Rae Abileah is truly ignorant about democracy.
But hating Israel is her forte.
Here, Rae Abileah talks about why she considered it okay to act as a Nazi and attempt to hijack the floor of Congress:
"What kind of a democracy do we live in when free speech is met with brutality and arrest? In a real democracy, our representatives would be looking out for our best interests, not the interests of a foreign government, ie, Israel. I want my government to take an even-handed approach that respects the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. But in our so-called democracy, special interest lobby groups like AIPAC have enormous power because of their ability to direct campaign contributions." http://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/why-did-i-disrupt.html
But Rae, the vast majority of Americans support Israel and consider the Palestinian leadership to be comprised of cut-throats and scum. Based on the actions of Hamas and Fatah, who living in a democracy could think any differently? Nazis, antisemites, Islamists? I grant you that constiuency. And you are free to scream out your hatred on any street corner. However, you have to be invited to speak to Congress. And as the American people regard you as an insane hate-monger, democratically, they will not give you the time of day.
As for Congress looking out for our (not yours) best interest, it does. It also bends to the will of the people in matters of morality. And supporting Israel is a moral matter that speaks to our souls, not our pocketbooks.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
Can Horowitz sleep at night?
Sometimes, the sleaze ball tag-team idiots, Horowitz and Weiss, post a lie so heinous that it boggles the mind.
Of course, the antisemitic posters at Mondoweiss eat that shit right up.
Here is their latest shit:
"As these days mark the 63rd memory of the Nakba, our people all around the world, revolt, and object to the injustice and hatred we are met with on a day to day basis, just because we're Palestinians and just because we exist." http://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/63-years-of-the-nakba.html
Just because you exist? Pardon my mirth. Have you forgotten the number of suicide bombing where you deliberately targeted Grandmothers with their grandchildren, mothers with their children, and teenagers eating pizza?
Did you forget the time you murdered a pregnant mother and her four young daughters by putting a bullet, point blank, into each of their brains? How about a month ago when you slit the throat of a 3 month old? Just because you exist.
Of course, you won't read anything about that in MondoWeiss. The chickenshit authers are to scared to run truthful comments.
Of course, the antisemitic posters at Mondoweiss eat that shit right up.
Here is their latest shit:
"As these days mark the 63rd memory of the Nakba, our people all around the world, revolt, and object to the injustice and hatred we are met with on a day to day basis, just because we're Palestinians and just because we exist." http://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/63-years-of-the-nakba.html
Just because you exist? Pardon my mirth. Have you forgotten the number of suicide bombing where you deliberately targeted Grandmothers with their grandchildren, mothers with their children, and teenagers eating pizza?
Did you forget the time you murdered a pregnant mother and her four young daughters by putting a bullet, point blank, into each of their brains? How about a month ago when you slit the throat of a 3 month old? Just because you exist.
Of course, you won't read anything about that in MondoWeiss. The chickenshit authers are to scared to run truthful comments.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
When will Philip Weiss stop lying?
World famous accidental Jew, Philip Weiss, can not let a lie pass if it will damage Jews and Israel.
French court says Israelis shot Mohamed Al-Dorra’s father
by Philip Weiss on May 1, 2011
://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/french-court-says-israelis-shot-mohamed-al-dorras-father.html#more-42000
A French court has ruled in favour of Jamal Al-Dorra, whose son Mohamed's death by the Israeli army in 2000 was captured by photographers as he died in his father's arms.
The ruling rejects Israeli claims that Jamal was wounded prior to the incident on 20 September 2000
Remember that James Fallows, a distinguished journalist, showed in the Atlantic that Palestinians staged the boy's death to tarnish Israel's pristine image, as Idrees Ahmad reminds me.
Shahaf's investigation for the IDF showed that the Israeli soldiers at the outpost did not shoot the boy. But he now believes that everything that happened at Netzarim on September 30 was a ruse. The boy on the film may or may not have been the son of the man who held him. The boy and the man may or may not actually have been shot. If shot, the boy may or may not actually have died. If he died, his killer may or may not have been a member of the Palestinian force, shooting at him directly. The entire goal of the exercise, Shahaf says, was to manufacture a child martyr, in correct anticipation of the damage this would do to Israel in the eyes of the world—especially the Islamic world.
GuiltyFeat May 1, 2011 at 11:12 am
Philip your headline and the Ahram piece that you quote from is deliberately untruthful. I don’t mind a bit of spin from time to time, but this is explicitly false.
The French court did not say Israel shot Jamal Al-Dorra [I have matched your spelling throughout my response although the name is spelled differently in almost every article that has ever been written!].
The case that has just concluded dealt with al-Dorra’s claim of slander against an Israeli doctor, Yehuda David. David claimed that he treated Al-Dorra in 1994 for an injury sustained in 1992. Al-Dorra sued David for breaching patient-doctor confidentiality and for slander. Al-Dorra’s suit was upheld.
At no point was the French court called on to comment when al-Dorra’s injury was sustained, only when it was not. Similarly, the French court has nothing at all to say about who may have shot the bullets that caused Al-Dorra’s injury.
It’s perfectly fine for you to speculate and to read between the lines, but to boldly state that a “French court says Israelis shot Mohamed Al-Dorra’s father” is simply false.
The story is reported with greater accuracy here: http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=383329 where the headline is: Paris court convicts Israeli doctor of slander
I am aware that both sides in this conflict are guilty of spin and propaganda, but you do neither side any favors by buying into the half-truths and twisted words of the partisan press.
French court says Israelis shot Mohamed Al-Dorra’s father
by Philip Weiss on May 1, 2011
://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/french-court-says-israelis-shot-mohamed-al-dorras-father.html#more-42000
A French court has ruled in favour of Jamal Al-Dorra, whose son Mohamed's death by the Israeli army in 2000 was captured by photographers as he died in his father's arms.
The ruling rejects Israeli claims that Jamal was wounded prior to the incident on 20 September 2000
Remember that James Fallows, a distinguished journalist, showed in the Atlantic that Palestinians staged the boy's death to tarnish Israel's pristine image, as Idrees Ahmad reminds me.
Shahaf's investigation for the IDF showed that the Israeli soldiers at the outpost did not shoot the boy. But he now believes that everything that happened at Netzarim on September 30 was a ruse. The boy on the film may or may not have been the son of the man who held him. The boy and the man may or may not actually have been shot. If shot, the boy may or may not actually have died. If he died, his killer may or may not have been a member of the Palestinian force, shooting at him directly. The entire goal of the exercise, Shahaf says, was to manufacture a child martyr, in correct anticipation of the damage this would do to Israel in the eyes of the world—especially the Islamic world.
GuiltyFeat May 1, 2011 at 11:12 am
Philip your headline and the Ahram piece that you quote from is deliberately untruthful. I don’t mind a bit of spin from time to time, but this is explicitly false.
The French court did not say Israel shot Jamal Al-Dorra [I have matched your spelling throughout my response although the name is spelled differently in almost every article that has ever been written!].
The case that has just concluded dealt with al-Dorra’s claim of slander against an Israeli doctor, Yehuda David. David claimed that he treated Al-Dorra in 1994 for an injury sustained in 1992. Al-Dorra sued David for breaching patient-doctor confidentiality and for slander. Al-Dorra’s suit was upheld.
At no point was the French court called on to comment when al-Dorra’s injury was sustained, only when it was not. Similarly, the French court has nothing at all to say about who may have shot the bullets that caused Al-Dorra’s injury.
It’s perfectly fine for you to speculate and to read between the lines, but to boldly state that a “French court says Israelis shot Mohamed Al-Dorra’s father” is simply false.
The story is reported with greater accuracy here: http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=383329 where the headline is: Paris court convicts Israeli doctor of slander
I am aware that both sides in this conflict are guilty of spin and propaganda, but you do neither side any favors by buying into the half-truths and twisted words of the partisan press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)