Widgets Magazine


When did ‘pro-Israel’ become a bad word?

Sarah Wishingrad’s recent Daily article regarding communal attitudes towards Taglit-Birthright trips to Israel features a quote from Michaela Ben Izzy, who claimed, “Birthright is pro-Israeli by nature.”

My response — so what? Seeing as one of Taglit-Birthright’s stated goals is to “diminish the growing division between Israel and Jewish communities,” Ben Izzy’s comment doesn’t strike me as particularly insightful.

“Pro-Israel” is a vague and amorphous term that takes on different meanings in different contexts. Definitionally, however, the term refers simply to the idea that the State of Israel is worth supporting — in one form or another. For some people, this means valuing Israel as the only true democracy in the region. For others, this means recognizing Israel’s revolutionary contributions to sustainable living practices. Regardless of the definition, being “pro-Israel” is not inherently at odds with being “pro-Palestinian,” although the use of the term in Wishingrad’s article and Ben Izzy’s statements reduces more than a hundred years of Arab-Israeli conflict to the simplicity of a children’s schoolyard brawl.

The implication that there is something inherently problematic about Stanford Hillel’s involvement in promoting free trips to Israel because they may be “pro-Israel” betrays a basic lack of understanding of the region’s nuance.

Furthermore, as someone who “envisions the role of Hillel as a facilitator for discussion and debate,” a statement such as the one Ben Izzy made — “It’s not possible, it turns out, to go to Hillel without encountering pretty intense, pro-Israeli sentiment,” — is painfully hypocritical. If Ben Izzy’s true goal were to further dialogue and discussion on campus, then why would she oppose “pro-Israel sentiment” at Stanford’s center for Jewish life? Doesn’t “discussion and debate” involve engaging with a variety of viewpoints, even those with which you disagree?

I think so, which is why over winter break, I, along with nine other Stanford students — most of whom were not Jewish — boarded a plane to Ben Gurion airport on an organized trip to Israel. The trip was not a Taglit-Birthright trip, but it was one of the group trips targeted by J Street U’s event — and it had been promoted both within and outside of Stanford’s Jewish community.

Over the course of the trip, Stanford’s student delegation asked questions we had always wanted to ask. We learned things we had always wanted to know. About Israel, yes, but also about each other. Our time in Israel held up a mirror, both to American society and to ourselves. Israel asked us, “If not now, when?” Israel asked us, “If not you, who?”

Israel, we found, is both a work of progress and a work in progress. As we all are. But the Israelis we met over the course of the trip were dedicated to pushing that progress ever forward.

During our time in Israel, we met with representatives of Innovation Africa, an organization that brings Israeli technology to African villages, using solar energy to address the electricity needs of over 750,000 people in seven countries. We spoke to Kids for Peace, an organization that fosters dialogue between Palestinian and Israeli youth.

In Jerusalem, we heard from Arab-Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, who spoke to us about his experiences working in the media and the primary barrier he sees to peace — the factionalism in Palestinian party politics.

And near the end of our trip, we toured Israel’s security barrier with Col. (Res.) Danny Tirza, its chief architect. In addition to explaining the effectiveness of the barrier in preventing terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, Tirza spoke about his dream for peace — saying that, when peace and security is achieved for Israelis and Palestinians alike, he wants to be the first one to rip the barrier down.

Too often on this campus, we paint extraordinary complexity as black and white. But there are Lebanese refugees who have found homes in Israel; there are Palestinian human rights activists, like Bassem Eid, founder of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Organization (PHRMG), who are outspoken critics of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement. There are members of the Israel Defense Force (IDF) who dream of the day when terror attacks are a feature of the past and the security fence can be torn down.

So, after my trip to Israel, am I pro-Israel?


Is there a problem with that?

Absolutely not.

Being pro-Israel means I understand that the State of Israel has contributed, and will continue to contribute, a multiplicity of positive things to the world and to its people — regardless of race, religion, and ethnic background. It doesn’t mean I believe the State of Israel to be perfect — just as being “pro-American” doesn’t mean one thinks the U.S. is flawless. And if being “pro-Palestine” means hoping for the establishment of a peaceful, two-state solution where Israelis, Palestinians, Druze, Bedouins, and more can live their lives in harmony — then yes, I am pro-Palestine, too.

– Michal Leibowitz

Michal Leibowitz is a fellow with the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA)

Contact Michal Leibowitz at michalgl ‘at’ stanford.edu.


  • Pat Nguyen

    He was *not* speaking on behalf of camera and the article did offer a unique journey that the author profiled. Must be so easy for you to chose what other people should be exposed to. Are you suggesting that you did not read the article?

    Oh, and I can manage my own life; I don’t need the likes of your telling me who I should be friends with

  • Pat Nguyen

    “According to Bin Laden”

    Oh. Then it must be true. And since when do we pander to madmen? Interesting that many of your anti-Israel peers blame Israel for 9-11. Do they still accept you in their club since you don’t believe in that consproscymtheory?

  • Pat Nguyen

    I think that the API is a step in the right direction.

  • Pat Nguyen

    Who pays me?
    Stay on topic liar

  • Much easier to expose your perfidy. I like that you think the Daily Mail one of Britain’s most scandalous Red Top broadsheets is a valid source but let’s go with it shall we:

    “The Israelis kept saying rockets were fired from schools or hospitals when in fact they were fired 200 or 300 meters (yards) away. Still, there were some mistakes made and they were quickly dealt with,’ Hamad told The Associated Press, offering the first acknowledgment by a Hamas official that, in some cases, militants fired rockets from or near residential areas or civilian facilities.”

    See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753176/Hamas-DID-use-schools-hospitals-Gaza-Strip-human-shields-launch-rocket-attacks-Israel-admits-says-mistake.html

    It’s not nice to selectively quote and leave out the context. It appears that Hamas is more aware of the laws of war than is Israel and this much maligned resistance group is aware that “mistakes were made!”

    I urge everyone to look at the photos that accompany this article, and then deduce whether the fact that Israel’s military HQ in the middle of a residential area and a civilian mall is the same thing.

    Checkmate troll boy.

  • Nope, you still cannot find one. That’s because there is not one. On the other hand the IDF ties kids to jeeps and uses them to go into tunnels and suspected militants houses to protect grown soldiers in the “world’s most moral army” .

  • I knew it. Gotcha bud. So what drives your hate and your need to post disinformation that anyone can go see for themselves is complete nonsense?

    I give as good as I get. When I see people like you defend the most horrible war crimes and crimes against humanity I am disgusted.

    And it makes me angry. Your lying rhetoric is already leading to hatred of the Jews in my family here in the US. You are part of the problem.

    I’ll stick with the rule of law and UN resolutions thanks.

  • Pat Nguyen

    So why would Hamas admit to something that they didn’t do?
    Sounds like a poor strategy

  • Pat Nguyen

    Looks fairly cut and dry to me. By the way, stop moving the goalposts. You can not selectively exclude publications when they publish something you prefer were not true

    “An Indian TV crew has revealed how a Hamas crew installed and launched a rocket from a site close to their hotel window and to houses in Gaza.

    The Hamas crew wore civilian clothes and hid under the cover of a tent that was colored in U.N. blue, not camouflage. They used the tent to conceal themselves while they entrenched the launcher for a human-sized rocket, which was likely aimed at civilian targets in Israel.

    They fired the rocket just a few minutes before the latest ceasefire.

    The crews’ actions violate the international law of war several times over, not least because they did not wear uniforms and aimed at civilian targets. (RELATED: Hamas Spokesman Defends Using Civilians As Human Shields)”

  • Michael is speaking for CAMERA troll:

    “Michal Leibowitz is a fellow with the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA)”

    It does not say that he was speaking on behalf of himself. And I can assure you, CAMERA, the lying little Hasbara propaganda operation that never met an Israeli War crime that it did not like, will not be asking Stanford to take down this article.

  • Pat Nguyen

    I posted no disinformation
    Only items that are well-sourced and published in multiple journals.
    You exposed nothing.

  • Pat Nguyen

    He is affiliated with Camera but this is not a Camera piece
    I am a member of Mensa. But not all of my publications represent that organization

  • Uh huh. And yet, this is what he said in his “letter to America” in 2002:

    “As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

    (1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

    a) You attacked us in Palestine:

    (i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.”

    — Bin Laden letter to America Sunday November 24th, 2002

    See: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

  • I was offered a membership and refused because I found the members to be incredibly aloof and manic as well as just plain boring back then when I was young.

  • That’s the first sensible thing you said. However, it proves that you were knowingly lying. Ooops.

  • Quoting from the broadsheet tabloid Daily Mail does not and never will equal quoting from primary documents at the UN and various human rights organizations on the ground.

    You are also being just as disingenuous as the ‘Mail. There is a huge honking difference between fighting from one of the most heavily and densely populated ares on Earth and having that called using “Human Shields” as opposed to the documented cases of Israel’s vaunted IDF using individual Human Shields such as Ahmad Abu Raida who was sixteen at the time as a personal individual Human Shield in exploring tunnels of Palestinians militants.

    “Ahmad, from Khuza’a, near the southern Gaza town of Khan Younis, was just 16 years old when he was taken from his family on July 23. He was forced at gunpoint to search for tunnels for five days, during which time he was interrogated, verbally and physically abused, and deprived of food and sleep. Ahmad told DCI-Palestine in a sworn testimony that Israeli soldiers attempted both to extract information from him regarding Hamas members, and recruit him as an informant, before releasing him on July 27.”

    See: http://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_forces_use_palestinian_child_as_human_shield_in_gaza

    “Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz on Tuesday demanded that the High Court review a ruling it issued last Thursday in which it declared that the ‘human shield’ procedure employed by the IDF when detaining Palestinian terror suspects is illegal and violates international law.

    Sources at the Ministry of Defense said that Mofaz’ comments are not an attempt to subvert the Court’s decision, adding that the defense minister intends to use democratic means to revoke the ruling.

    According to defense officials, the Israel Defense Forces made use of the ‘human shield’ procedure on 1,200 occasions over the last five years, and only on one occasion did a Palestinian civilian get hurt.

    An 18-year-old Palestinian was killed in 2002 during one such operation.

    See: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3154142,00.html

    “The Israeli southern command military court indicted the two staff sergeants in March for separating nine-year-old Majed R. from his mother and ordering him at gunpoint to open bags suspected of containing booby-trapped bombs in the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood, south of Gaza City, on January 15, 2009. No explosives were found. The court convicted the soldiers in October of “exceeding authority to the point of endangering life or health,” which carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison, and the disciplinary offense of “conduct unbecoming” a commander.”

    — Human Rights Watch See: https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/11/26/israel-soldiers-punishment-using-boy-human-shield-inadequate

    The “soldiers” got suspended sentences for taking this NINE YEAR-OLD from his mother SEVEN YEARS after Israel’s High Court made this already illegal under international law practice illegal you intolerable Hasbara troll.

    The fact that you are trying to run this game on me proves again that you are not serious about learning the truth.

  • The article says “mistakes were made” troll. It does not say they accepted your false characterization.

  • Pat Nguyen

    The Palistinians never endorsed the API
    In fact, Abbas said that the pRoR is non-negotiable

  • Pat Nguyen

    Nope. Firing from densely populated areas is, ipso facto, using human shields. You don’t get to make the definitions

  • Pat Nguyen

    The Hamas guy admitted to firing from civilian areas

  • Pat Nguyen

    This account was not from the daily mail
    In fact, it was published in dozens of publications

  • Pat Nguyen

    Hey, good news you f**got!
    Hamas killed one of their military commanders for being gay
    Such a great group of guys you support troll

  • proudzionist

    When are you going to stop the perpetual lies about the Army War College, you POS? I’ve already schooled you a hundred times about this lie of yours, yet you still keep spewing it. So, for the 101st time, here’s the story, you ignoramus.

    The U.S. Army War College published a “monograph” in 2008, as written by one of its now former faculty members, an Islamist by the name of Sherifa Zuhur. It was titled “Hamas and Israel: Conflicting Strategies of Group-Based Politics”, and was essentially an apologia for Hamas, claiming that Hamas had “evolved” beyond its 1988 covenant calling for the destruction of Israel and the eventual murder of all Jews by Muslims. Despite the fact that the Army War College made it known that this monograph expressed opinions of the author, and not of the college, it was deluged with complaints related to the publishing of such a ridiculous, one-sided monograph. Zuhur was severely reprimanded, and subsequently had her contract for renewal with the USAWC denied. Zuhur filed a complaint against USAWC with the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), wherein she accused USAWC of censorship, harassment and infringement of academic freedom, citing occasions in which her lectures were canceled at the last minute, and in which she was accused of failing to comply with the college’s procedures regarding prior review of publications and statements by faculty. Ultimately, she was terminated from USAWC, and the college COMPLETELY disavows itself from her opinions regarding Hamas and its charter.

    Zuhur had previously pulled similar ‘shtick’ during her tenure at the American University of Cairo (AUC), wherein she filed an unsuccessful EEOC complaint against THAT college, claiming discrimination on the basis of gender and national origin, and suppression of academic freedom. In typical Islamist form, she even went on a hunger strike, in an attempt to avoid termination by AUC. It did her no good. She was terminated.

    For someone (YOU) who claims to be a journalist (ROFLMFAO) to keep trotting out this garbage about the U.S. Army War College “teaching” that the Hamas Charter is defunct, after being called out on this 100 times, is disgraceful. THE HAMAS COVENANT IS EVERY BIT IN EFFECT TODAY AS IT WAS WHEN IT WAS FIRST WRITTEN. NOTHING ABOUT IT HAS CHANGED, AND (READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY)…THE U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE DOES NOT TEACH THAT THE HAMAS COVENANT IS DEFUNCT. STOP LYING!!

  • mls31286

    Michael – you must be the one person in the world who knows all context on everything and has no bias. It’s nice when you decide what the “extremist” websites are vs. non extremist – is your tagline “Michael Hess – I know everything and am more moral than everyone”. You personally meet with the Ban Ki Moon and you post daily on comment sites – I find that hard to believe – or actually maybe I do because no one wants to listen or be around someone as arrogant as you. Someone who posts “sigh” on a comment site as if he has better things to do.

    It is impossible to incorporate all context when commenting and I provided more than enough – just not the context you are looking for. You clearly are cutting and pasting as well, but since you are smarter than god, of course you are doing it the right way.

    The UN is just as corrupt at FIFA. For example, the UNHRC has Israel as one of the only standing agenda items of all countries and has had more resolutions against it than all other countries in the world combined. Even you have to admit that’s overkill. Iran at one point was in charge of the disarmament. The recognition of Palestine even though it doesn’t fit most of the criteria of becoming a state. Countries like Syria and Sudan served on the UNHRC. You say it’s bull that Israel gets singled out then how do you explain the UNHRC. How do you explain all of the emergency general assembly meetings that only happen when Israel/Palestinian violence. How do you explain the Durban conference or the fact that Israel is the UN member state whose existence is questioned.

    I’m not sure what you are missing but I agree Israel has to pull back their borders – I have not argued that they do not. My argument against you is that there is a such a different level of hatred for Israel that is unwarranted based on how all other countries in the world are treated.

    Here is text from the Khartoum Resolution. Does it not say they want Israel to withdraw but they still won’t recognize, negotiate or make peace with them if they do?

    “The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country”

    When Israel withdrew from Gaza they controlled sea and air, yes, but the restrictions weren’t nearly as strong and there was no blockade. What evidence do you have that shows if the Palestinians didn’t start shooting rockets and attacking Israel that the restrictions would remain strong and the blockade would have been added? The blockade that the Israel hating UN determined to be completely legal.

    The way you talk about the Palestinians is like talking about someone in jail that committed a crime without mentioning the crime. Oh, he doesn’t get fed well, terrible education and is completely restricted in his movements. Not once did you bring up anything the Palestinians have done to get to the situation that currently exists. What would you do if people are shooting rockets at you and openly saying they want to kill you? I disagree with the harshness of the Gaza blockade but everyone talks about what the occupation has done to the Palestinians and they justify daily stabbings but no one talks about the effect of Palestinian terrorist on Israelis.

    You keep on talking about proclivity to steal land. Well give examples more than the West Bank occupation. Israel withdrew from Gaza although I understand your claim they still control it – but Israel is not laying claim. Israel gave back the Sinai for peace. Israel offered over 90% of the West Bank in multiple peace offers. Clinton confirmed this. Elliot Abrams confirmed this. You can say what you want about Abrams but he was part of the negotiations – if I’m not allowed to cite him then you can cite Churchill who was not even PM in 1922.

    Al Asqa is under control by the Islamic Waqf. Israel has repeatedly said they do not have interest in changing the status quo. Show me evidence of shifting Israel policy…? For someone who speaks of freedoms and human rights you are awfully comfortable with the fact Jews are restricted from praying there and are often accosted by crowds during the rare times they are allowed.

    Your comment regarding the Golan Heights shows how by the book you are and how reality means nothing to you. If following the law meant billions of people would die Michael Hess would say we have to do it. Olmert tried to negotiate the return of the Golan at one point. Also, what do you think would be happen if Israel gave back the Golan Heights now? Do you think good things would happen or extremely extremely bad things? Syria is falling apart and all you and the pathetic UN can think about is Israel’s occupation.

    Talk about interpreting text to fit your narrative. “Establish a state in Eretz-Israel” just like Churchill, it doesn’t say ALL.

    I don’t know how to make it more clear. The Arabs did not accept the partition in 1947 and went to war over it. Whatever the final truce lines were are what the Arabs agreed to and frankly could have been less had Israel not wanted peace. Israel had the upper hand at the end of the war – if they wanted more land then instead of peace why not just take it? The Arabs have it all huh – they don’t have to recognize Israel along those borders and can do whatever they want with no repercussions but Israel needs to move to those lines even with the surrounding nations still belligerent towards them.

    So do people in Crimea have the right to start killing Russian civilians where ever they find them? Where is the BDS movement against Russia and the disruption of Russians speeches across the world and the cry for War Criminals?

    Israel is a beacon of light relative to Arab Muslim nations. It is not perfect, but name a country that hasn’t done worse than Israel under the same threats. Any country? Name an Arab Muslim country where minorities have better rights than in Israel (most don’t even have minorities – I wonder why)? What rights would Palestinians give Jews in a future state? Oh wait, a future Palestiniann state would be ethnically cleansed of Jews but you don’t care. Palestinians can do whatever they want with Michael Hess’ approval.

  • mls31286

    Nowhere does it say state, nation or republic or anything of the sort. It says Palestine, which was land that was part of the Ottoman Empire. You are arguing a point I am not arguing and I’m not sure why. You are consistently doing it to. Israel does not have a right to Gaza and the West Bank.

    Also, why is a quote from Churchill valid evidence for determining whether it was a state or not.

    You talk about Yeshiv terrorists but ignore the fact there was ongoing violence between Arabs and Jews going way back. There was the Hassadah Medical Convoy Massacre and the Kfar Etzion Massacre. And then there is this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lyn-julius/demons-of-the-farhud-are-_b_7427494.html

    “Israel occupies, oppresses and controls 6.3 million Palestinians on their own land within and without of legal Israel” – Again, every poll taken in the last I don’t know how many years shows the far majority Israeli Arabs would prefer to remain Israeli citizens rather than become citizens of a future Palestine. They have better life expectancy, jobs and education than almost every country across the Middle East. The life expectancy and education rates in the West Bank are higher and their lives are better than almost every country in the Middle East. These are fact that can’t be ignored. How is creating another potential Arab Dictatorship or failed state better than what exists now? Hamas and the PA can’t even reconcile – who leads the Palestinians when Israel withdraws?

    “Israel wants all of Palestine.” – IF Israel wanted all of Palestine why would they have removed settlers from Gaza? Why would Herzog and over 60% of Israeli society be for unilateral withdrawal? Why were there any peace offers on the table? Why didn’t Israel take over the West Bank and Gaza from 1948-1966? Better yet, why didn’t they take it over in 1948 when they had the upper hand? Why don’t they just take it all over now? WHY? Because the majority of Israeli’s don’t want it all – of course there are some that do.

    “There is nothing confusing about it. If your neighbor built a house on your property, would that be confusing to you?” Talk about leaving out context. Your analogy is basic and flawed. A better analogy would be that state land was converted to private land and based on the demographics and other factors they decided to give you half and your neighbor half. Your neighbor thinks he got screwed so he gets all of his friends together, way outnumbers you and says he’s going to kill you and anyone that lives on your land. You successfully defend yourself and have your neighbor on the run. Instead of continuing to push him back, you accept a truce with just a little extra land as a buffer. Your neighbor still refuses to recognize you own the land. Even after you take over more land in a defensive war (Nasser’s belligerence is undeniable and closing the straights was an act of war), they continue with their goal of ending you. You try to negotiate and they say no.

    That is where your story really picks up and where we start to agree. Settlements are Illegal and should stop being built. The laws applied to Palestinians in occupied territory should be the same as Israelis. BUT, will your one sided approach lead to peace? No. Is Netanyahu any more of a war criminal than other leaders? No.

    A Palestinian dies in Israeli detention it makes world news. A Palestinian dies in a refugee camp, Gaza or the WB no one cares. Israel arrests a Palestinian for inciting violence by throwing stones and calling for the murder of Jews and it’s world news. Erdogan and Abbas arrest reporters for making fun of them and no one cares.

    You act like you know everything there is to know about Israel. You are the defintion of book smart and not street smart. You are the definition of a Hypocrite scutinizing Israel to identify every single area where they aren’t perfect while giving the Palesitnians a free pass. For example, the segregated buses, taking statements from Israeli leaders as fact but not Palestinian, and ignoring the fact that when polled the majority of Palestinians want all of the land from the river to the sea, which is against what your boy Churchill says above.

    You say Israel wants the whole thing. So do the Palestinians. Holding Palestinians accountable for their actions just like the Israeli’s will lead to peace. It’s simple – there will be no peace until smug people like you realize this.

  • mls31286

    Always with your semantics Michael. Real life still eludes you. It is against the law, period. Women can refuse to sit in the back of the bus and they have. Religious extremist in Israel are the biggest issue – good thing they make up an extremely small percentage of Israelis. There are women too that are very religious and prefer to be kept apart. But of course, like everyone else in the world, you know what Women in Israel want more than they do. In the end, obviously Israel has to do a better job of enforcing this law and I’m sure if the women wanted to make it stops they could petition the government. Again, funny it is Hamas law that women have chaperons to drive and you are fine with it.

    “Sometimes I point out the nice Egged sticker that says it’s prohibited to disturb passengers regarding the location of their seat” http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.666140

  • diogenes

    I don’t know when “pro-Israel” became a bad word. I imagine it varies from person to person. It became one for me when my friend came back from a year there and told me about his experiences and responses. He was Jewish and it was several decades ago. My friend went to Israel with the highest ideals and the highest hopes, to work in a good position and he came back broken hearted. He said Israel was a militarized police state and an apartheid state and that he didn’t want to live in a country where he was considered “a member of the master race.” Direct quote. That was 40 years ago.

    So I do know what KEEPS “pro-Israel” a bad word. What could be more obvious? Now that the internet exists it is no longer possible for the owners and controlers of major media to limit views available to the public to what they want seen. And of course, as with my friend, there’s always eyewitness testimony, which is best. Another friend, also Jewish, married a Palestinian woman. His in-laws have been an education for him, about the conditions of police state apartheid and violent racist oppression they live under, and I’m sure I’m not the only one he’s spoken with about it. So you see, word spreads.

  • diogenes

    sounds like baby-killing to me, too. And it looks like it, in the photos, if you can bear to look.

  • diogenes

    Sounds like somebody is intent on justifying baby-killers. Blame the victim. Where have we heard that before?

  • Pat Nguyen

    You would be mistaken

    I am for the Palistinians to take agency for their actions and their supporters to stop infantilising them

  • diogenes

    I don’t know when “pro-Israel” became a bad word. I imagine it varies from person to person. It became one for me when my friend came back from a year there and told me about his experiences and responses. He was Jewish and it was several decades ago.

    But I do know what KEEPS “pro-Israel” a bad word. What could be more obvious? Now that the internet exists it is no longer possible for the owners and controlers of major media to limit views available to the public to what they want seen. And of course, as with my friend, there’s always eyewitness testimony, which is best. Another friend, also Jewish, married a Palestinian woman. His in-laws have been an education for him, about the conditions of police state apartheid and violent racist oppression they live under, and I’m sure I’m not the only one he’s spoken with about it. So you see, word spreads.

  • Sig Heil, mein Fuhrer?

    Hess. Hess. Where have I heard that name before?

  • None so blind

    So clueless. The Balfour Declaration talks about a geographic region, not a state. It is a letter, not a treaty. And it is a statement of intent, not a statement of fact.

    Next time, please try to engage your brain before you spew such fatuous nonsense.

  • Sure they did

    Sure they are, just like the Holocaust never happened, right Mr Hess?

  • Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    > You are looking for things that confirm your bias
    > and missing all the context of pertinent facts.

    Irony much?

  • So blind

    Go look up “occupying” in a dictionary before you try to spew such clueless nonsense.

  • None so blind

    Actually, it is even clearer in the first draft: “Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people”.


  • Try the Lithium

    You really need to learn your English. Apartheid does not mean what you think it does. And you need to use “illegally” more often. It makes your argument so much more impressive.

    Really. Take your meds.

  • None so blind

    > You can be snarky when you are right.

    How would you know?!

    > I’ve spent since 1972 researching
    these issues and
    > writing about them for the last twenty-six years as
    > the
    editor of BBSNews.

    Ah yes. Any “news” publication describing itself as “fact-based” is a dead give-away for a nutter alert.

  • I are a Israyli Hayta

    Silly mls31286. Don’t you know that the facts are wrong?!