You’re Not Pro-Palestinian: You Just Hate Jews

Pro-Palestinian or Jew Hating?

Elder of Ziyon has a great post related to the retrograde and despicable boycott of Israeli products by the Co-Op supermarket in the UK. The rather feeble minded Ben White decided to take a swing at Elder which really isn’t a fair intellectual match up. You can and should read the whole thing here.

Obviously the Co-Op is claiming that they are only boycotting goods from farms in Judea and Samaria. That means those goods disproportionately farmed by Arab workers! This will directly harm those Arab workers.

I have noted numerous times, including in the linked post, that people who claim to be pro-Palestinian are almost always really anti-Israel and show no real concern for Palestinians. I have also pointed out that while Zionists have the tendency of trying to find win-win solutions, Arabs and the anti-Israel crowd tend to think in terms of the conflict being a zero-sum game. And I have also shown that what the anti-Israel crowd accuses Israel of is almost always something that they are far more guilty of – and they are projecting their own hate onto Israel.


At this point in time, there is no question that the best thing for Palestinian Arab farmers is to continue to export their goods to the West, and the only way for them to do that in any real quantities is through Agrexco. At this point in time, it is a win-win for Israel and for the Palestinian Arabs, where both work together to achieve the common goal of growing and marketing produce.

Now, White could have argued that this is not good in the long run for the farmers. He could be advocating for an alternative distribution channel that would bypass Agrexco and presumably leave more money in their pockets. He could be proposing a five year plan to keep the farmers at the status quo and migrate them to a better solution, without losing anything in the meanwhile, and in the end cutting out Agrexco. He could be pushing the expansion of existing small but growing alternate, non-Israeli channels for export to other markets (something that the Israeli government is actually supporting!)


About Brian of London

Brian of London is not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy. Since making aliyah in 2009, Brian has blogged at Israellycool. Brian's interests include electric cars, world peace and an end to world hunger. Besides blogging here, Brian of London now writes at the Times of Israel. Brian of London also hosted Shire Network News

2 incoming links

| Israellycool
03 May 2012 at 11:05am
[...] Brian of London | May 03, 2012 | 2 commentsAFP/GettyA couple of days ago I wrote a ...
Showing His True Colors: White-Named, Black-Hearted | Israellycool
06 January 2014 at 9:01am
[…] This elicited the following response by Israel hater Ben White. ...

Facebook Comments

  • Jim from Iowa

    “Zionists have the tendency of trying to find win-win solutions…” Well, some Zionists do. The ones who support a two-state solution I would call win-winners. Some other Zionists win by taking Arab land and then allow the surviving Arabs to win by showing them the door to other Arab lands. This kind of intellectually dishonest construction by Elder of Ziyon tends to give Zionism a bad name.

    • ziontruth

      “Well, some Zionists do.”

      Most Zionists can be grouped into one of two groups with regard to the issue: 1) Those who are still trying to find win-win solutions; 2) Those who used to believe in win-win solutions but reality has compelled them to abandon that belief.

      Zionists who have always seen this conflict as a zero-sum game can probably be counted on a hand or two. Most Zionists today who are hardline about the Jewish nation’s right to the entire Land of Israel used to be quite receptive to land-for-peace deals just two decades ago; the recognition of Arab imperialism as the driving force behind this conflict has brought them to their current position.

      I’m just one example. A far better example: Rabbi Ovadyah Yosef, spiritual leader of Sephardi Judaism in Israel, who in the 1990s ruled that it was permissible to give up parts of the Land of Israel for saving Jewish lives, but a decade later reneged on that ruling, saying that gifts of the Land of Israel only encourage the shedding of Jewish blood by the Arab enemy and therefore are forbidden.

      Paying attention to reality, that’s the ticket. You ought to try it out some time, Jim. So far, the price Israeli Jews have paid in blood following any concession of land (especially the abandonment of the Gaza region in August 2005, followed by a barrage of Kassam rockets) seems not to sway you in the least from your insistence on that old, tried and failed way.

      “Some other Zionists win by taking Arab land and then allow the surviving Arabs to win by showing them the door to other Arab lands.”

      No Zionist has ever suggested taking Arab land. The Land of Israel is all Jewish. Only Arabs have coveted land that is not theirs.

      In any case, even in its greatest (Biblical) extent, the Land of Israel is still not very big. And the land currently in dispute, whose borders were derived after 1922 (when Transjordan was treacherously cut from the Jewish National Homeland to reward a Bedouin tribal leader), is so small that it is only by sheer ignorance (or, if not ignorance, then lunacy) that people suggest it could be shared by multiple nations. The land is too small to be shared, and even if it weren’t, the Arabs have never had any intention of sharing it with the Jews, ever. They have always desired to nip any idea of Jewish sovereignty on the Land of Israel in the bud. It is for them that this conflict has always been a zero-sum game; most Jews who now view the conflict this way do so only in recognition of and reaction to that.

      The hardline Zionists today are the reality-based ones.

      • Jim from Iowa

        I’m always keenly interested in reality-based solutions to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Of greatest interest to me is to listen to Israelis. And the more I listen and learn from Israelis, the more I am convinced that people like you are a small proportion of Israelis who have this messianic view that all the land belongs to the Jews.

        I just read today the views of Bernard Avishai, an economist at Hebrew University on
        “Open Zion” a continuing feature of the Daily Beast headed by Peter Beinart. Dr. Avishai maintains that over 75% of Israelis want to share the land with Arabs through some kind of negotiated peace settlement and no more than 15% want to pursue the current unilateral settlement policy supported by certain extremist elements of the Netanyahu government. I don’t know where he got these figures, but they are consistent with what I’ve read elsewhere. So again, you don’t have to convince me that yours is the right course, just your fellow Israelis.

        • ziontruth

          “Of greatest interest to me is to listen to Israelis. And the more I listen and learn from Israelis,…”

          It seems to me you’ve confined yourself to the fraction-of-percent “Haaretz Israelis.” Otherwise you wouldn’t come to the conclusion that people like me “are a small proportion of Israelis who have this messianic view that all the land belongs to the Jews.”

          “Dr. Avishai maintains that over 75% of Israelis want to share the land with Arabs through some kind of negotiated peace settlement and no more than 15% want to pursue the current unilateral settlement policy supported by certain extremist elements of the Netanyahu government. I don’t know where he got these figures,…”

          From his fevered brain, most likely. I’ve never heard of this kind of poll. The closest thing I’ve heard of is a Yediot Ahronot poll where a majority of Israeli Jews favored an exclusively Jewish state within the pre-1967 borders over a mixed Jewish–Arab state in the larger, post-1967 borders. Which makes sense—I too prefer a smaller Jewish-majority state than a bigger binational one. However, the poll also mentioned that a majority said they’d be willing to have Israel in its post-1967 borders if it could be kept Jewish-majority, and though the Yediot Ahronot “journalist” editorialized with the bit, “…although none of the polled people have suggested an idea how this could be achieved,” I’m ready to bet they did mention the option that an MSM outlet like Yediot Ahronot, just like you, would consider anathema, that of kicking all the Arab colonists out.

          This way or that, today there are few Israeli Jews who still believe in sharing the land with the Arabs. A portion of them might be content with Israel being reduced to its pre-1967 borders, but only if the Arabs now in the pre-1967 territories are relocated to the post-1967 situated Phakestinian-Arab state.

          “…by certain extremist elements of the Netanyahu government … So again, you don’t have to convince me that yours is the right course, just your fellow Israelis.”

          I can’t convince someone arguing from the wrong premises. Your premises that only “certain extremist elements” support the Jewish inhabitation of Judea and Samaria are factually wrong, but I don’t see anything I can do about that. I could give you evidence to the contrary, but you’d probably go back to Haaretz for confirmation of the false view.

          As Caroline Glick recently wrote, the views you ascribe to “the majority of” Israeli Jews are so 1990s. Israeli Jews today are a different kind of animal than the stubborn, don’t-give-a-rat’s-behind-about-reality pontificators found in the Haaretz bubble.

          • Jim from Iowa

            As a base of Israeli opposition to the current settlement policies are 40% who are secular and would never accept the biblical idea of Judea and Samaria as the basis of public policy to be pursued by the democratic state of Israel. The other 30-40% who are religious, still oppose annexation of the West Bank solely on religious grounds. I get that Israelis don’t trust the Palestinians. I get that Israelis want to feel safe in a part of the world that is hostile to them. I get that Israelis really do want to be treated fairly in the eyes of world opinion. But when will the Israeli people elect a government that can achieve these objectives?

            • ziontruth

              “As a base of Israeli opposition to the current settlement policies are 40% who are secular…”

              See, that’s two changing factors you quoted already: The portion of secular Israeli Jews, and the portion of those that oppose the Jewish inhabitation of Judea and Samaria. Both portions have been in a steady decline, whether through change of opinion or birthrate.

              “The other 30-40% who are religious, still oppose annexation of the West Bank solely on religious grounds.”

              What religious grounds are there to oppose such annexation? If you’re talking about the Ultra-Orthodox, their tendency is to have opinions about all the parts of Israel together. Meaning, those of them who oppose the secularism of the Jewish state oppose it on both pre- and post-1967 territories, and those who have warmed up toward Zionism are with the religious-Zionist side regarding all the territories.

              The only other religious grounds I can think of would be the prospect of saving Jewish lives through land concessions. But this is no longer a live option—I gave the opinion of Rabbi Ovadyah Yosef as an exemplar of that, but also to show how this former opinion has been abandoned as a bow to harsh reality.

              “I get that Israelis really do want to be treated fairly in the eyes of world opinion.”

              Yes, but more and more Israeli Jews have gotten around to thinking that if favor in the eyes of world opinion can only be gained at the price of peril to Jewish lives, then world opinion must be damned.

              As to your last question, I have no idea. I can’t predict the future; if I could, I wouldn’t be posting here but getting rich on sports bets, wily capitalist that I am. (Got that idea from Marty, which a lot of people know, but less known is that he got it from none other than Doc Brown—refer to his words in the original BTTF a little before the servants of the now-deceased Kuh-Daffy arrive).

          • Norman B.

            As long as the Arabs refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as called for in the 1947 partition resolution and say so in Arabic, this debate is academic. Should that happen, then the entire dynamic of the region’s affairs will dramatically change. However, I don’t expect this to occur in my lifetime. Even if, God forbid, there should be another major war, the so-called international community will always be on hand to bail out the Arabs in the name of a phony peace process.

        • Brian of London


          I do admire your spirit and that you’re open enough to stick around here on Israellycool. I like this very much.

          But ziontruth has pretty much captured the essence of the Israeli thought. I don’t have time to write more and if he doesn’t mind I’d like to promote that first comment of his to a full blog post tomorrow.

          Without being here you can’t understand quite how many of the 1990’s two state optimists would be ready to put Arabs on buses. That is extreme, but I can tell you, after Lebanon and Gaza and all the rest, people are extremely upset and extremely realistic about the Islamic imperialism we face (even if they don’t know the root cause of it).

          • ziontruth

            Oops, sorry I missed this post, Brian. No, I don’t mind, but making a post out of one of my comments might give rise to a mega-spat between Jim and me. ;) That is, if I participate; I may or may not have time to, depending on my currently fluctuating workload.

            “Without being here you can’t understand quite how many of the 1990′s two state optimists would be ready to put Arabs on buses. That is extreme,…”

            My own political views aren’t mainstream in everything. On the issue of population transfer, I think the mainstream view among Israeli Jews as of this writing is the one proposed by columnist Uri Elitzur back in the 2000s: To use the idea of population transfer as a rhetorical club to be wielded every time the Arabs mention the “Right of Return.”

            On the one hand, this view means the idea of population transfer as an actual policy hasn’t reached critical mass yet; on the other, it means it’s no longer the anathema it used to be just twenty years ago. Anyhow, I’m not keen on it being done right now, as there’s a whole host of problems to be taken care of before such an undertaking, not least of which is the necessity of ensuring proper (meaning, not anti-Israel) media coverage first.

            • Jim from Iowa

              I have to tell you that trying to decide what mainstream Israeli opinion is by listening to your government officials is challenging. I listened to Michael Oren’s speech at George Washington U. (where about 20 young people walked out) that he gave on Monday. Ambassador Oren did his usual excellent job of making the case for Israel to an American audience. But on the issue of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) he gave an inconceivable outcome that I have to believe is official Israeli policy. He said that he could see a two-state solution where all lands would be apportioned equitably and where no citizen, either Iraeli or Palestinian, would have to move. And I thought Disney World was the happiest place on Earth. Apparently it is actually the West Bank after the establishment of Ambassador Oren’s two-state solution.

              • ziontruth

                “I have to tell you that trying to decide what mainstream Israeli opinion is by listening to your government officials is challenging.”

                I don’t think it’s the right method. Not just for Israel: Politicians in all countries have various considerations that often bring their thoughts and decisions out of step with those of Joe Public.

                “Ambassador Oren did his usual excellent job of making the case for Israel to an American audience.”

                Why the case needs to be made is a topic all its own. The very bringing up of the existence of the Jewish State for debate is scandalous. It is no more appropriate than if people were to have discussions about your or my right to breathe. The Jews are a [real] nation, so they deserve a nation-state within their indigenous territory (Palestine and none other). End of story.

                “But on the issue of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) he gave an inconceivable outcome that I have to believe is official Israeli policy.”

                It may be, seeing as the Israeli government is not much willing to step outside the bounds of the present-day do’s and don’t’s of international politics. But the man in the street usually has no such self-imposed constraints.

                Oren’s proposal as you describe it is indeed hallucinatory, and also, should it ever be attempted in reality, would end up pleasing absolutely no one. Not the land-faithful Israeli Jewish Right, nor the anti-Zionist Muslim and Marxist believers in the sinfulness of the entire Jewish State, nor the few remaining naifs who believe all of Israel’s woes begin and end with the post-1967 territories.

    • cb

      Jim, go to the link and read Elder’s whole article. It explains how he really feels about the Palestinians, that he doesn’t hate them and is in favour of such arrangements that actually help individual Palestinians such as the farmers. He does not “give Zionism a bad name” – he is no more extreme than Aussie Dave. As for your belief that “Some other Zionists win by taking Arab land”, well I think that is highly unusual among Zionists – we just want the land that was given to us in 1948 (where our ancestors lived), and as for land taken in 1967 etc, that was all legally annexed by Israel due to the wars started by the Arabs – specifically those Arab leaders who could not stand the idea that part of the Middle East should be owned by the Jews or any other non-Muslim non-Arab people for that matter. Despite the fact that the land set aside for the Jews in the Balfour declaration (much of which did not end up being given to the Jews in the final UN partition plan) was the part of the land populated by Jews at the time. I am sure you are aware of the area once called “Judea” -which is indeed where the word “Jew’ comes from, because guess who originally lived there. It is now the West Bank which is populated mostly with Arabs and which people keep insisting Israel stole! It is not the Jews who are trying to expand their land – we want to keep what we have, largely because giving up certain parts would be a security risk, and also because we don’t want to kick Jews out of their homes like we did in Gaza, only to find that it led to the exact opposite of Peace. Israeli Arabs and other non-Jews live in Israel with full rights – it shouldn’t matter so much who owns what. If the Arabs were not so full of hate for the Jews and did not brainwash their people with hate(not to mention killing other Arabs), everyone in the Middle East could live in peace, whether in Israel, Jordan, Egypt etc.

      • ziontruth

        “we just want the land that was given to us in 1948 (where our ancestors lived),”

        If you’re speaking of our ancestors, then most of the Biblical realms of the kings David, Solomon and the later bifurcated Judea and Israel were situated on the post-1967 territories. But this is just a nitpick; like the esteemed Rabbi Ovadyah Yosef, I’ve always been for making land concessions if and only if they brought with them the certainty (not likelihood) of saving Jewish lives.

        The big issue with Jewish nationalists dividing their treatment of the pre-1967 territories versus the post-1967 ones is that the world has changed a lot. I find it disappointing that Jim, who frequently mentions how the norms of world politics have changed since ancient times (though I disagree about that—such changes are only on the surface, while the Islamic imperialists still wage war the ancient Assyrian way), fails to note the change in the world’s attitude toward the pre-1967 Israel. Jim is a left-winger, but on the issue of Israel he’s decidedly not mainstream; the mainstream Left has in the past years moved to condemning the entire Zionist “project” and not just the part following the Six-Day War.

        The Arabs never gave up on the “1948 File” (the issue of the Nakba and all that), but until recently the non-Arab, non-Muslim world outside Israel never said a word about Israel’s pre-1967 borders (with very few exceptions like the historian Arnold Toynbee, yimah sh’mo, who made most of the familiar anti-Zionist arguments even before the Six-Day War). So, when land-concessionists said, “The world will never let us build on the post-1967 territories,” this defeatist (not to mention stetl-like) attitude was mollified by the understanding that the world would let us do as it pleased within the pre-1967 lines. As long as that was the case, concessionism was supported—with varying degrees of enthusiasm, but that’s beside the point—by the majority of Israeli Jews.

        But this is no longer so. Together with the teaming up of Arabs in both pre- and post-1967 territories for the riots in the October 2000 Intifada, the world outside our region started broaching subjects it had kept quiet about before. Suddenly, topics like “Palestinian Right of Return,” “Bedouin unrecognized villages” (in the Negev, which is in pre-1967 Israel), “Jewish settlers disrupting life for Arabs in Jaffa” (Jewish “settlers” in Jaffa! Jaffa, pre-1967 Israel!), “the need for Israel to get with the global program of becoming a multicultural state, a state for all its citizens” and more on that vein started appearing in public discussion. So, in addition to the nightmare scenario that giving up Judea and Samaria would bring a barrage of rocket fire on Tel-Aviv just as surely as on the pre-1967 Israeli Jewish towns around Gaza following August 2005, there is now the additional scenario of the world, “world opinion” as it is called (Marxist internationalist orthodoxy really), not giving up its use of the Jewish State as a punching-bag following further concessions; the world would say, “That was a good start, but now you need to address the inequalities between Jews and Arabs in the remaining state of Israel by embracing multiculturalism.” And should there be another Intifada, within the remnant, reduced Jewish State, we know who the world would blame it on.

        Reality-based politics means subjecting situations to a cost-benefit evaluation. As long as the cost of land concessions on Israel’s part was offset or even just balanced by the prospect of ending bloodshed and gaining a higher international stature for the Jewish State, concessionism was a respected position among Israeli Jews. But ever since it became clear that the cost far outweighs the benefit—because the cost is total, involving nothing less than selling our entire farm, and even then with zero guarantee of permanent benefits—concessionism has fallen out of favor with the Israeli Jewish public, or at least the over 95% outside the bubble of the media and academe. The “1948 File,” as opposed to the issue of the post-1967 territories, has always been taboo as far as nearly all Israeli Jews have been concerned, and now is even a less favorable time to open that file than in the past. For, if in the past the opposition of Israeli Jews to the idea of selling the birthright of a politically exclusive Jewish nation-state sanctuary for the pottage of a multicultural “state of all its citizens” was based on ideological and historical reasoning (the reasoning that, after 2000 years of life in the Diaspora, it made no sense to put ourselves back in the danger of coming down under non-Jewish political authority), today their opposition is also based on concrete examples of the consequences of letting multiple nations share political power: Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Rwanda and now Western Europe.

        The rejection of the multiculturalist ideal is enough to put one outside the pale of political correctness. Once that’s the case, what benefit would there be in further concessions to “world opinion”? One of the last few remaining arguments for land-concessionism in Israel is this “world opinion” (or, as I call it, the “Israel will be a pariah” bogeyman) argument, but as it is now clear that giving up Judea and Samaria wouldn’t be enough in a world that judges Israel on its “original sin” of 1948, there’s simply no point. And since Israel—and any other nation-state that insists on the quaint idea that a state should be an exclusive protective space for its resident nation—will be castigated in “world opinion” by its very nature, for being in violation of internationalism, we might as well ignore what “world opinion,” international “law” and all the rest have to say about everything else. “The world won’t allow us…” The world has gone crazy with a full-scale multiculturalist Islam-appeasapalooza and should no longer be taken seriously by nations that value their survival.

        • ziontruth

          “…that the world would let us do as it pleased within the pre-1967 lines” should be “…would let us do as we pleased…”

          “…as it pleased…” would be the present situation. Heh.

  • Independent Patriot

    Please don’t use the word “retarded” to describe these BDS morons. You insult those with intellectual disabilities.

    • Brian of London

      Actually I described the boycotts as retarded but your point is taken and I called Ben White feeble minded. I’ve removed the retarded word and replaced it with something more descriptive.

  • spindok

    BDSrs sacrifice nothing and accomplish nothing except an emotional self esteem boost brought on by the illusion that they are actually doing something. It is a closed self reinforcing circle of followers akin to a religious cult.

    Pointing out that they are actually hurting Palestinians does not matter because the motivation is how I feel and what my friends think about Me.

  • ziontruth

    On the title and core topic of this post, I wanted to remark:

    Since the entire idea of a non-Jewish “Palestinian nation” is a negative construct born of malicious intent (to turn on its head the truth of the Arab or Islamic imperialist aggression against the one single, tiny Jewish State), with no positive content whatsoever (no ethnic, historical, linguistic, cultural or any other positive characteristics to mark the Arab colonists in Palestine as a nation in its own right—they are defined only in the negative, in opposition to Jewish nationalism), it’s not possible to be “pro-[faux-]Palestinian rather than a Jew-hater.”

    This malicious fiction and evil lie was concocted for the express purpose of Jew-hatred—robbing the Jewish nation of its rightful national claim. The well-being of this particular, indistinct group of Arabs has never been in mind, not even by themselves, but it is only the anti-Jewish goal of nipping Jewish national sovereignty in the bud that has ever been in mind. The BDSers, then, are being quite true to the goal of the faux-Palestinian lie as it has been from the start. “Help” or “aid” in the positive, humanitarian sense has never entered the equation in reality—only as a propaganda ruse. The reality is imperialist aggression against the Jewish State, and the Arab colonists in Palestine themselves are willing to starve to death rather than let a Jewish nation-state continue existing.

    That is the truth of this issue, and of this conflict as a whole.

    • Brian of London

      Bingo: the constructed Palestinian identity today is identity theft on a national scale.

      • ziontruth

        As I have often said in analogy, it’s as if the Turks were to call themselves “Greeks” and start talking about “ending the Hellenic colonial occupation of Greece.” “We don’t hate Hellenes, we just oppose Byzantism.”

        After time, groups of people forced into a nation-state by virtue of former colonial rule (the neat, straight lines drawn by European powers in Africa, for example) might develop positive characteristics to make them a nation. But the faux-Palestinian construct is different, because of two things:

        1) It’s unlikely even a thousand years would suffice to make them a nation, because they spend all their energies on negative activities—hostilities against the Jewish State, and educating their children to perpetuate that flame—instead of positive nation-forming ones.

        2) Of all the names they could have chosen for themselves, they had to choose one that usurps a claim already taken: “Palestinian nation” had always been, up until recently, the Jewish claim. If they’d called themselves the “South Syrian Nation” (to fit history as it actually was—Palestine in Arab/Islamic eyes was nothing but the southern part of Syria until 1920), it wouldn’t be so bad. The choice of “Palestinian,” in contrast, is a direct assault on Jewish nationalism.

  • Ray in Seattle

    Norman, Do you really think that if an Arab leader ever unambiguously recognized Israel as a Jewish state as called for in the 1947 partition resolution and said so in Arabic . .

    a) that it would be recognized by the next Arab leader to take his place? or . .

    b) he would live more than a week or two?

    That’s why IMO I’ve come to believe that there is no possibility of any peace treaty ever being signed or even if signed, being observed. Sure, it might hang in for a while as the Arabs collect all the millions that the US will promise them for signing. But soon enough, another Arab, not in power, will see that a coup with ample public support because of the incumbent’s treachery, is his best choice for career enhancement. And on it goes – with Israel having given up major concessions and facing an even worse defensive predicament.

    • Norman B.

      As I wrote, I don’t expect to see this in my lifetime. It would take a major attitude adjustment, as well as a pronounced push by the “international community,” which remains in denial that this is an obstacle to peace. These diplomats are the perfect illustration of the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results every time.

      • Ray in Seattle

        Thanks for clarifying. I mostly agree. However, where you say a “major attitude adjustment” – I say a complete cultural makeover. Unfortunately, such things have usually only happened historically (in time frames less than centuries) as the result of total military defeat and collapse of society such as happened to Germany and Japan in WWII. I’m not sure Arab / Muslim culture is capable of a similar transformation or what it would take. I’d like to think they could change from within but it doesn’t look very likely to me.

        • Asher in Austin

          It doesn’t look very likely right now. But in the spirit of working for the Win-Win situation, it might very well happen in the future. Everyone is going to need clean water, and Israel is a world leader in water technology. Everyone is going to need healthy food, and Israel is a regional leader in farming. Everyone will need alternative energy, and Israel is emerging as an alternative energy giant. So there is a chance for Israel’s neighbors to begin appreciating Israel’s presence in their lives. I agree, it seems like it may not happen in our lifetimes, but there is a good chance that it might. If the shit ísn’t seen as hitting the fan lately, then it most surely will happen sometime soon.

  • Pingback: | Israellycool()

  • NegativeJew

    jews are liar snakes they taked my houme my ability to be free and they ask if i like them my answer is i hate tem i want them die in most painfull ways i living betwen them i hate tem they lear bastards they same as hitler was this insect mother fuckers

    i leave betwen insect jewish scums ho come to my houme taked my houme
    now they wan take my last chance of to survive this fuckers this racists nazi jews making me want to kill all of them to kill they kids all of them
    slaine them as trash of humanety FU ISRAEL FU JEWS

    i jew sitizen say this becouse i not asked ure fucked up sitizenship
    and i lost all wat i got after seeing the true face of jew scum
    wan day all this jews all israel GAZA + the israel fuckers bouth
    Wel disaper from map

    jews its a shit jews sink they to match
    when they self are slaves of USA they liking ther eses evry day
    they demend pay taxes from piople they taked all from them wan day wen time come and power in my hands il wipe them All israel shold be wiped out FU ISRAEL FU JEWS
    U fucking pinguins laike in hitlers karikature

    remember kids dont belive to jews they liar
    motherfuckers they fucked blood drinkers

    jews pray for god to make crimes on this i cant forgot
    exemple he pray god to make more sells in drug sellng
    They like pitishists hu fuck its other
    hope some greater force come and erase them from this planet

    • Jim from Iowa

      Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

      • Norman B.

        His thought processes are no better than his literacy.

  • http://localhost ANONYMOUS




    • Aussie Dave

      I love how the above Einstein talks of ‘Zionists scums’ (sic), and then lets his guard down and talks of f****** Jews. Which kind of proves the title of this post.

      • Jim from Iowa

        I also noted the vast cultural differences in his post and yours. Mitt Romney was right about something, anyway.

  • Dan

    Indeed. The anti-Israel campaign fits comfortably into ancient Judeophobic traditions of demonization, misinformation, and outright lies against Jews.

  • Pingback: Showing His True Colors: White-Named, Black-Hearted | Israellycool()

Israellycool is testing Sovevos. Click for more info.