Pour les francophones: Interview avec moi sur Guysen TV

You can see it here for the rest of the day. Click on Le grand journal – 26/10/2009.

30 Responses to Pour les francophones: Interview avec moi sur Guysen TV

  1. The Omri Ceren Show – Richard Landes Wrap Up And Exclusive Full-Length Interview…

    First things first: make sure you check out the exclusive Richard Landes interview over on the One Jerusalem audio page. The highlights I played on the air were less than one-third of the total material – academics, it turns……

  2. Eliyahu says:

    I agree with your saying that goldstone gave more power to those Arabs who want war. We really can’t be sure what goldstone “really” wanted since we have no device for reading minds. Maybe he sincerely wanted peace. Or Maybe he is sincerely a base opportunist. But he is inciting the Arabs to be more intransigent than they already are, and in the last analysis, he incites them to make war, whatever his true intention was.

    I also feel that we can’t stress enough how the West encourages Arab war fever and how the “palestinians” serve many in the West as an alibi and a remedy for their own Judeophobia.

    Of course, the palestinian authority gets mucho bucks from EU, US and other Western powers. It couldn’t keep going without Western mezumah.

  3. Cynic says:


    Read RW Johnson’s piece that was linked to in another thread.
    Here’s a Timesonline link

    Think Tank: new ideas from the 21st Century: Your honour is taking an injudicious kick at Israel

    Judge Richard Goldstone’s condemnatory report on Israel’s actions in Gaza has been dismissed as hopelessly one-sided by neutral observers — The Economist, for example, denounced the report’s “wilful blindness”. Goldstone’s “thimbleful of poison” has, it says, made the peace process all the harder.

    Goldstone as the article goes on to disclose is an opportunist out for himself and it appears that the last thing on his mind was the truth.

  4. sshender says:

    Cynic, thanx for the link. However the comments are really disparaging. I think they reflect in a nutshell the average attitude towards Israel and the conflict, and that does not bode well for the future. There you have all the possible lies, fallasies and distorions as are being desseminated by Arab propaganda and promulgated by European media:

    *the rocketing had slowed to a trickle under the ceasefire
    *Israel broke the ceasefire and it did so to create the conditions for Cast Lead
    *The operation was neatly timed for the run-up to the Israeli elections and designed to secure a quick and painless ‘victory’
    *The unusually imbalanced casualty figure demonstrates the punitive and indiscriminate nature of the Israeli bombardment.
    *Cast Lead was basically a reprisal attack on civilians for domestic political reasons and the norms of civilised warfare were chucked out of the window.
    * this is clearly a case of “if you cannot discredit the report, then discredit the author”.
    *Israel has far more military and political power than the Palestinians. We need to take a dispassionate look at what they’ve done since 1948, instead of taking the attitude that it’s somehow wrong to criticise them

    Then they top it up by justifying Palestinian Terror (Asymetric warfare) and of course no anto-Israeli rant is complete without the Anti-semitism “cop out” card that it’s being used to stifle legitimate debate.

    On the bright side there are a few sane voices around but they are barely heard through the rattle. This realy is disheartening

  5. E.G. says:


    Here’s the other link Cynic referred to, and it clarifies things better.


    Comments are usually either more radical than the article, or radically opposed to it. The proportions may indicate the zeitgeist… of the readership.

    (FYI, I’m much more often censored by Haaretz than by the Guardian)

  6. Cynic says:


    There are many types out there and some take great pleasure in provoking an argument or just trashing a discussion.
    There is a terrific amount of ignorance which unfortunately seems impossible to surmount with clear reasoning.
    If only there was a grandstand we could repair to and watch out the action in relative safety.

  7. Cynic says:


    (FYI, I’m much more often censored by Haaretz than by the Guardian)

    Shocked, I’m shocked I tell you that the guardian of Israel’s morals is censoring your comments. Oh what did you say? Was it about Haas or was it Levy? Surely you weren’t agreeing with Bibi.
    It must have been that bad that the Liberal fascist Left had to get you into line.

  8. E.G. says:


    Sigh. Al-Ard* regulations seem a bit arbitrary (Ottoman legacy, I guess), so the Guardian style often doesn’t suit their mods’ taste.
    I don’t bother comment Levy and Hass’s masterpieces.

    *Ha’Aretz (Hebrew) – English: the Land; Arabic: Al-Ard.

  9. Cynic says:

    Sigh. Al-Ard* regulations seem a bit arbitrary (Ottoman legacy, I guess), so the Guardian style often doesn’t suit their mods’ taste.

    So we can now see how far the Guardian has progressed from former “British Colonial” :-) style reporting?

  10. Cynic says:

    oops. I meant to ask if there was not perhaps a smidgen of Stockholm Syndrome in Al-Ard’s behaviour?

  11. E.G. says:


    Of course the Guardian progressed. Immensely! Here’s an example:

    As for Al-Ard, I’d place the syndrome somewhere else.

  12. Cynic says:


    I was referring more to the fact that you were being discriminated against by hashomer than the fact that juden-hass stories continue to be published.

  13. Eliyahu says:

    The guardian [hashomer] editorial that you link to praises amira hass for spending the last 20 yrs. approx. with the “palestinians” in ramallah and Gaza chronicling the “occupation” experiences of the poor dears.

    It seems that the guardian forgets that for most of the last 20 years those places have been under palestinian authority control [Gaza since 1994, Ramallah since 1996]. Of course, PA control is occupation of a sort as far as I’m concerned. But how does the groniad justify saying that those places have been under “occupation” all those years up till now?

  14. E.G. says:


    Answer: see “language laundromat”. Amira and her Hamulah are highly specialised in showing the beam in the other’s eye (provided it’s not the mythical Other).
    That’s why HaShomer (who whitewashes better than Ariel detergent) are so laudatory.

  15. E.G. says:


    It might just happen that HaShomer actually appreciates a de-colonised commentator. Once their suppression system figured out, it’s quite easy to have one’s comments remain online.

    It’s the Ottoman-Germanic alliance at Al-Ard that’s more difficult to decipher.

    (and also the Stables’ filters that have just swallowed my reply to Eliyahu!)

  16. E.G. says:


    Prompted by Cynic, I posted 2 comments on a Levy idiocy. Both made it.
    Soon in your bookshop: The Al-Ard Code.

  17. Cynic says:


    I’m waiting.

  18. E.G. says:

    Negotiating the film and TV-series and the inspired-of products line contracts.;-)

  19. Cynic says:

    By the E.G. I was hoping to get a look see at your take down of Levy and was hoping for a link.

  20. Cynic says:

    Seems like I’m in that state of mind.
    By the E.G. is missing way between the & E.G.

  21. E.G. says:


    Rather than boast with the successful posts, I tried my skills on 2 new pieces today. Utter failures.
    I’m sad to report that the regular comrade-censors Commissars are back and the selection is back to its usual inconsistent criteria.

  22. E.G. says:


    Correction: there have been delays in uploading most of my posts. Not very Stakhanovist Commissars…

  23. Cynic says:


    Yeh, but what about those two you boasted about?

  24. E.G. says:


    Wrapped fish and filed vertically.
    But you can see the Jewish Mother in the link posted on today’s Goldstone thread.

    I suspect the mod-code is “insufficient personnel”…

  25. Cynic says:


    Dost though joust in conundrums or just tongues?
    Who? Where? What?

    By the way there is a Cynic posting on Haaretz and it’s NOT me.

  26. E.G. says:


    Nothing sibylline.

    The first comments were rather neutral and hardly interesting. The point was whether they’d be posted at all. Ace-wise, I made marks on my ‘puter for each censorship barrier downed ;-)

    For the most recent see #1

  27. Cynic says:


    At least not related to the Rev Al’s Goracle.
    By the way did know of this:
    Sibylline Oracles on Early Jewish Writings

    Some interesting things such as
    Emil Schürer writes: “Very divergent are the decisions of critics concerning the fifth book. Bleek distinguishes the following portions as Jewish:—(a) vers. 260-285, 481-531, written about the middle of the second century before Christ, by an Alexandrian Jew; (b) vers. 286-332 by a Jew of Asia Minor soon after A.D. 20; (c) perhaps also vers. 342-433 by a Jewish author about A.D. 70. While Lücke entirely, and Gfrörer at least partly, agree with Bleek

    Do you know any of this? I imagine RL could enlighten me. You?
    Maybe Eliyahu has read up on it too?
    At the time that I became aware of Sibylline I fobbed it off as all Greek to me. :-)

    James C. VanderKam writes: “If the parts of the third sibylline oracle sketched above are a mid-second-century Jewish work from Egypt, it seems quite reasonable to suppose that a Jewish supporter of Philometor such as Onias may have had something to do with the work. Sibylline oracles in antiquity had a decidedly political import, and the same would be the case with this one. It may seem strange that a Ptolemaic king woul be hailed in what appear to be quasi-messianic terms, but the third sibylline oracle is a good reminder of what at least some Jews may have understood a messianic leader to be: a human king who would effect God’s will in the perilous and frightening time of the author.

    The mind boggles.

  28. E.G. says:


    I’m stupefied. Never heard of/about this stuff.
    I can read Rashi, though.

  29. Cynic says:

    In which language?
    I doubt that my mind in its present state could deal with Rashi.

  30. E.G. says:


    Most of what Rashi wrote was in Hebrew. He also used French, transliterated in his “font”, signalling to his contemporary readers that it’s a foreign word (Laaz, as in Loazi) which linguists cherish because most of these words are gone and his commentary is the only place where they’re conserved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *