Real life imitates spoof: a playground explosion on Israeli TV

Dan Margalit, TV interviewer, has a blistering exchange with Member of Knesset Dr. Jamal Zahalka. It’s awfully reminiscent of this.

Note, at the end, the reference to Sheikh Munis, the Arab name for the village they claim was displaced by northern Tel Aviv suburbs (including the university).

Also note that in the process of becoming excited, Zahalka goes from 400 dead children to 1400. Shades of the Goldstone Report.

The transcript of the exchange is here.

Zehalka told his interviewers that there is a “lack of knowledge among Israelis about the terrible situation in Gaza, and there is nothing wrong with Haniyeh expressing his opinion to the Israeli public.”

Bergman said, “He is the head of a terrorist organization that is at war with Israel, and you give him a platform to speak. You don’t see how this is perceived here?” Zehalka responded that it was good for Haniye’s voice to be heard. At this point, Margalit said, “I don’t think there is such a humanitarian crisis in Gaza as you think there is, though that’s not the point–”

Zehalka: “I can bring you examples from the UN report.”

Margalit: “Come on, who believes the UN? The UN is an arm of – look at the Goldstone report.”

Zehalka: “OK, so you believe the Israeli generals?”

Margalit: “I don’t have to believe anyone. I was in Sderot myself for three years and I saw the Kassam rockets that came flying over there, courtesy of Haniye and his friends, well before Israel carried out any military campaign. So come on. But that’s not the point; the point is that Hamas is an enemy, and you, as Knesset Members, apparently couldn’t care less…

Bergman: “Why don’t you protest against Egypt? If they would open their blockade of Gaza in Rafiach, there would be no humanitarian crisis there!”

Zehalka: “I support the Egyptian opposition’s protest against their government” [evoking sarcastic laughter by the interviewers] … We want to stop the suffering in Gaza, one must be totally obtuse in order not to see this.”

Margalit: “Not quite; Hamas has fired 8,000 rockets…”

Zehalka: “There were 1,400 dead Arabs and 400 children [in Cast Lead] [sic].”

Margalit: “Because Hamas fired rockets…”

Zehalka: “Ehud Barak listens to classical music and kills children!”

Margalit: “Yes, we’ve heard that, we’ve heard that. What chutzpah (gall, nerve — ed.) it takes to talk that way.”

Zehalka: “No, the chutzpah is the killing. Don’t say it is nerve.”

Margalit: “It is chutzpah.”

Zehalka (yelling): “Don’t you say chutzpah!”

Margalit: “I’ll say what I want, I don’t live in your [type of] country, I live in a democracy.”

Zehalka (yelling): “You talk as if you’re in the marketplace!”

Margalit: “I talk that way? You say that Barak is a murderer! You are chatzuf [cheeky, rude, disrespectful, from the same root as the Hebrew word chutzpah]!”

Zehalka (yelling): “Don’t call me chatzuf!”

Margalit: “You’re chatzuf!”

Zehalka: “Don’t call me chatzuf!”

Margalit: “You’re chatzuf!”

Zehalka: “Oh yeah? You’re a zero!”

Margalit: “Oh? OK, now you’ve convinced me.”

Zehalka: “You’re a zero! You’re a mouthpiece for all the prime ministers, and you’re a court reporter! You’re a court reporter!”

Margalit: “Yes, OK, Zehalka, you’re right, now get out of here. You don’t care about all the Kassams, now get out of here.”

After another round or two of mutual insults, when it appeared that Zehalka had finally left, Margalit had trouble calming down, and said, “You saw that chatzuf? He says that Barak is a child murderer!”

Zehalka’s voice is heard from offstage: “Don’t say chatzuf!”

Margalit: “Get out of here already!”

Zehalka: “Don’t say chatzuf! Don’t say get out of here already!”

Margalit: “Can you let me work, please?” (The next interviewee had already arrived)

Zehalka [still yelling from offstage]: “This is Sheikh Munis here!” (referring to a former Arab village on the ruins of which northern Tel Aviv — including the television studio — was built)

Margalit [banging on the table]: “Aaah, now we see what you really want! Now it’s clear! You want to conquer this from us too! Now we see the truth!”

Zehalka: “No, we want to live together! I was born here, you are an immigrant!”

Margalit:”Oh, I’m an immigrant?” (Margalit was born in Tel Aviv in 1938)

51 Responses to Real life imitates spoof: a playground explosion on Israeli TV

  1. E.G. says:

    Also note that in the process of becoming excited, Zahalka goes from 400 dead children to 1400. Shades of the Goldstone Report.

    I’d say the inverse: the Goldstone report reflects this Oriental tendency to embellish, magnify, and come up with a distorted story.

    The most ridiculous part, IMO, is when Zahalka adopts a reproaching tone (3:23) and cites (not very exactly) the Bible “the blood of children cries out from the Earth” (Your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground! – God to Cain, Genesis).

    Foucault, the Bible, an allusion to the Nazis (murder to the sound of Classical music), the “driven away indigenous” and the “immigrant-settler-colonialist-ethnic cleanser” – a concise Palypropaganda from a democratically elected Israeli Parliament member.

  2. J. F. says:

    Missing from your transcript is the quoting of Michel Foucault by the guest.

    Is this the same Foucault who wrote about the glorious revolution in Iran made by the Ayatollah Khomeini?

    “The philosopher and the ayatollah”

    “In 1978, Michel Foucault went to Iran as a novice journalist to report on the unfolding revolution. His dispatches — now fully available in translation — shed some light on the illusions of intellectuals in our own time.”

  3. J. F. says:

    The Foucault quote can be heard, btw, about 33-35 seconds into the video interview.

  4. abu yussif says:

    the irony is that while zehalka lives in this incredible country, he would be in utter despair if he had his same governmental position in any other middle eastern country. at least in israel, he has a benign and open opposition/enemy that invites someone like him to speak freely on the public airwaves.

    people like him should have their bile heard everywhere so there will be no question what disgusting people they really are.

  5. E.G. says:

    Note, at 2:54 into the video, “I want to live in a democracy, a real democracy with real equality”.

    So Israel is not democratic (enough? at all?) for this Knesset Member. As if he wasn’t democratically elected. As if he had not been invited in the first place to the TV studio in order to voice his electorate’s view.

    Or as if a “real democracy” (and real equality) means something entirely different from the one in practice in his homeland and country…
    Perhaps the inalienable right to lie and ally with his country’s enemies, as well as the one to administer “uncontrollable rage”?

  6. SE says:

    To give Z the benefit of the doubt, he probably ratcheted up the numbers as he got excited.
    What I think is most relevant to this website is that Z received a forum to air his views, while denying the host of the show an opportunity to express his (shortly after the 1 minute mark).
    I really wonder what the parallel would be in the US, and what the response would be: Basically, a US Senator publicly and emphatically declares that the US has no right to exist, the Europeans who live there and their descendants have no right to be there, Gates (Rumsfeld?) is a mass murderer with zero conscience, and the Senator gives a microphone to Bin Laden to express his views.
    Holy cow.

  7. E.G. says:


    To give Z the benefit of the doubt, he probably ratcheted up the numbers as he got excited.

    Well, I think it’s very relevant to this website to note that there are quite a few more who ratchet up the numbers and distort facts, sometimes while getting excited, and sometimes while calmly typing their article (or recording their report). Some even do so while compiling formal reports for Intl. institutions.

    Besides, the children/total number is the only thing he confused.

    And, the hypothetical Senator uses his publicly funded cell-phone to enable Bin Laden disseminate his message.

  8. Diane says:

    I imagine Z has little power or influence in the Knesset (and deserves none), and this would, from his perspective, seem like a failure of democracy. Of course, no democracy should be obliged to suffer an avowed enemy serving (subverting) its government. Yet this is the contortion that has come of hostile Arab-Israelis voting in MKs with radical views. Elected Benedict Arnolds.

    I’m not sure what the solution should be. Liebermann’s loyalty oath is toxic to many, though I confess I’m not really sure why. The wording could be carefully crafted to avoid marginalizing minorities. Be that as it may, a loyalty oath seems perfectly appropriate for MKs. Does anyone happen to know what oath MKs take at their official swearing in?

  9. E.G. says:

    Israeli Arab MK Jamal Zahalka gives hutzpah a bad name – and we take it.

  10. Cynic says:

    Note, at 2:54 into the video, “I want to live in a democracy, a real democracy with real equality”.

    That’s where He has the powah!

    Where he has to share it with the Jews, of all animals, that’s not democracy, it’s democrassy.

  11. Scott says:

    Israelis have become so smug, mocking people who get angry about murder and injustice. The “Palestinian ministry of uncontrollable rage” indeed, ha, ha. Would Israelis get angry if they had to spend six hours of every day in checkpoints? Would we make fun of them?

  12. Diane says:

    Thanks for the link, EG. It seems to me like Z hasn’t honored his oath. What is the penalty for such a lapse? One former Arab-Israli MK, I know, fled Israel for fear of arrest after he was indicted for meeting with an enemy of the state (Meshal or Haniye, can’t remember which). Does it have to be as egregious an act of treason as that to invoke action, or is it sufficient to impeach an MK who simply makes public statements at odds with his oath?

  13. E.G. says:


    Parliamentary immunity and the sacro-saint freedom of speech are good shields. Bishara actually phoned the Hezb and gave them location coordinates to shoot at. Now, that was a bit too much, so he fled. I believe he still receives his salary or social security or both, though.

  14. E.G. says:


    For the past 60 years, and in particular the last 41 ones, Israelis have had the nasty privilege of meeting terror intimately. Entering a bank, a concert hall, a cinema, a shopping mall, a supermarket includes getting one’s bags checked. Children going on a school visit need to be accompanied by armed guards. What the whole world experiences in airports since 9/11 is history for Israelis. In recent years, going to a restaurant, a cafe, a bar, and even a bus ride has an element of risk.

    Yet Israelis continuously control their anger. Even when rockets rain on them daily. And have a great sense of humour. Maybe that’s one resource of resilience and determination.

    No terror – no checkpoints. And guess what, I do recall when such was the situation. A long long time ago.

  15. Eliyahu says:

    EG, I agree that Israel has faced terrorism since 1948, or even long before the establishment of the state in that year. I think that terrorism was relatively minor though until the Oslo accords of 1993. That’s when terrorism accelerated and got much worse. Compare the number of victims in the 15 years before Oslo and the 15 years since Oslo.

    Scott, everybody in Israel, Jews, Arabs and visiting Martians, has to wait in line, go through metal detectors, have his/her briefcase/pocketbook searched, etc., as EG pointed out. When a suspicious object is discovered in a public place on or near a street, traffic can be tied for an hour or more until the object is blown up or determined to be safe or otherwise dealt with.

    How would you like to sit in a bus in a traffic jam for an hour waiting for the police bomb squad to take care of a suspicious object?? I don’t know your sources of information about life in Israel, but if those sources are not reporting what I just told you, then those sources are conveying incomplete information, to say the least.

  16. Lianne says:

    Read Khaled abu Toameh’s article about what it really means to be pro-Palestinian
    Please try to do something useful.

    Conflating joining a group of civilian volunteers for three weeks with military service would get you a punch in the face from most of the (even non-IDF)soldiers I’ve known over the years.

  17. E.G. says:

    Terrorism was not “relatively minor” before 1993, it was on a different scale of intensity-frequency.

    Before 1967 it was also more difficult to cross the “borders” (Armistice lines between sovereign states) than after the 6-day war. The checkpoints were only established after the terror attacks. And they multiplied, in direct proportions, as the attacks increased.

    BTW, Scott, what’s the connection between Arabs in the captured territories and Israeli Arabs, especially their Parliamentary representatives? The first don’t elect the last, and the last are not in the Knesset to represent them.

  18. Cynic says:

    Scott said: Would Israelis get angry if they had to spend six hours of every day in checkpoints?

    And how many hours of each day do they lose to Checkpoints at each and every building they wish to enter, whether it is just to get a cup of coffee, to buy groceries, or to deal with bureaucratic institutions by removing everything from their pockets before they bodily pass through an electronic screen, opening the baggage compartment of their cars before they can get into a parking garage, and so on and so forth; and how many times has there been a checkpoint point erected on the roads because of a suspected terrorist with motorists stuck in their cars for hours on end.
    No you cannot answer that because in your ignorance instigated by your misleading MSM you arrogantly assume that you know all the facts.

    Sometimes when I read the tripe expressed by ignoramuses I wish that they would experience first hand the fear of waiting in a queue, travelling on public transport or even just riding the road because one of those “poor victims” decides to detonate his bomb laden car next to yours.

    Now had Arafat not been forced on Israel as the only negotiating partner in the conflict by the US and Europe maybe it would have come to pass that he would not have applied his knowledge of terrorism and forced the creation of checkpoints and fences.
    Within months of him signing the Oslo accord and getting control of all the major Palestinian towns he started the bombings.
    (Amazing that those towns in the minds of people like Scott remained occupied as Arafat controlled them just like Gaza after the Israelis pulled out lock, stock and barrel.)

    Maybe you will get your experience of checkpoints, outside of airports, when your Pals, frustrated by having to remain seated for the last hour of a flight, decide that a street corner in Manhattan would make just as good a bang for a shahid as a plane.

  19. Cynic says:

    Israelis have become so smug, mocking people who get angry about murder and injustice.

    Go back and study who started the murdering and enforcing the injustice of dhimmitude.

    When a person is responsible for the mess he finds himself in it helps not a whit to blame someone else and unfortunately that has been a cultural thing of those you sympathize with.

  20. Lianne says:

    Scott, surtely after reading this blog, you can understand that the TV hosts are making fun of Zehalka specifically because they judge him uninterested in justice and democracy as universal goods? It`s because they understand that Zehalka will use Israeli freedom of speech to call for Israel`s destruction, but would never go to Egypt to call for a liberal democracy and equal rights for the Copts? That`s why they are laughing at him.

  21. Diane says:

    I asked:

    “Is it sufficient to impeach an MK who simply makes public statements at odds with his oath?”

    E.G. answered:

    “Parliamentary immunity and the sacro-saint freedom of speech are good shields. Bishara actually phoned the Hezb and gave them location coordinates to shoot at. Now, that was a bit too much, so he fled. I believe he still receives his salary or social security or both, though.”

    Me again:

    This is appallilng! What is the use of a loyalty oath by public servants if it cannot be enforced?? I cannot imagine such a state of affairs in America, where we certainly enjoy free speech. Recall when Rev. Wright was caught on film invoking “God damn America,” it was a thunderbolt, and it hurt Obama badly with many voters. No congressman would dare say such a thing, not even Kucinich. It is unthinkable.

    Unless and until Israel believes unquestioningly in its own just cause, there can be no political stability.

  22. E.G. says:


    Try filing such a complaint to the Israeli High Court of Justice. They’ll answer you (in a multi-page document) that it’s the small price for maintaining a Democracy worthy of that name. That’s the position it holds since Justice Aharon Barak took its head (he’s retired now).
    Tolerating dissonant, antagonist views is a sign of (moral) strength.

  23. E.G. says:


    I don’t think the TV hosts were laughing at Zahalka, nor were they making fun of him.

  24. Lianne says:

    They had some fun with him near the beginning, when Zahalka said he supported the opposition in Egypt @ 0:18 the interviewers responded: `But he does not join them in Egypt`.
    It was only a little bit really.

  25. E.G. says:


    Weren’t they “merely” cynical?
    And, is Zahalka the only “victim” of such attitudes? To the best of my knowledge, most if nor all public figures are treated that way (and worse) by Israeli journalists, in all media.

  26. Diane says:

    “Tolerating dissonant, antagonist views is a sign of (moral) strength.”

    I know you don’t agree with this E.G. Can any serious person in the post 9/11 world agree with this? It is the demopath’s dream come true.

  27. E.G. says:


    But I do agree. Provided there’s a threshold distinguishing between necessary, legitimate critique, and unnecessary, illegitimate incitement.
    It’s hard to draw such lines in a pluralistic society, and the Israeli High Court of Justice stretches them a bit beyond what seems to be the consensual one. But I’d rather have a good debate, agree to disagree, than some mushy pseudo-unanimity or a silenced dissent.

    Yes, it’s the Achilles heel of democracy. But who ever pretended that freedom was free? Who ever pretended that freedom meant no constraints?

  28. Scott says:

    I actually was commenting more on RL’s link, to an Israeli comedy show, in which the hosts make fun of a sort of “black face” figure representing the Palestinian “minister of uncontrollable rage”. The Palestinians are angry, very funny. Americans think it’s a laugh riot that a Palestinian pissed off by your murderous little Gaza excursion joined Al Qaeda and blew up a CIA post in Afghanistan. We just love our brave little ally!

  29. E.G. says:


    I’m not cruel enough to suggest you to encounter, first hand, such “uncontrollable rage”. It’s devastating.

    Instead of directing their uncontrollable rage (that too many take for granted) at others, the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine would better begin looking at themselves and ask some tough questions (e.g., why do we/our leaders still miss each and every opportunity to get ourselves out of the mess we got ourselves into?). Getting pissed off by a policy is neither a necessary nor a sufficient reason or excuse for murder. At least not by our current civilisation standards. So if you pretend that the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine are in any way entitled to act outside the current civilisation norms, you’re adopting a racist attitude you should be ashamed of.

  30. Diane says:


    The kind of liberal idealism that you express is precisely what the lessons of 9/11 taught me to reject. Tolerating “dissonant, antagonistic views” at odds with the premises on which Western civilization is based (civil and human rights, representative govt, religious freedom and tolerance, free speech, free press, gender equity, etc.) is a form of cultural suicide. The answer is to defeat the demopath’s worldview by bringing it out in the open, forcing it to spew its bile in plain view. Expose it for what it is. Discredit it. Arab-Israeli MPs who have no loyalty to the state should be lured out into the open, as this TV program does, and made to show their true colors. If, in the process, they violate their oath of office, they have forfeited the right to lead in the Knesset. They should be removed from office.

  31. E.G. says:


    I wouldn’t mind having Zahalka removed, if it were possible. I’m not sure this is the most effective move, however.
    Recall that only “the Oslo years” took a toll of more than 1000 civilian “peace victims” (injured and maimed not included). And Rabin.
    Israel has, regretfully, a long record of dealing with terrorism, including “intellectual terrorism”. Silencing Zahalkas, G. Levys, S. Sands etc. has not been deemed an appropriate coping means. Don’t forget that the main objective of terror is to bring about political change.

  32. Cynic says:


    Your Palestinian pissed off by your murderous little Gaza excursion just happens to be a Jordanian doctor “identified the attacker as Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, a 36-year-old doctor from the town of Zarqa, Jordan”.
    Zarqa, a bleak industrial town north-east of the Jordanian capital Amman, has spawned other killers. In 2006, a man from the town killed a British tourist and wounded five others when he opened fire on a tour group in Amman. Zarqa was also the hometown of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the self-styled leader of al-Qaida in Iraq who was killed by a US air strike in 2006.

    Amazing how some people always have to find someone to blame other than themselves especially when their intel is up to paw-paw, just like the latest attempt this time by an underware-bomber.
    “The system functioned” – famous last words.
    Get some facts before you sneer.

  33. Eliyahu says:

    Yes, Scott and Cynic, Ballawi was out for revenge. But not against Israel according to a video that he made for al-Qa`ida. The al-Qa`ida gang released the video in which claims that he wanted revenge for the American killing of the al-Qa`ida leader in Pakistan. Scott, maybe you shouldn’t let your Israelophobia bring you to jump to conclusions.

  34. Eliyahu says:

    Further, Scott, the Minister for Uncontrollable Rage was not in blackface. All the actor did was put on a mustache and maybe a wig, not blackface. Skin color is a red herring in the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is actually a broad range of skin colors among both Jews and Arabs.

    We find this skit funny because so often destructive Arab rage is excused by the West to our detriment.

  35. E.G. says:


    I don’t find it funny. My mouth laughs at the irony, while my eyes shed tears.
    One eye with sorrow, the other – with very controlled rage.

  36. Cynic says:


    You should realise that for people like Scott the stereotypes have to form part of the narrative – Jews=white; Arabs=black – so he sees the respective character in the correct ideological colour.

    Scott undoubtedly is ignorant of Arab attitudes to black people. That latest airplane rumpus where the American-Arab told the Afro-American cop to go back to Africa (and refused to stand for the Judge so they had to reverse court room procedure and bring him in after the Judge was seated).
    He should go to Jeddah in “blackface” to see what it is like.

  37. Cynic says:


    Americans think it’s a laugh riot that a Palestinian pissed off by your murderous little Gaza excursion

    I already gave you some facts about your supposed Palestinian. Here is another

    So that’s why he was involved in a fatwah against the French philosopher Robert Redeker:
    See E.G.’s link to the le figaro article
    # 19 While Europe Sneered

    Une de ses nombreuses activités avait conduit al-Balawi, l’agent double qui a tué pour al-Qaida dans un attentat suicide en Afghanistan sept agents de la CIA le 30 décembre dernier, à condamner à mort le philosophe français Robert Redeker.

  38. Margie says:

    Scott, aren’t we lucky that Israelis pissed off by eight years of enduring daily missile fire on their civilians, had the good sense and self-control to confine their reaction to attempting to stop the evil at its source. What would your comment have been if an Israeli had (heaven forfend) behaved similarly? Would it have entered your mind to blame Hamas – I believe not.

  39. E.G. says:

    A propos the dialogue between Diane and me:

    And, regarding “blackface” – poor Scott wasn’t thinking of Al Jolson, or on what he and his producers were promoting. Or was he?

  40. Cynic says:


    From your link:

    A while ago, I spoke to a group of American Jewish philanthropists during a dinner and mentioned, in passing, the Israeli-Arab middle class. Immediately I was aware that I had crossed a politically-correct line. In an undefinable way, the quiet of interested listeners turned into a shocked silence.
    IT HAS become so instinctive to think of “poor Palestinians” – as opposed to “rich Jews” – that anything else is difficult to swallow.

    There’s a type of mentality running rife in that community which to my way of thinking is insinuated in
    Why Jews Hate Palin

    It’s worth the read if only to display the superficial reasoning capability available to a lot of people.

    Jews, who have excelled at intellectual pursuits, understandably are swayed by the notion that the presidency is a knowledge-based position requiring a background in the examination of detailed data and sophisticated analysis. They assume that such knowledge is the special preserve of a certain type of credentialed thinker (the better the university, the more unquestioned the credential) and that possessing this knowledge is the key to a successful presidency.

    And here I want to wax lyrical with sarcasm :-) but it will derail this thread :-( except to say that the philanthropists above certainly are displaying a “sophisticated analysis”.

  41. Eliyahu says:

    Cynic # 43, your quote about “philanthropists” shows just how stupid and unrealistic some rich people can be. Living in Israel, you and I know that a lot of Arabs have big cars, big houses, expensive electronic gadgets, not to mention a lot of sound money to spend in shopping centers. We can also refute the big lie of “apartheid” in Israel. See link:

    But many many people, often supposed intellectuals, including “dialectical materialists”, cannot and/or do not rely on empirical observation and empirical data to form an opinion about current events. They accept a narrative, as you say. They listen to voices that they trust but which are aimed at deceiving them into believing in the narrative, voices which may have a political purpose that they don’t understand.

    Empirical reasoning has gone out the window in the post-modern era, although that is one of the less noticed changes. My mother’s father –a Litvak Jew born in Belarus– was actually brown-skinned. On my father’s side too most of my cousins were rather swarthy, while my mother was merely olive-skinned. But in defining Arabs as “non-white” [although they always considered themselves quite white] and Jews as “ultra-white” [the better to blame Jews for all the historical sins of the white man], there is less of an empirical criterion than an ideological criterion. These perverse skin color definitions or identifications first appeared, as I recall, back in the Sixties in “leftist” publications, although they probably emanated from some sophisticated psywar/cogwar center, probably British.

    Be that as it may, I am backing up your words in # 39. If Scott is unaware, the usual word for Black African in Arabic is `abed [cognate to the Hebrew `ebed] which originally meant slave [or also means slave]. Bernard Lewis published two books on the subject of Race and Slavery in the Middle East, somesuch title. Can Scott guess why Blacks were called `abed [pl. – `abid]??

    Lastly, `al hhet shehhatati [= mea culpa] I wrote above that al-Balawi meant to avenge the American killing of an al-Qa`ida leader in Iraq. The last I heard was that he meant to avenge the American killing of a Taliban leader in Pakistan, not that there’s much difference between al-Q and Taliban.

  42. E.G. says:


    Without Al Jolson, the Gershwins, Rogers & Hammerstein et alii, Bill Cosby would have taken years if not decades longer to feature on TV, and so would Prez O.
    The Jewish agenda is a highly egalitarian one. `

    What such philanthropists too easily forget is that their notion of (social) justice is not shared by all the groups they work so hard to promote. Especially that there are not only rights but also obligations incorporated in the “equal” status. This seems so trivial to Jews, that they don’t realise that it ain’t necessarily so…

  43. Cynic says:


    The reality is so different.
    In the north those single guys trolling the streets in their late model BMWs, for women, are mostly all Arabs.
    Those 50 and 60 thousand $ Mercedes and Audis parked in those “poor” Arab “villages”.
    If those “philanthropists” had but taken a ride through Wadi Arrah they would have seen the numerous multi-storied mansions with imported fixtures and fittings, Italian ceramics on the bathroom walls and marble for the floors, assuming of course that they are invited in.
    Then they could go and visit the lawyers in their opulent offices, even in such places as Afula. Actually all they need do is go straight to Ramallah.
    But that would spoil the narrative.

  44. Cynic says:


    Truth be told if it wasn’t for the Juice, Hollywood would have been a very dull place in the 20th century.

    Then again what would Britain have “Carried On” without Jews to spice up its entertainment on film and TV?

  45. Cynic says:


    Cynic # 43, your quote about “philanthropists” shows just how stupid and unrealistic some rich people can be.

    The arrogance of status is something to behold.

  46. E.G. says:

    Cynic #47,

    …and so would Washington D.C. in the 21st.

  47. […] political culture, it’s an occupation “from the river to the sea.” Indeed, Tel Aviv is occupied; all of it is to be “returned” or, better yet, seized violently. As the Arab proverb […]

Leave a Reply

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