Debbie, I haven’t seen Paradise Now, so I can’t really make any informed comments about it or your reaction to it, but I must confess that I really doubt that it is an endorsement of suicide bombings, as you suggest. Speaking generally, I think it’s safe to say that just because a film or book deals with difficult subject matter does not automatically mean that is endorsing or celebrating that subject matter (after all, The Silence of the lambs was hardly an endorsement of serial killers, Schindler’s List was definitely not a celebration of concentration camps.) If the film is in fact “love” with Islamic fascism, then it would help if you explained–even briefly–why you think so, provided that you’ve actualy seen the movie. About Syriana (I film which I have seen): the movie was based on a book by Robert Baer, an extraordinarily brave person who spent over two decades working for the CIA fighting terrorism in the Middle East and Asia in an effort to keep people like you and me safe–the certainly doesn’t “paint” all islamic terrorists as nice people but rather does a pretty good job of showing howdesperate but basically nice kids can get swept up by cult-like groups intent on evil things. Anyway, I’m guessing Baer has a bit more experience than you in when it comes to these issues. Perhaps you would have preferred the Disney version of his story?

mike1 on January 31, 2006 at 12:34 pm

Mike1; “Debbie I haven’t seen Paradise Now. so I can’t really make any informed comments about it or your reaction to it….” and then mike1 you go on to do just that.Full of yourself aren’t you?

danny on January 31, 2006 at 12:50 pm

Read the Israeli reviews of “Munich” this morning and the general consensus is that it’s a boring movie and cinematically inept…they really didn’t get into the inane politricks of the film. In MY life, that was an event that helped to zionize me, and the Yom Kippur war the following year made me perhaps the only Black militant Zionist on the planet…but when it comes to movies I don’t watch them to glean a political outlook!
As for homosexuallity in Hollywood, THAT has always been par for the course, which is one of the reasons Scientology is so prevalent amongst the Travolta and Cruise crowd…so why are you surprised that Hollywood would choose to honour their own???

EminemsRevenge on January 31, 2006 at 12:57 pm

Danny, No, I’m really not full of myself at all. And I don’t claim to make any informed comments on the film–all I’m asking is for Debbie to be honest and explain HOW the film is an endorsement of terrorism. Even the briefest explanation of one or two scenes would do. Maybe it is a celebration of Islamic fascism, I don’t know, but a real critic should be able to back up his or her claims with some evidence, don’t you think? The movie posters certainly don’t prove anything. For the record, I think most Hollywood actor/liberal/activists are idiots–on the other hand, I definitely don’t think a CIA officer who spent years risking his life to protect American interests and lives is an idiot. To slander somone who put his life on the line for this country seems pretty damn unpatriotic to me.

mike1 on January 31, 2006 at 1:13 pm

hamass negotiating position.
Source: UPI
Hamas calls withholding aid ‘blackmail’
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:40:41 AM EST
RAMALLAH, Gaza, Jan. 31 (UPI) — The newly elected Palestinian Hamas party on Tuesday denounced as blackmail international demands it drop its resistance to Israel to keep foreign aid flowing.
At a meeting Monday in London, officials from the United States, European Union, Russia and the United Nations said it was inevitable that some $1 billion in aid to any new government would be reviewed in the light of Hamas’ refusal to accept Israel’s statehood, the Financial Times reported.
But Tuesday, various Hamas officials spoke out, the BBC said.
“Hamas is immune to bribery, intimidation and blackmail,” Khaled Meshaal, Hamas’ overall leader, wrote in the Guardian newspaper on Tuesday.
He called on other Arab states to increase aid, saying that Palestinians should not wait for aid from countries that attach “humiliating conditions to every dollar or euro.”
For its part, Israel is debating whether to withhold a regular monthly payment to the new PA administration of about $50 million in tax revenues on Wednesday, the BBC said.

louielouie on January 31, 2006 at 1:14 pm

Mike 1
Debbie has reviewed the film in detail if you just click the live links.
I am sick and tired of Hollywood pumping out propaganda films and this year has to be a record for political message movies. From Humpback Mountain a pro rump ranger movie that is purely a propaganda piece designed to make you feel guilty if you are against homosexuality to Syriana that portrays terrorists as having no control in becoming mass murderers because of their environment, Hollywood thinks it is in the business of indoctrination.
I am for one fed up with what they spew out and long for good old fashioned movies that entertain.
What happened to movies like Red October and Clear and Present Danger? Are there not any producers capable of making a good Iraq war movie like the old John Wayne movies?
Hollywood is on a crusade to brainwash the public and it is not selling very well.

ScottyDog on January 31, 2006 at 1:32 pm

Dear scottydog, Thanks, I hadn’t clicked on the link since I thought it would just open up the movie’s official webpage. Still, there really aren’t any comments even here that demonstrate that the film is an apology for terrorism. I really don’t think that taking a hard look at the misguided reasons why people blow themselves up thing as saying that terrorism is a good thing. Peace will never be achieved if both sides don’t look the truth in the face–that the land was taken from the Palestinians, but that it had been developed by the Israelis and can’t simply be returned. And Debbie, to suggest that Palestine is just some sort of kooky dream invented by Al-Qaeda or Hamas is to deny history; certainly any Israeli will tell you that they live in a country that is built on the ruins of another country that was dismantled by force. It’s a difficult and ttragic situation and it calls for real thought, not just mindless invective.
And, the reason that it would be hard to make a good old John Wayne-style film about Iraq is that well, the reality of it is very unJohn Wayne-esque, wouldn’t you say? Actually, I know people that have been in Iraq, and it’s no John Wayne movie–to make a film that would make it seem like it is would be a disservice to those soldiers figthing for us and would REALLY be brainwashing,

mike1 on January 31, 2006 at 2:06 pm

Can i send out a NIGGA PLEEZE to mike1 RE: any Israeli will tell you that they live in a country that is built on the ruins of another country that was dismantled by force[???]
While he IS right about “a country that is built on the ruins of another country that was dismantled by force,” HISTORY shows that the country built was Palestine…a name created by the Roman empire after they destroyed the Second Temple and disenfranchised Israel!!!
IF mike1 is even remotely familiar with the “Old Testament,” then he should have heard of THIS—
Isa 10:21 The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty GOD.
22 For though Thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.
23 For the Lord GOD of hosts shall make a consumption, even determined, in the midst of all the land.”
So even though Rome had scattered Israel under as the EAGLE stood atop its banners, there has ALWAYS been a Jewish presence in “Palestine”!!!

EminemsRevenge on January 31, 2006 at 3:05 pm

Last sentence should read—So even though Rome had scattered Israel ASSUNDER…..

EminemsRevenge on January 31, 2006 at 3:07 pm

mike1, I haven’t seen any of these nor will. I do think you are trying to be disengious and I really think you are being dishonest.
mike1, “The movie posters certainly don’t prove anything”
Give me a break. A blind man can see the differences.
Again, I haven’t seen the films, but the problem is not “dealing with difficult subject matter”, the usual excuse of the left. It’s the messages they are trying to get over. And you know it, too.

Jeff_W on January 31, 2006 at 3:10 pm

Last night I saw the Oscar nominated (Best Foreign Film) “Sophie Scholl: The Final Days.” If there is any justice it will win the Oscar. It was superbly acted, written, and historically accurate (unlike “Munich”). It was 2 hours but the film moved so quikcly it did not feel like it wasa 2 hours.
Movies such as Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Syrianna, Munich, Paradise Now – has anyone actually seen them?

Ripper on January 31, 2006 at 3:24 pm

” …Peace will never be achieved if both sides don’t look the truth in the face–that the land was taken from the Palestinians, but that it had been developed by the Israelis and can’t simply be returned. And Debbie, to suggest that Palestine is just some sort of kooky dream invented by Al-Qaeda or Hamas is to deny history; certainly any Israeli will tell you that they live in a country that is built on the ruins of another country that was dismantled by force…”
Mike1, you are WRONG!!!
This is exactly the equivocation that Debbie and most of us abhor.
The nazi’s didn’t need to be looked at more gently, nor did the Japanese during WW 2. They needed to be looked at for what they were, and what they advocated.
The Palestinians were the JEWS until 1964. Please read Ian Pacepa, the former head of rumanian intelligence for a review of how the kgb helped arafat create the illusion and the people, and the fake nation of ‘palestine’ as an arab nation, rather than the dispersed jewish nation for which palestinian as a term, stood for.
And the jews didn’steal or coopt the land- they paid 10 times what it was worth to buy what was owned and unowned. The jews were the ones blockaded, the arabs got all the breaks.
The arabs have been used by all the arab governments to hide their agenda as muslems against all infidels and especially the jews. None can be allowed equality in ANY of their lands. ANYWHERE of their lands. Period.
So please…. you are incorrect, and that is where you should start examining your facts, then your motives. Appeasement to homicidism, to jew hatred, to infidel hatred, to tyranny, by
seeing ,,,, is not looking truth in the face.
You have lied to yourself, and now- you have lied to others.
Mark

mgoldberg on January 31, 2006 at 3:33 pm

Oh… mike1, please note, that the muslems are at war with every other religion, and are conquerers by definition and tyrannists by definition and by their history. That is fact. Please read
‘The legacy of Jihad’ by Dr A Bostom for a thorough reading of the arab sources on all this. All of the middleast when the muslims came- was christian, zoroastrian, east was Hinduism, buddhism, all as was Judaism, conquered and or annihilated. Please- your assertions about the poor arabs of the state claimed by Israel are a joke
Mark

mgoldberg on January 31, 2006 at 3:37 pm

“Still, there really aren’t any comments even here that demonstrate that the film is an apology for terrorism. I really don’t think that taking a hard look at the misguided reasons why people blow themselves up thing as saying that terrorism is a good thing. Peace will never be achieved if both sides don’t look the truth in the face–that the land was taken from the Palestinians, but that it had been developed by the Israelis and can’t simply be returned.”
Here is one of the links:
http://www.trans-int.com/blog/archives/52-Suicide-Bombing-for-a-Higher-Ideal-Germanys-Central-Office-for-Political-Education-on-Paradise-Now.html
In this article it lists the obvious bias of the movie: Firstly: In the movie, all Israelis are evil perpetrators, and all Palestinians are good-natured victims. The terrorist propaganda that is portrayed remains uncontradicted and gets integrated into this dichotomous framework. Thus, the designated suicide bomber Khaled legitimates his actions with the argument that Israel ì[does not want to] accept any two-state solution.î The Palestinians, he maintains, have ìexhausted every political meansî to achieving this goal. Because they have gotten nowhere, there is no longer an alternative to suicide bombings.
Any, as Thomas Kruger puts it, ìcritical receptionì of the film should have disputed such a presentation. The Jewish side supported a two-state solution not only in 1937 and 1947, but also in 2000, when, in the course of the negotiations at Camp David over Prime Minister Barakís Middle East peace plan, this solution was closer to being realized than ever before. However, Yassir Arafat left the negotiating table, and immediately thereafter gave the green light for the second Intifada.
ìCamp Davidî is not even mentioned in the included ìTime Table of the Israeli-Palestinian conflictî. As though these efforts to achieve peace had never taken place, the chronology lists only the following events:
15.1.1997: Hebron Agreement
24.5.2000: Israelís withdrawal from Lebanon
28. 9. 2000: Ariel Sharonís visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem leads to the beginning of the second Intifada
This gives the impression that the subsequent string of suicide bombings was not set in motion by Arafatís breaking off negotiations, but by an opposition politician from Israel. This ìtime tableî is also manipulative in other respects. For example, concerning the key year 1967, students learn the following: ìJune 5-10, 1967: Six-day War against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.î Is, then, the occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank supposed to have been the result of Israeli aggression? One does not have to be a friend of Israel to reject the use of this kind of historical distortion for instructional purposes.
Secondly, ìParadise Nowî accentuates the anti-Semitic perception of the Middle East Conflict. Thus, in one incidental scene, Jewish settlers are accused of contaminating the Palestiniansí water with a poison that kills off their sperm. This accusation mobilizes the anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews as ìwell-poisonersî that has been widespread in Europe since the beginning of the Black Death. At the same time, the movie transmits an anti-Zionist form of anti-Semitism that gets expressed in the demonization and delegitimization of Israel.
The concept of the ìcollaboratorî, which plays a central role in the film, thus serves as an anti-Semitic code word. On the one hand, in German usage this word bears the strong connotation of referring to Nazi Germany. Thus, its use covertly serves to equate Israel and Nazi Germany. On the other hand, the movie takes it for granted that any person who supports Israel or merely cooperates with Israel thereby signs his or her own death warrant. By virtue of this doctrine, which has its origin in the policy of the Mufti of Jerusalem between 1936 and 1939, Israel is delegitimized to an almost unsurpassable degree. Israel is demonized by Said ñ the main character in the film who eventually carries out his suicide bombing ñ as a power that is itself responsible even when Palestinians kill other Palestinians, such as occurred in the case of Saidís father.
A critical guide to the film would not only have deciphered the anti-Semitic code words. It would also have had to draw attention to Palestinian anti-Semitism, such as comes to light in its most radical form in the Hamas Charter and the Hizbollah TV channel Al-Manar. But the concept of anti-Semitism does not appear anywhere in the entire brochure. Even Hizbollah is presented innocuously as an ìorganization with an anti-Zionist orientation.î
Thirdly, as Alan Posener has noted, ìParadise Nowî abstracts from the immediate results of the bombing: ìWomen without abdomens, men without heads, children without arms and legs, blood and entrails on the seats, burned pieces of flesh everywhere. None of that: after a close-up of Saidís eyes, the screen becomes completely bright and white and pureî (Die Welt , December 28 ñ for extracts in English, see here on Medienkritik).
They construct a link between Hizbollah and Hamas, on the one hand, and the French sociologist Emile Durkheim, on the other. Under the heading ìA Short History of Suicide Attacksî, they write:
Emile Durkheim [analyzed] suicide ìfor a higher idealî as a social phenomenon and coined for it the concept of ìaltruistic suicideî. 50 years later, the feared Japanese kamikaze pilots would fit in Durkheimís schema.
In the Duden [German] dictionary, altruism is defined as ìa mode of thinking and acting characterized by consideration for othersî. For the BPB to associate anti-Jewish mass murder with the concept of ìaltruismî is scandalous. Since at the latest 2001, the suicide bomber has become the ultimate horror figure, because in him or her a constant of human nature, the instinct for self-preservation, seems to be absent.
A critical guide to ìParadise Nowî would have set in relief the ideological driving force behind this horror and would have made clear that suicide attacks against Israelis always escalate when peaceful solutions to the conflict appears on the horizon; that Islamist propagandists have persistently and firmly rejected the idea that ìdesperationî is the motive for the attacks; and that as part of the program of the Muslim Brotherhood this form of jihad has since the 1930s always carried anti-Semitic connotations. In particular, however, the brochure would have had to have challenged the core message of the film: namely, that suicide bombers are just people like you or me and that the mass murder they carry out is just a topic for discussion like any other.
ìParadise Nowî was largely filmed in Nablus and it is a product of the atmosphere of intimidation that has become a feature of every day life in the autonomous Palestinian territories. Thus, the manuscript had to be submitted to the terrorist militias (Jerusalem Post, 27 September 2005). It is hardly surprising that a movie filmed under such circumstances would avoid any principled argument against the killing of Israelis.
Mike1, I think that this more than provides what you were requesting in the form of listing comments that demonstrate their position.
“And Debbie, to suggest that Palestine is just some sort of kooky dream invented by Al-Qaeda or Hamas is to deny history; certainly any Israeli will tell you that they live in a country that is built on the ruins of another country that was dismantled by force. It’s a difficult and ttragic situation and it calls for real thought, not just mindless invective.”
You’re kidding, right? You do know that Isreal was around long before the Romans destroyed it, right?

Debbie on January 31, 2006 at 3:40 pm

Anyone that can say + thinks “that the land was taken from the Palestinians”… as this (Mike 1)says, is not worth the time or effort.And has the ed. of a …

danny on January 31, 2006 at 3:45 pm

Whoa! Way to go, Debbie.

Jeff_W on January 31, 2006 at 3:59 pm

Good review Deb.

KOAJaps on January 31, 2006 at 5:53 pm

Thanks, Debbie, for the long response to my post–this sort of detail is in fact what I was hoping for, and I appreciate the time you spent on this. I do disagree with you however on several points: Arafat, as I understand it, broke off negotiations because, among other perhaps more selfish reasons, the terms of the Barak’s plan were ultimately unacceptable. Although the Palestinians were indeed going to be given autonomy over a significant portion of the West Bank, that portion was to be broken into separate, isolated parcels, the connections between which were to be controlled by the Israelis. This is sort of like being given back control of a section of your small house, getting to live in the rooms but not be allowed to use the hallways without permission from someone else (or control the water, for that matter.) I’m not claiming Arafat was a great guy–it’s clear he was corrupt and self-serving, as was and still is his party, hence the disastrous outcome of the lastest election–but it’s important to recognize that the Palestinians were hardly getting a great deal, just as it is important to admit that Sharon’s visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount was in fact the spark that ignited the second Intifada.
As to the word “collaborator” being covertly anti-Semitic, this may be so, but in fact I do believe that it is a word commonly used by militant Palestinians to describe other Palestinians who, in their eyes, “sell out” to the Israelis. In other words, it sounds like the film is simply telling it like it is in this instance, even if the way it is happens to be quite ugly. On the other hand, much of what you describe about the film does indeed sound like dishonest apologia for murder–I’ll have to see it and make up my mind then.
Also, that Israel existed until the Romans conquered it is obviously true but people had been living on that land for centuries since then, the majority of whom, until the creation of the modern state of Israel, happened to be non-Jewish. This is NOT to say that there has been no Jewish presence in what was once called Palestine for the last 2,000 years, only that the place wasn’t called “Israel” and didn’t have a Jewish majority until fairly recently (well, ok, it was also called “Israel” 2,000 years ago.) Actually, much of the blame for the current political mess can be laid, I think, at the feet of the British, who bungled the future of their soon to be ex-colony by mismanaging the integration of Jewish immigrants to Palestine (culminating in the restriction of Jewish immigration in 1939, an act that led to an easily understandable revolt among Zionists who had been promised a national homeland there.) And, of course, the unspeakable crimes committed by the Nazis in Europe accelarated the emigration to Palestine of European Jews who were simply fleeing certain death in their own countries. There’s no use in pretending that there never was a Palestine though (as some of the postings do), that the place has always been Israel because that’s what it was when it fell to the Romans in 70 A.D.! No matter what you think of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, that’s intellectually dishonest.

mike1 on January 31, 2006 at 7:16 pm

“On the other hand, much of what you describe about the film does indeed sound like dishonest apologia for murder–I’ll have to see it and make up my mind then.” Sorry, I phrased this poorly (I’ve been writing in something of a rush). I mean that it does, from your description, sound like much of the film is dishonest apologia for murder.

mike1 on January 31, 2006 at 7:58 pm

Mike1 is incorrct in many of his claims.
1) Jabril Rajoub, the PA chief of security for the West Bank, assured the Barak Gov’t that there would be no problem in Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount.
2) When Barak offered Arafat an astounding 98% of the W.Bank + 2% of Israeli land to make up for the rest (and to dismantle most of the settlements), Arafat not only refused this generous offer but failed to make a counter offer, per Dennis Ross. Shlomo Ben Ami, Israel’s most left-wing foreign minister stated, in an interview in Ha’aretz, “Arafat just wanted to humiliate us.” This was in reference to the fact that after Israel offered him full control of the Temple Mount, and asked only that he acknowledge Ancient Jewish ties to the Mount. At least half of Israel’s Jewish population are themselves or the children of refugees from Arab and Moslem countries. In an 1850 census of Jerusalem, by the Ottoman authorities, the majority of the inhabitants were Jews.

Tim on January 31, 2006 at 8:56 pm

I don’t know whether or not i got THIS: http://www.phpbbforfree.com/forums/eminemsrevengea-about86.html from a previous Debbie post, but as for your (mike1) contention that “the unspeakable crimes committed by the Nazis in Europe accelarated the emigration to Palestine of European Jews who were simply fleeing certain death in their own countries. There’s no use in pretending that there never was a Palestine though (as some of the postings do), that the place has always been Israel because that’s what it was when it fell to the Romans in 70 A.D.! No matter what you think of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, that’s intellectually dishonest”…until the recent migration to Israel by Russian “Jews,” Israel has NOT been European for quite some time!!!
The airlift of the ‘Falashas’ and Kuwaiti Jews, just to name a few, and the strong Sephardic presence, has made Israel a “brown” country for quite some time…and that’s not counting the descendants of Abraham that have lived there from biblical times. YOU are being intellectually dishonest if you think that the children of Judea have no claim to the land, and you might want to read http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060114/NEWS06/601140472/-1/ARCHIVE which shows that the so-called European Jews ARE in fact descendant from what you want to call Palestine!!!

EminemsRevenge on January 31, 2006 at 9:02 pm

EminemsRevenge, I don’t think you actually took the time to read my post. Of course Palestine/Israel has been a “brown” country for most of its history; Arabs and Jews are both Semitic peoples, and even European Jews (Ahskenazi) are generally olive-skinned. I completely agree with what you say; I was simply pointing out that most of those “brown” people (to use your word again) have been non-Jewish Semites until quite recently. Actually, Israel in many ways is the last European colony in the non-Western world (all the rest have been, at least officially, decolonized). Unfortunately, the ways in which Palestinians (“brown” folk) have been surrounded, intimidated, and marginalized by the Israelis (with majority of “whiter” but still rather “brownish” folk) but also Egypt and Jordan recalls the bleak old days of South African apartheid. This is NOT to say that Israelis are morally equivalent to the pre-1994 white South Africans–the situation is distinct in several significant ways–only that if you read accounts of life in (or visit) the West Bank, you’ll be struck by a number of similarities (curfews, severely restricted movement, brutal collective punishment, impromptu demolitions of homes, etc.)
And I never claim that European Jews are not the descendents of Abraham, only that they hadn’t lived in what is now called Israel for centuries before the creation of the modern state. Whether or not they have a “claim” to the land isn’t the point–obviously there was a partition, a war, and then a new country.
Actually, I have a hard time following your logic, but I’ve really given it a shot.

mike1 on January 31, 2006 at 10:29 pm

EminemsRevenge, P.S. I hope you realize that Arabs are ALSO descendants of Abraham.

mike1 on January 31, 2006 at 10:37 pm

I think the people vote by paying to see. Hollywood can spin it and sell it with their creative genius, but it won’t matter.
There are people who believe in grand conspiracies between leftist organizations like the ACLU and rich socialists to destroy America’s cultural identity and Christian foundations. I use to toss that away as farce, but you have to wonder.

John Sobieski on January 31, 2006 at 10:43 pm

mike1, while I agree with you that simply saying “there was never a Palestine” is very naive, it is not true that the 2000 Barak-Clinton proposal involved splitting up the West Bank into non-contiguous entities similar to the South African “Bantustan” proposal. It involved all of the Gaza Strip and so much of the West Bank that it was essentially 95% of the pre-1967 territory. But Arafat could not compromise, he was not pragramtic nor realistic. In fact, I’m sure it was all a game to him, to make it look like he was negotiating but blame the Israelis for not “compromising”.
Eminem’s Revenge, first off it is true that Israel is more of a “brown” country than Americans would initially expect, since only 40-45% of the population is the European Jewry that makes up 90+% of the Jewish population of the US. And I have seen those Y-chromosome studies and agree that it proves that virtually all Jews do have a genetic link to the region. But I think it is more complicated than that. I kind of laughed at the 60 Minutes piece when Mike Wallace seems so amazed that the black-skinned Lemba show the same “cohen gene” as he
claims to have because there is nothing scientifically impossible at all about that; since the Y is untouched from father to son and so forth and so on, all it means is that a white man went to Africa and had a son with a black woman and that son had a son with another black woman and so forth and so on until a large group of African men carried that Y chromosome. If anything I thought it was wonderful as it really shows how we are all the same inside and how if you go back far enough, anyone could be literally related to anyone not matter how different they outwardly look. And many Palestinians have the “cohen Y” as well so it really doesn’t lessen any claims on their side. My point is that genetics shouldn’t be used to “prove” claims in the conflict because it can only backfire.

hairymon on January 31, 2006 at 10:43 pm

And mike1, the idea that Ashkenazim are “brown” or even “olive” compared to most European peoples is a Nazi myth. If it were true, why would Hitler have needed yellow stars to distinguish from his so-called “Aryan supermen”? Granted I don’t think Ashkenazim are as “fair” on average as the people of Sweden say, but I think there are more “fair” European-origin Jews than there are “fair” Greeks, Portuguese or even Italians and if you had a lineup of 10 “white” Jews mixed in with any random group of say 20 other white Europeans all dressed the same you could not tell who were the Jews.
Does Debbie really look “brown” to you in her picture? There a lot of fair skinned blondes in my family too, and no evidence anywhere that it is because of intermarriage.

hairymon on January 31, 2006 at 10:56 pm

Mike 1; as you tell”unfortuately, the ways in which Palestinians(“brown” folk}have been surrounded,imtimidated, and marginalized by the isralis……” and on and on you go (mike 1). You are so fu.king full of yourself and ,it’s like the kid in his first college class away from mommy and thinks/knows it all.Stick with….but you don’t have a clue.

danny on January 31, 2006 at 10:57 pm

hairymon, “And mike1, the idea that Ashkenazim are “brown” or even “olive” compared to most European peoples is a Nazi myth. If it were true, why would Hitler have needed yellow stars to distinguish from his so-called “Aryan supermen”? Granted I don’t think Ashkenazim are as “fair” on average as the people of Sweden say, but I think there are more “fair” European-origin Jews than there are “fair” Greeks, Portuguese or even Italians and if you had a lineup of 10 “white” Jews mixed in with any random group of say 20 other white Europeans all dressed the same you could not tell who were the Jews.”
Actually, I’ve spent a fair amount of time in Spain and Portugal (countries, incidentally, with many more people of Jewish descent in their populations than is generally acknowledged) and I agree with you. It really would be difficult to pick those of Jewish descent out of a randomly selected crowd. I suppose I was just trying to be accomodating to EminemsRevenge and wrote this without considering it very carefully. Anyway, this talk about genetics and/or skin tone ultimately doesn’t get us anywhere. I regret taking the bait.
Also, I have always thought that the “bantustanization” of the West Bank was part of the Barak-Clinton plan. Could you direct me to an info source about this?

mike1 on January 31, 2006 at 11:33 pm

hairymon, Of course,… Jewish people in Spain and Portugal would probably be Sephardic not Ashkenazi (Spain=Sepharad), but my point is that, as you suggest, they wouldn’t really stand out from the crowd in as any less “white.”

mike1 on February 1, 2006 at 12:05 am

The thing about the Muslim world is that they have less sense of reason than most criminals do here. Any normal person would have no problem dealing with Israel. After all, they have a decent economy while their neighbors are sitting in the dirt. But to their nieghbors, it’s a hideous blemish on the map to so an independent non-Muslim country, however tiny, right in the middle of a Muslim empire. But if they take Israel, the next target is probably France at this point. In many ways, France is already turning into their own satellite. Because their entire mentality can be best summed up by Edward G. Robinson in the film “Key Largo”: “I want MORE!”

KnightoftheImpaler on February 1, 2006 at 12:21 pm

If the Muslim world leaves Israel alone they can have France.

Jeff_W on February 1, 2006 at 12:25 pm

NED ; The idea that an Israel kid would be messing around the fence and at 9 years anyone in that area knows what not to do,won’t happen.But a Gaza or west bank or any muslum (religion of peace) kid has been school’d in pure hate and any solider or kibbutz-nick or israeli for that matter knows that.And that’s right – Ned- when a israel chlid is murdered by the religion of peace you will hear about it over and over.You and your twisted logic will say ‘The jews control” right?

danny on February 1, 2006 at 12:35 pm

Lots of people say that, but the truth is, a Muslim country anywhere north of Africa and west of Turkey would spell doom for the entire civilized world. People are too busy either bashing France or denying what’s going on there to understand the magnitude of that.

KnightoftheImpaler on February 1, 2006 at 12:38 pm

Remedial reading deficient hypocrite Ned-the article you cited also claims Hamas is responsible for the murder of 400 Israeli’s;you accidently missed that?Also be sure to google ‘The Liberty Incident’
and be sure to verify how Arabs ended up in Israel’s parliament and why-at most-a 2%
Jewish population in disputed territoies is a threat?You wouldn’t be paranoid about Jews?

jaywilton on February 1, 2006 at 1:07 pm

When I see a movie, which lately hasn’t been too often, I want to be entertained. No messages about it being OK to be gay, no left wing political trash, no blame America first slant on history. Just an old fashioned swashbuckler, a smut-free comedy, a good adventure story or a fast moving sci-fi thriller. I wish Hollyweird would get the message.

Soc Et Tuem on February 1, 2006 at 2:20 pm

Joep; For many that their undersize ‘rocks-off’ on this site it’s much sadder than an 8th. grade mind they have.It’s their whole belief system.

danny on February 1, 2006 at 3:14 pm

Exactly my point mike1, this genetics stuff gets us nowhere. By the way, I believe there are very few Jews, Sephardic or otherwise in Spain and Portugal today (I think something like 9000 total for both countries).

hairymon on February 1, 2006 at 7:41 pm

“The Terrorism (& Gay) Oscars?” Debbie gives the impression here that she considers terrorism and homosexuality as morally equivalent.
NO, THAT’S NOT MY VIEW AT ALL. WRONG IMPRESSION.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

brickabrat on February 2, 2006 at 12:11 am

JAYWILTON; hearing/reading you call Ned or anyone “a Remedial reading deficient hypocrite..”coming from you the guy who has a problem with Israel’s first head.your True colors shine.

danny on February 2, 2006 at 3:07 pm

Danny,you’re also a reading deficient hypocrite…make something out of it?Furshtace?

jaywilton on February 2, 2006 at 7:39 pm

Reading a Danny post is like a box of chocolates.

The_Man on February 2, 2006 at 10:57 pm