Friday, February 21, 2014


  1. Not to be outdone by Richard Sliverstein's angry, racist attack on African-American pro-Israel activist Chloe Valdary, it seems that the Daily Kos community has, this weekend, decided to highly approve of a vicious, sexist group attack upon New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, as well.

    I suppose that when 'progressives' get together and 'joke' amongst themselves that Maureen Dowd clearly needs some you-know-what, it's totally okay and totally not sexist.

    Because, you know, they're progressives fighting for what's right!

    I personally think that this is yet just one more example of the astonishing double standards certain 'progressives' display when it comes to such matters, but hey what do I know?

    I'm surely just a vicious, fanatical right-wing Zionist Jooooo, who is nevertheless a strong supporter of Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz as our next governor of Pennsylvania, and who would never in a million years consider accusing a woman newspaper columnist who writes something I disagree with of suffering from psychological disorders resulting from a lack of appropriate frequency of input of certain male anatomy parts inside of her body, as multiple Daily Kos posters have just done there to great approval, but hey I guess this is just the world we live in these days...

    1. Oh look, she must be an abused woman, too!

      I wonder how many folks on their 'team' will take these sexists up on their sexism?

      My guess is, just as the self-proclaimed 'anti-racists' will (not) react to Richard Silverstein's racism, the silence of the crickets will instead deafen.

      They've got Jewish bedrooms to worry about, after all...

    2. Speaking of Silverstein, he and I have been tweeting, and it isn't pretty.

    3. He sanctimoniously implies that HE is a lover, that he gets to define what love is, and to oppose his view is to be evil. He accuses of being supremacist, while he engages in bigotry.

      It is productive to expose the bigotry and the way he tries to justify his behavior.

    4. Apparently, he's been holding back.

      What else does he want to call her, is what I want to know?

      His continued racist meltdown is truly fascinating, and instructive.

    5. That is a question you should ask him, and would this be a reflection of his progressive attitude?

      The more rope provided to such people, the more they generally hang themselves by their intentions.

    6. Well look at that, I just found my old Twitter account. Going to bed in about fifteen minutes, but I'll pick this up tomorrow on breaks at work, and elsewhere throughout the week...

    7. Fantastic exchange.

      I would say that you let him have it pretty good, School.

    8. It's kind of hard to get all high and mighty while speaking as a bigot in the name of your cause.

      These guys are their own worst enemies and will fall further into disrepute as time passes. Their schtick may resonate in Europe, but not so much here, where most people value Israel as a friend.

      A larger area for concern is at the UN. There are some positive signs, however. More states are seeing the benefits of cooperation with Israel in terms of development. The Palestinians unrealistic intransigence, combined with the corruption, gets old.

      Silverstein, who professes progressive values, seems to maintain them only when it comes to Israel and the USA, no one else. Such a cynical approach is why the human rights field is so dysfunctional.

    9. Golly, Dickie just told me I don't have a brain. He sure is a brilliant, devastating debater!

  2. Meanwhile, at Tikkun Daily, my comments are regularly deleted, yet this stays up for two days and counting.

    Keep repairing the world in this way, Michael Lerner!

    1. Here is a comment that I left for MJ Rosenberg:

      Where did the comments go? I read the four that were posted and none seemed violative, even of the arbitrary policy practiced here.

      Or are only positive and complimentary comments permitted. If so, perhaps you should not allow ANY.

      The comments as I recall were critical of the author because 99.9% of the time he only has negative things to say about Israel and its proponents. No matter the situation. This imbalance is noticeable among anti-Israel proponents, which I, and others, consider this author, from the gist of his articles, to be. Ironically, his kind of negativity seems to be okay under the policy.

      In any event, you should welcome ANY comment unless it is offensive. It's not like you get that many and one would think you would be happy when someone actually participates. To delete the other comments, as you have, shows either a very thin skin or that you closed your minds completely, even as you claim to abide by principles of diversity of views and toleration.

      In a similar context, a scholar offered the following words: "The minute you’re absolutely certain that you have a monopoly on wisdom I think you stop listening." I hope some of the proponents here, who give off that aura, take these words to heart.

      These guys are so courageous, but afraid of dissent.

    2. Three of those comments were useless, but the one from Bizziks was respectful, on-topic and, apparently to MJ, completely devastating.

      He had no answer to it, so he just made it disappear... poof!... as it clearly embarrassed him to no end.

      Perpetually Disgruntled Professional Former AIPAC Employee MJ Rosenberg only wants to hear how awesome he is from people who share his current anti-Israel fanaticism. Others need not apply.

    3. I think this was in an earlier post where the comments were one liners, and to censor leaves a bigger impression than just leaving them. Those who act arbitrary and capricious often abuse power and act from fear.

  3. PS - my deleted comments here have only been due to broken links, for clean commenting purposes. Mike can clean them up at his earliest convenience, with my full permission and encouragement...

    1. Really?

      Jay, I deleted those comments entirely. As far as I know they are irretrievable.

      My general policy is that when someone deletes a comment to really delete it and that's what I did with those comments. The reason for that is because I do not want messages that read "Comment deleted by the author" to push the comments of other people off of the front page.

      Feel free, of course, to republish and I do apologize, my friend, for the inconvenience.

  4. By the way,

    you guys are going to notice something of a different tone to this blog going forward, I think.

    My typical MO has been to block off a little bit of time each day to scan the Jewish press and put forth my own view on any given story that struck my interest.

    What I want to do in the coming months is go more slowly and dig more deeply. For this coming week, I want to work on the book outline and have my say concerning the SFSU story. So, as I am writing this, at 9:30 in the evening on Sunday, looking out my window in the Oakland foothills, I am wondering about what to make of the SFSU story.

    The press has played it like Jewish students on campus might actually be in physical danger. In fact, there was even a female IDF soldier in one of Mr. Hammad's classes... who really should have kicked his ass, just on general principles. But while we can never disregard the possibility of serious Jihadi violence, murder, the question that I am asking myself is this:

    How does the university reconcile its obligation to protect student privacy with its obligation to provide transparency concerning its procedures and investigations to the targeted constituency?

    What we know is that Mr. Hammad posted a number of other genocidal and generally murderous messages and we know that he is no longer a student at SFSU, for at least this semester, and is therefore not presently the president of the General Union of Palestine Students.

    What we don't know is just what the university did about this situation. We know that the SFPD opened a file, as did the FBI, and that Mr. Hammad was questioned, but this is less about Hammad than it is, to my mind, about university procedures when it comes to informing the public about potential threats and institutional transparency concerning those threats.

    That is a question in need of serious discussion and I do think that the university owes us a little bit more consideration than it has thus far provided.

    1. Another question, of course, is should the university be in the business of providing funding and office space to student organizations that call explicitly for murder?

      When GUPS, and whatever other groups, held up signs claiming that "My heroes have always killed colonizers" they were advocating politically motivated murder.

      It is simply unacceptable and we need to make SFSU understand that funding any organization that calls for the murder of any group of people is unacceptable.

      It's a matter of basic human decency.