely. He and Mathew make a nice pair. But I think it is a toss up as to who is the most hateful bomb throwing degenerate. Both are suffering from the trauma of an undeveloped childhood, mixed with drugs and a mind not capable of coherent thought.

Some may feel you are being crude and ugly in your comments. But the truth is sometimes just that, especially when you are referring to MOHO. Unlike you I would not waste perfectly clean water by suggesting MOHO take a bath. He is just trying to save the planet.

By: genghis

genghis — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:30:49 +0000

MOHO:

You are a total A-hole. Do you just make up this crap when the crack wears off? Either you are the most misinformed twit in the Western hemisphere, or you’ve never recovered from the trauma of vaginal delivery. I’m not sure whether or not you have any living friends or confidants, but I would hazzard a guess that you are a loner, with very limitted social abilities who spends his time playing computer games. Before you respond, I suggest that you take a good long look in the mirror, flush the drugs down the toilet, take a bath, shave, if you’re old enough for that, and go the the library. Bottom line, of all the contributors to this site, yoiu are by far the most immaculate putz.

By: quesnay

quesnay — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:52:30 +0000

For those of you who would like to understand Secular American Jewry’s loyalty to the Democratic Party and liberalism, Norman Podhoretz recently wrote a brilliant book on just that subject called “Why are Jews Liberal”? Great stuff.

By: Moho

Moho — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:42:53 +0000

Most American Jews want the US to tilt more toward the Palestinians, you knob. The outrage is probably directed at idiots like you, who prefer a permanent state of war to a solution.

By: shmu

shmu — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:25:40 +0000

In that revealing interview last September with the great white hope Abu Mazen
he was asked the following question having to do with his short term in office: “There
are those who say America and Israel took advantage of your resignation as a pretext for
Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people, alleging that President Arafat brought
down your government”.
Abu Mazen: “Let’s say that there were three primary causes for the fall of my government.
Israel didn’t give a thing, the Americans dragged their heels and the Palestinians attacked me”.
About the last accusation he was right but the first two are other worldly. “Israel
didn’t give a thing?” This is the voice of the eternal embittered beggar who thinks the world
owes him a living because the world was unfair to him. For such as Abu Mazen and
Arafat and all of them, there is this notion that everyone has to give them money because
they are the eternally crucified victims of the demonic Jews.
Israel gave nothing. In 1993, Israel reversed 28 years of refusing to talk with Abu
Mazen’s Fatah-gang. Israel had handed over thousands of square kilometers of territory
to Fatah and played a role in getting the world community to send Fatah, disguised as the
PA, hundreds of millions of dollars,
Arafat had been to the White House again and again, yet here is Mahmoud
Abbas feeling empty, ever bereft. Israel gave nothing, that is why his government
collapsed.
In a nutshell this character Abbas, bloody Arafat’s right hand man for decades, is
no more equipped for leadership in the style the West is looking for than Arafat was, and
so this expectation that Abu Mazen is the man of the hour will also fail.
That interview was published on September 27th, and in response to today’s
interview with Al-Sharq al-Awsat, the head of Hamas outside the country, the suave
butcher of men Khaled Maashal replied that Hamas would end attacks like yesterday’s,
indeed all attacks only with a Palestinian consensus – whatever that means. How do you
really measure such a thing in a society that does not have democratic elections by secret
ballot?
At what point, one wonders, after more than a decade beyond the recognition of
the Fatah killers as legitimate players on the political stage of history, is the world going
to admit to itself that the entire enterprise called Oslo and Beyond is as futile as trying to
square the circle.
What the Enlightened fantasize about is a world that does not exist and will not
exist for the distant, wholly unknowable future.
For the present, the Arabs are simply incapable of becoming the people the
Enlightened want them to be.
In any case, all of this peace-making by all these parties – not just Israel and the
Arabs in Yesha but the Quartet powers, the UN organization, and the European Union,
just about the whole world – is a wicked escape from the necessity of not cooking up
new social and political arrangements, but judging the conflict in terms of right and
wrong, judging the strife between two claimants to a piece of property to which one side
has the better case by far.
Rather than engaging in all this social engineering, this trying to solve the puzzle
of a political Rubik’s cube, and how to match the security interests of Israel and the
rights of the ancient victims of Zionism, why not judge the contesting claims and pass
judgment that one wins, and the other loses.
And the reason for that refusal by the world is the fear of siding with the Jews,
the perennial scapegoat, the hated bearer of the guilt of man’s worst crimes.

You know, last week was the tenth anniversary of the awarding of the Nobel
Prize for Peace to the Evil One Arafat and his co-workers in iniquity, the Communist
raised Rabin and pseudo-intellectual Marxist fool Shimon Peres, and David Horovitz, the
new editor of JPost took the trouble to seek out the Nobel peace prize committee
members for their reactions. Not surprisingly, he found most of them with no regrets
over having given their prize to the Evil One who presided over the mass murder of
more than 1,000 Jews since they gave him that prize, and that they believed the prime
factor in the collapse of the Oslo peace process was not the scores upon scores of
massacres of Jews but the one assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Surely these are antiJews,
men who think like that. What they are saying is that it was the fault of one religious Jew
and the ideology he represented. That is why there is no peace. It is not the fault of the
more than 100 suicide bombings and thousands and thousands of shooting incidents,
every one directed at civilians in attempted murder.
And while I’m at it, how did it happen that the Scandinavians set themselves up
as the judges on the Mt Olympus of Western morality? The Swedes, who though
officially neutral during World War II, were active allies of the Nazis.
The Norwegians? With their Quisling for a leader and junior quislings among
them who supported him?
How has the world come to look up to them as judges of political morality
between the nations? I think it is just because they’re descendants of Vikings, all blond
and aristocratically tall and slender, and when old enough to sit on the peace prize
committee they have heads of silver and white hair. I mean, other than that, what have
they done to earn the right to pass judgment?
After a decade they view as no mistake their horrible decision to give that slime
Arafat a prize for peace, and indeed, if the process for which he was awarded is now
dead, the fault lies not with Arafat and his underlings, like Barghouti and his Tanzim
marksmen, and Arafat’s own Al Aqsa Martyrs suicide club, but with one Jew, one
Orthodox Jew who opposed their Olympian decision to bestow upon that bloodthirsty
vampire their ignoble prize for peace.
In fairness to the Nobel Committee of 1994 that today stands by its wicked
decision, so does Oslo’s prime mover Shimon Peres who, Gil Hoffman in JPost reported
on Friday, joked with journalists in the Knesset cafeteria and told them that he has no
regrets about Oslo. “There are enough people saying that I made a mistake with Oslo, so
why should I? It doesn’t matter whether I think I deserve the prize. It’s not my decision.”
This is a statesman? This may be a statesman in the eyes of the Enlightened. In
mine, he is no model of virtue as Jews have understood that term for thousands of years.
It is no crime to have been wrong in one’s thinking about most things. Life is a
series, at least mine is, of making one mistake after another.
But in the case of Oslo, Peres’ was not an honest, human mistake by a man like
all of us, humanly fallible. Oslo was more than a miscalculation, it was a moral evil. Who
14.12.04 DeProgramProgram.com
6
gave Shimon Peres or Rabin or Beilin or the Nobel committee the right to cleanse this
evil man of satanic crimes against not only the Jewish people but mankind as a whole?
Kissing Arafat on the cheek? I suppose Peres has to go to his grave with his selfdefense.
It’s either that or owning up to it and committing suicide under the unbearable
guilt, G-d forbid.

By: SunSword

SunSword — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:20:03 +0000

IMO — many in the USA who call themselves Jews are not Jews. They claim that once a Jew, always a Jew; being born a Jew makes one a Jew, being born of a Jewish mother makes one a Jew.

Well if that is true — why then of course a Jew might have any religious belief, or none at all. One could be born a Jew, convert to Buddhism, yet have children who are Jews, who convert to Native American shamanism, who have Jews as children. And of course have any political view at all.

By: adam

adam — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:09:13 +0000

RKV,

There are plural loyalties that can become problematic when the loyalties come into conflict–Jews can be loyal to both Israel and the US, as long as they choose the US if the loyalties conflict–and such plural loyalties can be positive if the effort is made to harmonize the various interests involved. And political habits from a previous homeland can be continued in the new one, but that argument actually applies much better to Israeli Jews, who maintained for a long time the political habits of socialist rebels and emigres. I think you would find it hard to deny that Jews have Americanized themselves pretty thoroughly. I am sorry if I placed your analysis too quickly in a very familiar frame, which is used to present Jews as disloyal. But the argument you make now is much more moderate than your previous one, and I have little objection to it. You here emphasize socialism, which I agree with you is evil, whereas before you emphasized some kind of loyalty to Russia (why not Poland, for that matter, where at least as many American Jews came from). If it’s socialism, then it’s more anti-Russian, insofar as most Jews came here before the revolution, and the revolution overthrew the hated Czar–and the loyalty is more to a version of the Enlightenment that Jews, for explicable reasons, aligned themselves with a while back. So, it seems to me that your present explanation significantly downgrades the suggestion that Jews are driven to undermine America due to loyalty to another homeland, and I gladly withdraw my charge.