Media Matters’ Resident Anti-Semite Steps Down

MJ Rosenberg, the controversial and virulently anti-Israel Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network, announced in his latest blog posting that he is leaving his $130,000 plus per year job at the organization.

In his Friday, April 6, post, Rosenberg said he is leaving Media Matters because his continued presence is causing “possible harm” to the organization due to his “critical writings about Israel.”

My presence here is being used in an effort to shut Media Matters up. That won’t happen, of course. This is an incredibly successful organization. (Just ask Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh – or Rupert Murdoch, for that matter — about its impact). But the last thing I want to do is allow the right to use my support for a reinvigorated Middle East peace process to distract Media Matters from its primary mission: fighting for truth in the media.

Rosenberg is putting it lightly to say he is but “critical” of Israel.

Rosenberg’s virulent attacks against Israel and anyone that supports her has reached such a fevered pitch that even liberal Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz was driven to criticize him. Dershowitz also scold Media Matters for employing him.

Early in March Dershowitz charged that Media Matters and Rosenberg had crossed the line “into anti-Semitism” for, among other things, using the term “Israel firsters” and saying American Jews had “dual loyalties.”

When you accuse Jews of dual loyalty, you invoke a canard that goes back hundreds of years and falls into the category of anti-semitism,” Dershowitz said. “To the extent that Media Matters hired him to do that and is tolerating him, they have crossed the line into anti-semitism.

Rosenberg has been indulging anti-Semitic tropes for years. Last year, for instance, he played up the ages old claim that Jews control the American media and in January of 2012 he claimed that Jews are pushing the U.S. to unnecessary wars in the Mid East.

Pressure has been mounting from Jewish groups and conservatives for Media Matters to be rid of Rosenberg and it is obvious the heat was too much for Rosenberg’s position at Media Matters to stay secure.

Rosenberg was a Clinton appointee to USAID, is a past director of the anti-Israel group the Israel Policy Forum, and has been a Congressional staffer for various Democrat Representatives and Senators. In the 1980s he was also the editor of AIRAC’s Weekly newsletter the Near East Report.

The fight will continue, Rosenberg pledged, as he announced a new website and reiterated that he’ll continue writing for such anti-Semitic organizations as Al-Jezeera.

"There's a hope vacuum, and look what's moving in"
National Election Integrity Event, Houston, Texas April 27, 28
  • jim_m

    No worries.  I’m sure they will find another, equally anti-Semitic, left wing fascist to take his place.  They won’t have to look hard,

    • Hugh_G
      • jim_m

         And your point is?

        Seriously, other than the fact that this is a primary election in a strong dem district and he is one of several candidates and the only one with wacko views, your point seems to be that you are proud of yourself for scouring the national GOP primary field and found 1 offensive idiot and you think that your great feat somehow should be taken to mean that all GOP candidates are like this fool.

        grow up.

        • Hugh_G

          Well I guess the point is that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, or should I say (as you said) the fascists.

          Should I “scour” around and find more right wing nut job,” ant-Semetic “”fascists” as your like to label folks? Hmmmm? Should I?

          • Gmacr1

            Give it a whirl dumbass, you’ll find most of the bigots and racists have a ‘D’ after their names though.

      • UOG

        Anybody can play that game, Hugh. For instance, I could offer up Lee Whitnum, a living POS here in Connecticut. Here, you can read all about it.

        • Hugh_G

          Well gee that was my point with Jim, the operative word being anyone.But in Jim’s delusional mind and tiny little world all things evil relate only to one side. Which brings me to the question: do anyone of you read his rantings?

          • jim_m

             I read them.

            And the game being played is by you.  You are the one dragging up obscure people running in primaries and holding them up as supposedly representing the entire GOP and the conservative movement.

            On the other hand I am referring to the leadership of Media Matters, an organization that has a track record of supporting  anti-capitalist and anti-democratic ideas and movements and has on a number of occasions produced anti-Semitic statements and positions.

          • Hugh_G

            “I read them.” 

            Do your own rants amuse you?

            But Jim you have to be held to what you write and that was Media Matters finding anti-Semitic, left wing fascists: “They won’t have to look hard.” The clear meaning of which is that they are everywhere and easy to find. A Republican running for Congress is not an obscure person Jim.You live by your sweeping generalizations (aka rants) and you have to be held accountable for them sometimes. I happen to enjoy holding you accountable.

            By the way you do know that the majority of Jews vote Democratic? As do the majority of women, as do the majority of blacks, as do the majority of Hispanics. Kinda strange when there are so many fascist, anti-Semitic dems out there. Eh?

            But then your opinion of those folks who vote dem is that they’re ignorant, uneducated, lazy, criminal, or victims of the “plantation mentality.”

          • jim_m

             If you think that every person running in a congressional primary is by definition some significant national figure then you have a lot of growing up to do.  A lot of these people are nobodies and will remain nobodies after the primary.

            When Grey Davis was recalled in California there were 135 candidates in the election.  By your naive understanding you would claim that ALL of them are significant political figures because theywere running in an election for the governor of California.  The fact is that they were not, are not and will never be significant political figures.

            Just because some fool manages to get his/her name on a ballot does not mean that they are representative of the party whose ballot they appear on.

  • Commander_Chico

    Rosenberg used to work for AIPAC and became alarmed about how a foreign government was manipulating the foreign policy of the United States, for example by goading the USA into wars against Iraq and now Iran. I recommend that you read the articles Warner linked to and consider what you’re hearing now about the supposed threat Iran is – same as Iraq was in 2002.

    He’s a true American patriot, but the Lobby got to him.  

    In other news, Dershowitz and the Government of Israel are agitating again for the release of the traitor Jonathan Pollard.

    • cirby

      He “used to work for AIPAC” thirty years ago, and hasn’t worked for them since.

      • Commander_Chico

        It was enough to learn what they are about – unregistered and exempted agents of a foreign government, backing policies inimical to those of the United States on land grabbing and settlements on the West Bank.

        • cirby

          Well, that’ what he says now, many years later, while peddling anti-Israel sentiments to the weaker-minded anti-Semites.

    • warnertoddhuston

      Don’t worry, Chikkko, we understand how much you and your kind hate the Joooooos.

      • Commander_Chico

        “My kind?”  I’m supporting Rosenberg, who is a Jew supporting a rational Israel and a rational U.S. policy.  Maybe I’m Jewish myself, like Rosenberg, Peter Beinart, or Max Blumenthal.  In any event, I put the USA first.

        • jim_m

           One need not choose between supporting the USA first and Israel in many circumstances.  You present a false choice here.  For decades Israel has proven to be a staunch ally for American interests, and while there is no doubt that Israel holds its own interests first (as demonstrated by some serious spy scandals) In the broad sense there is not a trade of between supporting Israel and supporting US interests.

          A lot of foolish people would say that because Israel dared to steal US defense secrets that they are somehow not an ally.  If that were the case then we would not have any allies.  This is in my viewpoint a deliberately naive position that is taken simply for the purpose of opposing the Jewish state.  It is ultimately a form of antisemitism since it selectively ignores reality in order to put Israel at a disadvantage compared to other nations.

          • Commander_Chico

            Where, how has Israel been a “staunch ally?”  The best thing they could do for the USA would be to draw reasonable borders with the Palestinians and end the occupation.   

            That’s been recently pointed out by Generals Petraeus and Dempsey, and before that by Admirals Mullen and Fallon. 

            But they don’t do that and make life uncomfortable for the USA in the Middle East.

            Please don’t give me the unprovable canard about how they provide “intelligence” – give me something concrete they have done for the USA.

            I can give you an example from today’s news about how Israel fucks the USA over. Iraq has contracted with Lockheed Martin/USA to buy 36 F-16s. This would provide jobs in the USA, plus strengthen defense ties through training and service.

            Iraq could obviously buy Sukhois, Mirages, Eurofighters or other jets.

            Today we have a story that Israel is “expressing concern” about the sale of this 1975 technology.


            This will probably get AIPAC and their Congressional toadies to block the sale.

            It appears to me that Israel does what it can to destroy ties between the USA and Arab countries.

          • jim_m

             Gee Chica, if I were Israel and the President of the United States had instituted a defacto ban on arms sales to my country, but was pursuing billions of dollars in arms sales to my enemies, I would be against those sales regardless of whether the technology was from 1975 or 1795.

          • Commander_Chico

            What are you talking about?  What crackpot sources do you read?

            There’s all kinds of arms being sold by the USA to Israel.  


            In a special request in the 2011 budget, the Obama administration and Congress agreed on $205 million for the Iron Dome system. The current budget included no funds for the program, but did provide millions for other Israeli missile defense programs.
            Obama’s budget for next year calls for $3.1 billion in military assistance for Israel, a slight increase over the current level and the most for any foreign country.

            And, there are U.S. Army Patriot missile batteries there in Israel right now.

          • jim_m

             Obama has blocked the sale of Apache helicopters, BLU-109. 110 and 117 laser guided bombs, blocked access to data on the F15E that Israel already owned and blocked development of the F-35I which Israel had already paid for.

            But since 80% of US military aid to Israel is required to be spent in the US, really obama is just screwing over Americans.  After all that is what he loves best.

          • Commander_Chico

            Right, because Apaches and LGBs are going to be used in offensive actions in contravention of US policy.

            “Data?”  You mean national secrets?

          • jim_m

             How many times has Israel invaded it’s neighbors in an unprovoked aggressive action?

          • Brucehenry

            Subject change!

          • jim_m

             It’s not a subject change, bruce, you dimwit.  Chica alleged that we should not be selling Israel arms because it will use them to conduct aggressive war on its neighbors.  I’m asking him to back up his bullshit with an example.

            I see that you failed to do so as well.

          • Brucehenry

            Israel is in a constant state of “being provoked.” Thatthe Arabs see theirprovocation as simple tit for tat is something you would never consider.

          • jim_m

             See below

  • 914

    “that he is leaving his $130,000 plus per year job at the organization.”

    Hey trolls! Why you wasting time here? You can make good cash for hating the joos at media matters.. Here your just drooling for nada!

  • herddog505

    This often comes up lately:

    Is “anti-Semite” the same as “anti-Israel”?

    I suggest that they CAN be (mostly because lefties are so easily consumed by hatred that hatred of one thing quickly slops over into hatred of anything related) but doesn’t necessarily have to be.

    As for the clown in question, a segment of the left has made Israel-bashing their regular pasttime.  I don’t understand it, but, then again, there isn’t much about the left that I DO understand.

    • jim_m

       Is “anti-Semite” the same as “anti-Israel”?

      Or perhaps more accurately: Is being anti-Israel make you and anti-Semite?

      My answer would be that in theory the answer is no it does not.  However, as a practical matter one does not often see the one without the other.  All too often the arguments against the state of Israel are founded in ignorance, historical revisionism and prejudice.

      • Commander_Chico

        Rosenberg, like most critics of the state of Israel, disagreed with the settlement policy on the West Bank.  In other words, Rosenberg was supporting what U.S. policy has been since at least GHW Bush.  Rosenberg, again like most critics, supported the existence of Israel roughly within the 1967 boundaries.   

        The question’s been asked many times – If Israel wants peace, why do they keep expanding into the West Bank and grabbing land for more settlements?

        The problem is that the USA gets blamed for what Israel does.

        • jim_m

          The 1967 boundaries are not reasonable and anyone who has looked at the situation knows that.  Israel was attacked by hostile nations and the territory won in that war was rightfully forfeited by the aggressor nations.  The West Bank in particular never even belonged to Jordan in the original partition.

          Why is it that people have such a problem with the boundaries of Israel changing after the war but they never have any problems with the boundaries of say, Germany and Poland, which changed dramatically after WWII?  Could it be that they are OK with a European division of land that has historically precipitated bloody wars, but they are not OK with giving land to Jewish people that they are prejudiced against? My guess is that the answer to that question is yes.

          • I’d encourage you to apply chicka’s standard to chicka, and only take his comments seriously (as in worthy of response) when they are sworn testimony or sworn affidavits.

          • I’d encourage you to apply chicka’s standard to chicka, and only take his comments seriously (as in worthy of response) when they are sworn testimony or sworn affidavits.

          • Commander_Chico

            The 1967 boundaries are not reasonable
            Why, because the Jordanian armored corps can slice through the IDF to the sea any day they want?  Ridiculous.

            There are about 2.5 million Arabs living on the West Bank.

            If you “give land to the Jewish people” (i.e. settlers from Russia and Brooklyn) you have to take land from the Arabs.

            These people and their families have lived there for a long time.  What do you propose to do with them?

          • jim_m

             I would propose doing nothing with them.  You do not have to “take land from arabs”.  That’s just anti-Semitic propaganda BS.  I suppose you buy into the whole BS that Jews drove the arabs out of their homes crap.  Go read some history and you will find out that the wealthy arab land owners sold their property at inflated prices to Jews immigrating into Israel and evicted their tenants.

            Leftist useful idiots like you buy into this BS that the Jews stole the land when the reality is nothing of the sort.

            And yes, having a 12 mile band from a border with a hostile nation to the sea is unacceptable.  I suppose that you have conveniently forgotten that Jordan had 600 Egyptian troops stationed on the West Bank during the 6 day war and in 1948 iraq was allowed to send an armored battalion through there, so hostile foreign troops have been allowed to attack Israel across that border in the past.

            But I also know from past discussion that you buy into absolutely every bit of anti-Israeli propaganda ever published.  You probably find the BS photos from Reuters and the whole Mohammad Al-Durra incident to be the epitome of truth.

        • jim_m

          The 1967 boundaries are not reasonable and anyone who has looked at the situation knows that.  Israel was attacked by hostile nations and the territory won in that war was rightfully forfeited by the aggressor nations.  The West Bank in particular never even belonged to Jordan in the original partition.

          Why is it that people have such a problem with the boundaries of Israel changing after the war but they never have any problems with the boundaries of say, Germany and Poland, which changed dramatically after WWII?  Could it be that they are OK with a European division of land that has historically precipitated bloody wars, but they are not OK with giving land to Jewish people that they are prejudiced against? My guess is that the answer to that question is yes.

    • Commander_Chico

      “As for the clown in question” is there anything you can point to in particular that he has ever written which is untrue or indicates hatred, or that he is an “anti-Semite” (or self-hating Jew)?  

      Or are you taking Warner’s and Dershowitz’s statements on faith, following the crowd?

      • herddog505

        He DOES seem to focus quite a lot of his ranting about the “Israel lobby” and “Israel firsters”.

        Further, given Dershowitz’s liberal pedigree, I think that it’s significant that he thinks Rosenberg has moved from criticism to anti-Semitism.

        Additionally, my question / answer that started this thread – “Is ‘anti-Semite’ the same as ‘anti-Israel’ / I suggest that they CAN be… but doesn’t [sic] necessarily have to be” made it clear that I don’t think that anti-Israel is always the same as anti-Semitic.

        Finally, given that I well know your own (ahem) suspicion of Israel, your support of Rosenberg isn’t exactly a character reference for him.  Birds of a feather, you know.

        • Commander_Chico

          1.  A lot of writers have a “beat” or a specialty.  Rosenberg wrote about Israel and the settlements.  You can read sharper criticisms from Israeli Jews in Haaretz or any day.  Unfortunately, such writing in the USA is more taboo than in Israel.  I asked you for specific offensive things Rosenberg has written – you were unable to come up with anything.

          2.  Tom Friedman has also referred to the “Israel lobby.”  Do you deny there is an “Israel lobby?”  It seems obvious.  AIPAC is a powerful enough organization to have the president speak at its conferences almost every year since Reagan.   “Israel firsters?”  Sheldon Adelson, for one, said he wished he served in the IDF instead of being drafted into the US Army.  As for others, only an objective measure can be taken: do they advocate policies and wars more for the benefit of Israel, or the USA?   
          3. The debate is really about the settlements and the occupation of land on the West Bank, not the existence of Israel.  Rosenberg and many other people, including a huge number of Israeli Jews, believe that the settlements threaten Israel more than the Arabs themselves, because the end game can only be a state where the Arabs can vote, or ethnic cleansing.

          4,  I can see how you can think of Dershowitz as a “liberal,” as he once advocated for civil liberties.  In his dotage he has become an ardent Israeli nationalist and called for “torture warrants” under cover of law.

          5.  Rosenberg and I are probably pretty close in views; we would both strongly defend Israel within something like the 1967 border with reasonable adjustments.  Since that is a position that 95% of the USA would back, where is the insecurity of Israel that requires them to fuel the fire of Arab discontent by stealing Arab land and building settlements?  Why does the USA not put its foot down and impose a peace treaty that Saudi Arabia and the rest of Arab world say they would back?  

          • jim_m

             What an anti-Semite and what a rational person would call “reasonable adjustments” will likely vary.

            And what an asinine statement that the US should  “impose a peace treaty that Saudi Arabia and the rest of Arab world say they would back”. 

            The only one the whole of the arab world would back would be a Hitlerian final solution.  THAT is the demonstration that you are either a true antisemite or just plain stupid.

          • jim_m

            Do you deny there is an “Israel lobby?”

            Of course there is.  There is also a Peanut Butter Lobby (qv Western Peanut Growers Assoc.), but people like you don’t consider it to be illegal to lobby for the interests of peanut growers, just for the rights of Jews.

          • herddog505

            Jebus, you’re lumping Tom “I LUV RED CHINA” Friedman in now???  Add David Frum or Crazy Paulie for a trifecta of losers.

            Yes, reporters have a “beat”.  It would appear that Rosenberg’s is beating the “the damned Israelis are running our country” drum.  Beat, beat, beat.

            But, happily for him, he’s out from under the thumb of the damned Joooooos… er, Israelis:

            [T]he hatred for America that the [Middle Eastern] revolutionaries feel stems in large part from our support for the occupation and the regional dictators who help enable it. And that support stems entirely from the lobby’s power to intimidate policymakers.

            I am often accused of harping on the lobby’s baleful influence. I plead guilty. But it’s my obligation because (1) I know from personal experience — 15 years on Capitol Hill and four at AIPAC — how it operates, (2) I know how little it really cares about Israel, and (3) I am free to tell the truth about it. If I worked in the mainstream media or in the U.S. government, I wouldn’t be.

            Rosenberg goes on to blame Israel for Stuxnet and ratcheting up tensions between the US and Iran, then rants about Israeli “hegemony” in the Middle East (six million clever, ruthless Jooooos… er… Israelis… keeping the entire Middle East under their thumb.  I’m reminded of Peter Griffin: why are those people so clever???).


            Yep, those clever, clever Joooooos… er, Israelis.  So powerful, so nefarious, that their influence reaches into the hallowed newsrooms of America’s largest papers and networks.

            But, o’ course, Rosenberg is an American lib first and foremost, so he knows when to cut some slack about people being too heavily influenced by the Jooooos… er…. Israelis:

            Sure, Chuck Schumer, Jerry Nadler and Anthony Weiner may put out the same “Israel-is-always-right” rhetoric as Jon Kyl and Eric Cantor, but neoconservatives don’t trust them because their jingoistic views on the Middle East are so utterly out of step with their progressive views on everything else.


            And I love this logic:

            Although Israel has promised to ease the blockade of Gaza and the economic strangulation of its people, Gaza remains occupied.  There are no Israeli soldiers stationed there but its air, sea and land borders are fully controlled and patrolled.  That is occupation. 

            Gosh, the Palis shoot rockets into Israel on a pretty regular basis, but the damned Joooos… er, Israelis… attempt to patrol their borders with what is effectively a hostile state and stop military supplies getting into it.  That, in Rosenberg’s lexicon, is “occupation”.  To borrow from Iniyo Montoya, I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.

            But Congress has been bought off by the Joooooos… er, Israelis, hook, line and sinker.  Just ask ol’ MJ:

            Congress buys it hook, line and sinker.  No, actually it doesn’t but it pretends it does to please the organizations headed by Solow and Rosenberg and the others that constitute the lobby.

            In fact, no claim made by the lobby is ever rejected by Congress, especially in an election year.  Just this week 338 House members and 87 Senators signed on to AIPAC-drafted letters supporting Israeli actions relating to the Gaza flotilla and the blockade itself.  Do these legislators believe this nonsense? Of course not.  But they sign the letters anyway, usually without reading them.


            Let me finish with a few numbers:

            POPULATION (millions)

            Israel – 7.9

            Egypt – 81

            Syria – 22.5

            Jordan – 6.5

            Lebanon – 4.2

            “Palestine” – 3.9

            (from various Wiki articles)

            And those are the hostile / potentially hostile states that BORDER Israel.  They don’t include Iran (79 million) or any other state that might be more than happy to wipe Israel off the map, as has been tried three times in the past century.

          • jim_m

            The Gaza blockade by Israel is a bogus lie.  It has a border with Egypt that has been sealed longer than the border with Israel.  If the arabs gave a damn about the palistinians they would open the border with Egypt, but instead they desire to capitalize on the suffering they create by holding their own blockade.

          • Commander_Chico

            Hell, Israelis took credit for Stuxnet themselves, or did you miss that?


            Israel’s military superiority is so large they alone could defend their country, plus they have the USA backing them up.  They have no threat right now from their neighbors.

            Let me finish with a few numbers:

            Nuclear weapons:

            Israel:  200+

            Jordan: 0

            Egypt:  0

            Syria:  0

            Lebanon:  0

            Palestine:  0

          • jim_m

            I sincerely doubt that obama would do a damn thing if Syria or Egypt tried to invade Israel.  Correction, he would condemn Israel and ban all weapon sales to them.

          • herddog505

            So, let me see if I follow the logic:

            Israel lobbies the US heavily (damned meddling Joooooos, eh?) in order for us to “have their back” in case their neighbors get fractious / genocidal.  The result is that Israel has “no threat right now from their neighbors”, which is to say that the odds of a war in that region are low (or, at least, lower than they might otherwise be).

            And you COMPLAIN about this???

          • Commander_Chico

            The point is that they can draw borders and make peace with the Arab Palestinians, they face no threat justifying the continued expansion of the settlements.

            Making peace with a Palestinian state, in turn, would make life a lot easier for the USA in the region.

            There is no justification for the land-grabbing and continued occupation  up to the River Jordan.

          • jim_m

             There is no justification for the land-grabbing and continued occupation  up to the River Jordan.

            Except,of course, that the reason they have that land is because they were INVADED!!  The Jordan becomes a defensible border and that is why they have that border.  They wouldn’t even be there if the arabs hadn’t invaded.

            Your bullshit is like a bully complaining that he picked on the little kid down the block and got his ass kicked.  Too freaking bad.  What you want Chica is to  have the victim pay damages to that bully.   Yet another proof that you are an antisemite.

          • herddog505

            Then perhaps the Israelis will elect a government (something they can do, which is quite rare in that part of the world) that will agree to this.

            As for “land grabbing”, Israel isn’t willy-nilly snatching bits and pieces of neighboring countries like a city trying to expand its tax base by annexing outlying communities.  Rather, as I understand it, they are building communities within their own borders.  The problem is that the Palis claim that Israel – all of it – is actually THEIR country.  To my mind, this is not unlike claiming that we cannot build developments in western North Carolina because the Cherokees don’t like it.

          • Commander_Chico

            No, they are building communities on land on the West Bank, not “within their own borders.”

            If they conquered the land, as you say, are they going to give the Arabs the vote, since they are a “democracy?” 

            Or will there be another system used, there’s an Afrikaaner word for it, what is it now  . ?

          • jim_m

             The West Bank is currently within the border of Israel you antisemite.

          • Commander_Chico


          • jim_m

             Chico , you bigot.  Go look at how Palestinians are treated in other Arab nations.  Look at the laws for citizenship in other arab nations.  Israel gives arabs far more rights than in any other country in the region and your antisemitic bigotry makes you claim that they are as oppressive as South Africa? 

            Once again you do nothing but prove what a bigot you are.

          • herddog505

            1.  Are you suggesting that the West Bank is actually in Jordan?  Syria?  China?

            The West Bank is within the borders of Israel in the same way (and for the same reason) that various parts of hte United States are within our borders.  Other people may not like that (pretty sure that Mexico isn’t happy that our border with them is where it is), but the Israeli border is a fact.

            2.  Arabs DO have a voice and vote in Israel.  According to Wiki, there have been Arabs in the Knesset since 1949; there are currently fourteen Arabs in that body from a total of 120 members.  Indeed, as a percentage, there are more Arabs in the Israeli Knesset than there are blacks in the US Congress.

            I think the word you are looking for is of Greek origin.  “Demo-something.”

          • jim_m

             The fact that arabs have more rights in Israel than they would have in Jordan, Syria or Egypt escapes Chico.  He would rather see them oppressed by their own kind than free under a Jewish government.

          • jim_m

             Imbecile.  Chico, how many times do we need to hear a palestinian offered everything they ask for and still refuse peace with Israel as Arafat did . 

             Palestinians are still bent on the destruction of the Israeli state and if you choose to deny that you are little better than a holocaust denier.  Heck, you support their cause so much maybe you are just like they are.  You buy into all their other BS.

    • Brucehenry

      “…there isn’t much about the left I DO understand.”

      That one’s easy: just ask Jim.

  • jim_m

    Israel is in a constant state of “being provoked.” 

    Indeed it is.  And yet you equate the provocation of Israel (which amounts to little more than the fact of its existence) to the provocation of the arabs which includes but is by no means limited to: mass multi-front invasion, suicide bombings, murders of children in their beds and rocket bombardment of civilians. 

    I’m so glad to see that you have the typical leftist lack of perspective with regard to human life and the value of the lives of people you disagree with.

    • Commander_Chico

      Really?  What about that “value of human life?”

      A total of 971 children have been killed in Israeli-Palestinian conflict violence, representing 18% of the total number of conflict deaths. Children are protected, in a number of legal instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, against arbitrary loss of life, even in armed conflict.Of the overall number of children killed, 88% were Palestinian and 12 % were Israeli.The trend of child deaths mirrors the total rate: the number of Israeli children killed has declined markedly while that of Palestinian children remains high.Palestinian children make up 20% of the total Palestinian deaths while Israeli children represent 12% of total Israeli deaths. 

      In 2006, 31% of the Palestinian children killed were 12 years or younger. The vast majority of children died as a result of injuries sustained either to the head, chest or to more than one place of their body.

      • jim_m

         Israel does not deliberately target children nor do they celebrate their deaths.  You are comparing inadvertent deaths to those that are deliberately targeted.  The IDF does not go into schools and murder children.

        Come on Chica,  Show us some more evidence of your antisemitism.  Perhaps you could compare some other atrocity that the arabs commit to what the Israelis do. Maybe a comparison of how the arabs kidnap Israeli citizens and murder them to how the Israelis treat injured arabs in their hospitals.

        Your double standard is sick.

        • Commander_Chico

          How do you know what they do, what their motivations for bombing are?

          Amnesty International produced a report on Operation “Cast Lead.”


          White phosphorus, a highly incendiary substance, was repeatedly fired indiscriminately over densely populated residential areas, killing and wounding civilians and destroying civilian property. It was often launched from artillery shells in air-burst mode, which aggravated the already devastating consequences of the attacks. Each shell ejected over a hundred felt wedges impregnated with highly incendiary white phosphorus, which rained down over houses and streets, igniting on exposure to oxygen and setting fire to people and property. Once their incendiary content had been discharged, the artillery shells often crashed into buildings causing further deaths and injuries. Repeated denials of the use of white phosphorus by Israeli officials during the conflict delayed or prevented appropriate treatment for people suffering agonizing burns. Some who died might otherwise have been saved.  Artillery in general and white phosphorus shells in particular should never be used in populated areas. Yet in Gaza Israeli forces repeatedly fired them into densely populated residential areas, knowing that such imprecise weapons would kill and injure civilians. Such attacks were indiscriminate and as such unlawful under international law. 

          • jim_m

             Maybe if your pali terrorists wouldn’t hide behind women and children these things would not happen. In the past the left would have called such people war criminals for using human shields, but here they don’t because they would rather accuse Jews of murder.

          • Commander_Chico

            “Human shields?”  From the same Amnesty International report, page 48:

            2.1 PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS USED AS “HUMAN SHIELDS” During Operation “Cast Lead” Israeli forces repeatedly took over Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip forcing families to stay in a ground-floor room while they used the rest of their house as a military base and sniper position – effectively using the families, both adults and children, as “human shields” and putting them at risk. While soldiers wore protective body armour and helmets and shielded themselves behind sandbags as they fired from the houses, the Palestinian inhabitants of the houses had no such protection.  

          • jim_m

             Amnesty Intl is not exactly a credible group these days as they spend in inordinate amount of time criticizing the US and overlooking atrocities by dictatorships.

            Back when I was a child they actually may have done some good, but they have long been a tool of the radical left.

      • herddog505

        Boo-f*cking-hoo.  I realize that lefties are wedded to the mad notion of “proportionate force” or whatever it’s called, but the real world doesn’t work that way.  If Mexico or Canada was lobbing rockets into the United States or sending suicide bombers to blow up busses and restaurants in El Paso or Buffalo, the Israelis would look like paragons of restraint compared to what I (and, I think, most Americans) would demand in response.

        Or are you claiming that Israel deliberately targets Pali children in the way that the Palis have deliberately targetted Israeli children?

        Well, police are still putting together the details, but they believe that at least one, or several, individuals entered the northern West Bank settlement of Itamar through a security fence. They believe they must have entered several homes before they came to the Fogel family, where it seems as though most of the family was asleep.

        It seems they first attacked two boys, aged 11 and 4. Both of those children were found on the floor of their bedroom, stabbed to death. The father and a 3-month-old baby were found in the main room. The mother appears to have been woken up. She ran for her husband’s gun. Her body was found with the greatest number of stab wounds to it. [emphasis mine – hd505]

        During World War II, Air Chief Marshall Harris didn’t pore over estimated casualty reports from British bombing of German cities and, at some point, declare that, “OK, that’s enough: we’ve killed as many of them as they killed of us during the Blitz.” No: he said, “We’re going to keep bombing those b*stards until they’ve had enough and surrender.”

        • Commander_Chico

          Well, you both can say what you want to justify Israeli land-grabbing and their punitive bombing of civilians, but the question you have not answered is why the USA should be supporting it, when it obviously produces adverse effects for the USA.   And the land-grabbing for settlements is a defiance of US policy since GHW Bush.

          I don’t buy into the morality of “it’s OK if we kill kids from 10,000 feet, but killing kids with a car bomb is wrong.”

          Look at the graph I attached – zero Israeli kids killed in 2007 – about 140 Palestinian kids. After awhile, it’s not the defensive use of force, it’s ethnic cleansing.

          What’s the benefit to the USA in supporting this?

          • herddog505

            Punative bombing of civilians is what we and the British did to the Germans in World War II.  I suggest that, given the admitted might of the IDF, if they wanted to be “punitive”, the body count would run into the tens of thousands.

            I further suggest that, if the Palis would stop firing rockets and sending suicide bombers and other killers into Israel, the Israelis would stop bombing them.

            What would be the benefit to the USA of letting the Palis and other islamists have their way and wipe out Israel?

          • jim_m

             Forget it.  Chico buys into every last bit of Pali propaganda and excuses every last atrocity.  There is no act the palis can commit that is so heinous that Chico will not find some way to excuse it or blame it on Israeli provocation (probably because there was a living, breathing, Jew somewhere in the Middle East)

            He ignores the oppression of the Palis by other arab states and their complicity in creating the refugee crisis.  He ignores that arab states could implement simple solutions to alleviate the crisis (like Egypt opening its border with Gaza). 

            He ignores the duplicity with which the palis have engaged in negotiations and the ease with which they have gone back on their word historically.

            He buys inbto the leftist cant of Israel being an apartheid state while ignoring the fact that arabs actually have more freedom in Israel than they do in most other arab notions.

            Like most leftists, Chico lives in a fact free world.

          • He’s already threatened to leave us (woe), send him to live amongst paleostinians.

          • jim_m

             I don’t buy into the morality of “it’s OK if we kill kids from 10,000 feet, but killing kids with a car bomb is wrong.”

            No.  But apparently you buy into the morality of killing children in their beds is ok as long as the victims are Jews.

  • Oysteria

    “My presence here is being used in an effort to shut Media Matters up.”

    Wait.  Media Matters efforts are all an attempt to shut others up.  That some would push back isn’t much to his liking, is it?  What a shame.

    • Quel dommage!

    • “Shut your damned pie-hole!” he explained, demonstrating his theory regarding free speech for all…

  • Commander_Chico

    I am surprised at the assertion that the West Bank is “within the borders of Israel.”   What crackpot website is your source for that assertion?

    Israel has not formally annexed the West Bank and neither the US nor any other country consider the West Bank as under anything but temporary Israeli occupation.

    Even the Israeli government does not make that claim, saying the status is “subject to negotiation.”

    • jim_m

      Map of Israel:

      Saying that the West Bank is subject to negotiation is different from saying that it belongs to someone else.  Israel is willing to trade land for peace but the arabs have never offered peace, but have always reneged on any promises. 

      If the land did not belong to Israel they would not be able to use it in such a negotiation.

      • Commander_Chico

        Oh, the right-wing Jerusalem Post.  Note that even on their map the West Bank and Gaza are shaded differently from 1967 Israel and Golan, which was formally annexed by Israel.

        Again, are you with the position and policy of the USA, or are you with the policy of the Israeli right-wing?  I am with the policy of the USA, the same one since GHW Bush.

        • jim_m

           Yea, they are shaded that way because those areas are the areas where the Palestinian Authority operates.  Jeez you are really dim.

          Notice that the Golan Heights is not similarly shaded.  I would also note that Syria still claims the Golan Heights.

          • Commander_Chico

            Israel does claim Golan as “within its borders,” they formally annexed it.  I already pointed that out.

  • jb


    Being critical of Israel’s government doesn’t make you an anti-Semite.

    If it did, then at least 40% of Israeli citizens are anti-semitic semites.


  • Pingback: SHOCK: Media Matters Fellow Seemingly Mocks Mother Of Slain American in Benghazi |()

  • Pingback: Politileze | SHOCK: Media Matters Fellow Mocks Mother Of Slain American in Benghazi()

  • Pingback: Media Matters Mocks Mother Of Slain American in Benghazi()

  • Pingback: SHOCK: Media Matters Fellow Mocks Mother Of Slain American in Benghazi |()

  • Pingback: SHOCK: Media Matters Fellow Mocks Mother Of Slain American in Benghazi | The Navigator Online()

  • Pingback: SHOCK: Media Matter’s Eric Boehlert Mocks Mother Of Slain American in Benghazi Terror Attack |()