Commenter Archive

Comments by George Jochnowitz

On “The IdjitihadTM rolls on

@ CK MacLeod:

"The stuff you like to work together in your exercises in guilt by association, often built on false claims? That you’ve never apologized for?"

Rudeness is acceptable when it serves a purpose that cannot be served otherwise. Unnecessary rudeness is unacceptable.


@ CK MacLeod:
There are no Islamists who have accepted gays as loose allies.

Calling the Union of South Africa an apartheid state was indeed calling for an end to its existence, and that is precisely what happened. The country was replaced by the Republic of South Africa.

There are feminists and gay activists who are not leftists. Although leftists are nominally pro-gay and pro-feminist, no leftist group accepts Israel's existence.

As for leftist countries, North Korea sent its pilots to fight against Israel in 1967 and 1973. North Korea and Venezuela are the two countries in the world that are most closely allied with Iran. Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela do not share a border with israel. They are utterly unaware of the fact that they have no quarrel with Israel; they simply consider it their enemy. They certainly have never done anything to help the Palestinians.

@ Rex Caruthers:
As you show, both Ben-Gurion and Goldman, in different ways, were aware of and sensitive to the plight of the Palestinians. Israel's founders accepted the idea of a Palestinian state in 1947. They did so again in 1967 when they accepted Resolution 242. They did so again at Taba in 2001. They did so again when they unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, thus creating an independent Palestinian mini-state.


@ CK MacLeod:

Liberals and social democrats are pro-democracy. "Leftist" is a broad and confusing word, and so I want to be clear about referring to those who are either Marxists or who retain the Marxist habit of thinking of democracy as inferior to a perfect system where everyone will think alike, as Marx predicted would happen in the final stage of communism.

Israel has never had a moment's peace. For a country surrounded by an Arab world that outnumbers it overwhelmingly and for a country that includes an Arab minority of one-sixth its population, it has been open to its Arab citizens in an unprecedented way. Calling Israel an apartheid state is not only slanderous but is delegitimizing its existence.

Gay-rights organizations have the right to take any position they wish on any issue. When they take a position rejecting the existence of a country that has annual gay-pride parades and that has always had homosexuals in its army and siding instead with nations that execute people suspected of homosexuality, they are not just taking a position on any old subject. They are saying that those who kill homosexuals are more worthy of their support than a beleaguered country that respects both its homosexuals and its Arabs. They are not simply criticizing Israel's policies.

Gay-rights activists are not necessarily leftists. But their support of ferociously anti-gay countries and homophobic political movements while slandering Israel is an indication of their loyalty to the Islamic-ass-licking left in favor of the very cause that they were created to support.


I don't know what criteria one would use in deciding whether or not Chomsky is an authentic Jew, nor do I know what an authentic conservative or an authentic American is. I do feel, however, that an authentic gay-rights activist should not support Islamist opposition to Israel's existence. Nevertheless, Queers Against Israeli Apartheid is such a group.

When there used to be an American group called Queers for Palestine, they were appropriately ridiculed by being labeled "Turkeys for Thanksgiving."

It is important to stress the fact that the Left licks Islamic ass. One can't understand contemporary politics without recognizing the mysterious support of the Left for Islamist extremists. For reasons nobody will ever understand, anti-Zionism has become the defining feature of the Left (not to be confused with liberals or social democrats).

I am reminded of the fact that Hitler drove our or killed all the atomic scientists in the Axis countries, including not only Einstein, Teller, and Szilard, but also Enrico Fermi, who wasn't even Jewish but was married to a Jew. Hitler, like all extremists, was totally selfless. Queers Against Israeli Apartheid is equally selfless.

Does Israel practice apartheid? There are not only Palestinian Arabs who are members of the Knesset, but there even is a member of the Israeli cabinet who has announced that he would refuse to sing the Israeli national anthem. In how many countries can one get to be a member of the cabinet after announcing that one refuses to sing the national antherm?

On “Flamesem and Japesem (The Gates of Conservative Ijtihad Are Closed!)

@ Fuster:

I am mentioning Ahmadinejad because the post we are responding to raised the issue of mocking.
Incidentally, it also brought up the question of non-American standard punctuation, referring, no doubt, to the practice of placing periods after closing quotation marks--as is done in Britain. My reaction to that is: punctuation--shmunctuation.


Who among the world leaders is most engaged in mockery? It is Ahmadinejad, who is reviving the old old myth that no Jews (he calls them "Zionists") were present in the Twin Towers on 9/11. He also adds that there is no list of victims, which is quite obviously untrue.

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have claimed credit for 9/11 and called it a great and glorious victory for Islam. Ahmadinejad is suggesting that the Jews did it. I suppose he thinks that since Islam is great and good, 9/11 was a wonderful act of skill and courage, and since Jews are evil and conniving, murdering people is something they would naturally do. There is no contradiction between the claims that it was a great Muslim victory and the work of the evil Jews.
I personally know a Jew who was in the towers that day but got out alive. A surprisingly large number of the students and staff at the College of Staten Island, where I taught, had (non-Jewish) relatives who died on 9/11. My daughter Eve personally knew a Jew who died there that day. The New York Times has published a list--with photographs--of the victims, many of whom have Jewish-sounding surnames. Denying that the deaths occurred, blaming the victims for the murders, and allying oneself with those terrorists who gloat over their glorious victory is serious mockery indeed.

On “On the other side of zero

@ CK MacLeod:
How would I feel about "The Right licks Jewish ass"? I would feel: If only it were so. If only Old Bush had allowed Israel to have the codes necessary to retaliate against Iraq's use of SCUDs against Israel-- If only Young Bush had not joined with France to stop Israel's attempt to destroy Hezbollah-- If only Eisenhower hadn't enforced an arms embargo against Israel during his entire presidency--
If only these things had happened, maybe Israel would not be the most hated country on earth.


The Left really and truly does lick Islamic ass. Feminist leftists will not speak against honor murders in Islamic countries. Leftists gay-rights actrivists will not speak against the executions of homosexuals in Iran and the murders of homosexuals by Palestinians that cause gays to ask for political asylum in Israel.


@ CK MacLeod:
There is a difference between collateral victims and victims who are killed because the perpetrators believe that killing is beautiful. War is hell, and there are always innocent victims. Starting a war is hellish in a way that fighting to defend yourself isn't.
Who was responsible for the deaths of all the innocent Germans who died in the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden? Hitler was.


Dear Fuster,
Thank you.


@ Fuster:
I can't remember any discussions on Zombie about raping and killing women, children and household pets. However, there have often been discussions about terrorism. Even in your latest post, since the issue has come up, you don't say anything bad about terrorists. What are you afraid of?
The Left licks Islamic ass.


@ Fuster:
You sound as if you're on the side of the 9/11 perpetrators. I don't believe that you are. Far from it. But you can't ever say anything bad about terrorists. Why not? It makes no sense.

On “Conservatives vs Islam – reply to Oceanaris

The lawyer who defended a soman sentenced to death by stoning felt he had to flee Iran. This fact is quite relevant to our discussion.


An Op-Ed by Efraim Karsh in the New York Times points out that if the Palestinians really want an independent state, it is up to them to work with Israel to get it.
The rest of the Arab world, and indeed, the whole world of Islam, doesn't care for the Palestinians and never has. Their hatred is not based on any cause. Everyone simply takes it for granted that one must hate Israel. The non-Muslim world has never noticed that the anti-Zionism of Islam is simply gratuitous. As I always say, the hardest hatreds to combat are those that have no motive.

On “Real and Unreal Threats from Iran

Iran is not Somalia, and nobody has been executed in Iran for watching a soccer game.

Nevertheless, Iran and Somalia are part of the same continuum that executes people for unacceptable reasons and in unacceptable ways. Besides, now that Somalia has done it, Iran's leaders may feel a need to copy.
Will Iran's educated and moderate civilians prevent watching sports from becoming a capital offense? Maybe. But they haven't ended stoning women for doubtful allegations of adultery.
Monkey sees, monkey does, as I explain in my essay on Ionesco's play RHINOCEROS. Ionesco was talking about Hitler's supporters. Hitler was as impractical as Ahmadinejad. Executing people for watching soccer is a threat to the security of the world, ridiculous as it may sound.


There is no logical relationship between sentencing people to death by stoning and building a nuclear arsenal in order to risk the lives of one's citizens by attacking Israel. What these two policies share is insanity motivated by faith.
Iran has already hurt its economy and its citizens by provoking sanctions. Iran's leaders don't care. Pursuing nuclear technology is simply counter-productive.
And of course, Iran (and the world) is absolutely unaware of the fact that Iran has no quarrel with Israel.
Hitler embarked on a policy of aggression that necessarily brought defeat and destruction to Germany. He did it because he didn't understand that he had no quarrel with the Jews.

@ Parson Logic T ReFog:
You are right that Iran's policies are cuckoo. However, you are wrong about the location of Seoul.

On “From Somalia without love

It is not irrelevant that Venezuela is Iran's staunchest ally. The Marxist-Islamic Alliance is alive and well. Why is LPC in jail? Because Venezuela hates Israel. This makes no sense whatever, of course, but the most dangerous hatreds are those that have no motive.


Conservative and Reform Judaism have ordained women as rabbis for some time. Now Orthodox Judaism seems to be moving as well.


@ strangelet:
It wasn't Nixon but Eisenhower, America's most anti-Israel president, who overthrew Mossadegh.

Are your sister and brother Muslims?


Thank you, my amphibian friend.


@ CK MacLeod:
If being concerned about Israel is the only factor that can make one sensitive to the plight of women under Islam, then it's too bad more people aren't concerned about Israel.
Was it concern about Israel that led Hirsi Ali to write her books?

@ strangelet:
It's you who should be responding to save this woman.


Oh well. A woman will be stoned in Iran. Yawn.


If anyone wishes to try to help the woman awaiting stoning in Iran, here is a possible link:


A woman in Iran is under sentence of death by stoning.


America managed to avoid war with the USSR. World War II was something we entered late and after provocation.
Jews, at the seder, symbolically spill a drop of wine for each of the plagues inflicted on the Egyptians, thus acknowledging their unwarranted suffering. Israel had the power to level Gaza, just as the Allies did to Hamburg and Dresden, but refrained from doing so.
Faith is always dangerous. The First Amendment introduced freedom of religion as part of our legal tradition. Nothing could have been more anti-religious (in theory) and pro-religious (in practice).
Religion is beautiful as long as you take it with a grain of salt.


From the Featured Archives


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins