Rashida Tlaib, afflicted with BDS fever, urges viewers to boycott Bill Maher’s show

August 19, 2019 • 12:00 pm

The other day I posted a tweet containing a clip of Bill Maher calling out the BDS movement for hiding its real aim—to get rid of Israel. The relevant section goes from 18:55 to 20:03 in this video of his latest show.

But keep listening, at least until 23:00.  As the article below notes, “Maher added that he understood why Tlaib and Omar were banned, given their past statements.”

“Congresswoman Omar has said things like, ‘It’s all about the Benjamins,’ ‘Israel has hypnotized the world,’ ‘May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel,’ ” Maher said. “She apologized for it, but it’s out there: Jews control the world, control the money.”

Maher’s comments on BDS are appropriate since the purpose of the boycott, expressly avowed by its instigators, is to eliminate the state of Israel, largely through demanding the “right of return” of not only Arabs evicted or having chosen or been urged to leave in 1948, but all their relatives as well. That would make Israel a majority Arab state, and that means bye-bye Jews. Those who deny this, I think, are either ignorant of history or don’t care if Israel disappears.

But reader Bill sent me this article from Deadline (confirmed by other media and Tlaib herself), reporting that Tlaib (who canceled her trip to Israel after finally receiving permission to visit her grandmother), is now calling for a boycott of Bill Maher’s show. Click on the screenshot to read it:

. . . or see Tlaib’s tweet below.

Both Hasan’s and Tlaib’s claims are ludicrous. Why should Maher’s skin color make a difference about whether his argument is right? (And truly, I fail to understand why Palestinians are considered “people of color” while Israelis are not. Even if you think Israelis are “privileged”, in much of the world they are deeply oppressed, and are in fact the most common per capita victims of hate crimes in America).

As for Tlaib, she’s free to advocate for the elimination of Israel as much as she wants (though outside Israel), but to criticize BDS is not to “discredit it”, except insofar as the truth does discredit it. Note how she compares the BDS boycott to the boycott of apartheid South Africa, a misguided comparison if ever there was one. (To find a real apartheid state, you need look no farther than Tlaib’s ancestral Palestinian Territories.) I truly believe that the primary mission of both Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in Congress is to eliminate Israel, in which endeavor they’re helped by their comrade Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Maybe their constituents will cotton onto this eventually.

Finally, in case you doubt the real purpose of BDS, you’ll be much enlightened by this video of Norman Finkelstein, a perpetual critic of Israel and the Jewish people, a failed academic (denied tenure at DePaul), and a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah—a man whose parents were both put in concentration camps during the Holocaust (!).

While Finkelstein supports BDS, he criticizes it as being doomed to failure because its real goal, which its supporters try to hide, is elimination of Israel. And, he argues, the public won’t support BDS unless it somehow can favor a two-state solution that allows the continued existence of Israel. Right now BDS takes “no position” on a solution like that. So, as Finkelstein notes, BDS remains a “cult.”

Remember, Finkelstein is strongly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli:


64 thoughts on “Rashida Tlaib, afflicted with BDS fever, urges viewers to boycott Bill Maher’s show

  1. “Maher’s comments on BDS are appropriate since the purpose of the boycott, expressly avowed by its instigators, is to eliminate the state of Israel, largely through demanding the “right of return” of not only Arabs evicted or having chosen or been urged to leave in 1948, but all their relatives as well. That would make Israel a majority Arab state, and that means bye-bye Jews. ”

    I think that what’s more important is they want a “one state solution.” Does literally anyone out there think they want that state to be called Israel? Or that BDS proponents will care when this leads to a state where 4/5 of the people are from what’s now called Palestine, and what that will entail for the Jews in Israel (hint: violence, probably genocide, unless they all flee first).

    If anything, everyone should be lobbying for Jordan to take in the area of Palestine; after all, that’s what they said they’d do. Instead, they decided after the fact that they didn’t want to, and everybody decided to blame Israel for the problem.

    1. Yes, this is true, except for those Israelis who migrated there from, say, Poland or Ethopia. Yes, “color” can’t really reflect pigmentation OR genetic endowment. It seems to mean “perceived oppression.”

    1. When the problems always look like nails, the tool would naturally be a hammer – and probably just a framing hammer, too.

  2. The first thing I noticed is that Tlaib did not say Maher was wrong, or point out why he was wrong. The same as Hasan. If Maher is wrong about BDS and their goal present the evidence.

    1. Maher would never have won that case if orangutans hadn’t been systematically excluded from the jury.

  3. Calling for a boycott of Maher’s show is a step too far. This may backfire on Tlaib. She did say “maybe” so perhaps she’s hedging her bets or putting a toe in the water. I must say, I am totally tired of “The Squad”. It may come to a point soon where the Dem presidential candidates have to disown them. That won’t be pretty.

    1. As if the woke demographic watches Real Time anyway. Last week’s episode where Maher went after call out culture told this generation of woke to watch out because their man bun and giant earring hole culture isn’t as good as it gets.

      1. It’s a very imperfect analogy but I can’t help thinking, “Gang of Four.”

        And they’ve come to power in the midst of a cultural revolution.

  4. Israel will never accept “the right of return”, and rightly so. I agree with Jerry that “[t]hat would make Israel a majority Arab state, and that means bye-bye Jews”. But the whole issue of “the right of return” doesn’t bother me at all. What bothers me is something else: according to many demographic studies, in about 40-60 years the majority of the population of Israel (not including the occupied territories) will be comprised of the ultra-Orthodox Jews and of Arabs. These are the predictions. Objectively, this is not necessarily bad news, but, unless these predictions are wrong, these developments will certainly make Israel unrecognisably different from what it is now, culturally, socially and politically. It will not mean “bye-bye Jews”, but, for me, it will possibly mean “bye-bye Jews like myself” (I live in Israel).

    1. “It will not mean “bye-bye Jews”, but, for me, it will possibly mean “bye-bye Jews like myself” (I live in Israel).”
      David Reich, and others, work has shown that population ‘replacement’ has happened many times. Not always amicably, if the disappearance of the Y chromosome is to be believed!
      Ask yourself, is your distress is at the loss of Jewish genes or Jewish values? They are difficult to disentangle.
      I say that as someone (one of a vanishing few) who lived in Tel Aviv 1950-52 with (only some) Jewish genes.
      As a European, I fret about the demographic growth of Islam*. Why? Because many of its teachings, about women, gays, outsiders, religion&state, are inimical to liberal, enlightenment values. These are important values, hard won and easily lost, and I doubt Islam respects them or will change to accommodate them.

      *To be clear, it is the religion, the ideology, Islam, I despise, not the people. But, how do you separate them?

  5. “I truly believe that the primary mission of both Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in Congress is to eliminate Israel, in which endeavor they’re helped by their comrade Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Maybe their constituents will cotton onto this eventually.”

    Yep, that is the standard form of behaviour for those suffering from the virus of antisemitism. This is what sunk the UK Labour Party, and it will sink the Democrats too.

    Thanks to these two stupid, ill-informed fanatics, Israel is now an election issue. Expect candidates to be asked about it, and, in the absence of strong leadership from Pelosi and Schumer, candidates will be forced to hedge on it for fear of losing the antisemite faction.

    They don’t care about their country or their party. They are waging a campaign for the destruction of Israel — a holy, multigenerational campaign and they won’t care about losing battles and even wars in it.

    (Nor, of course, do they care about the Palestinians — all of whose human and civil rights are only mentioned in relation to Israel, and otherwise entirely ignored.)

    Sorry for ranting, but it’s infuriating to watch these two Jew-baiters playing straight into Trump’s hands, while the rest of them are too scared say a word about this international diplomatic scandal and public humiliation of their own party leadership.

    1. The fact that the UK Labour Party has managed to not be in the position of absolutely trouncing the Tories right now is mind-boggling. With all the shit that country is in and with the Tories’ current political position, it truly is a wonder that Labour still looks fucked. I thought a party would actually have to try to be this bad at politics, but, despite my ever-present cynicism and pessimism, I too often underestimate the stupidity of others.

      1. After Corbyn informed the queen that he should be allowed to form a government if Johnson loses a confidence vote, it was leaked to the media that she was “exasperated” at the state of British politics. Apart from a cautious hint that she was pro EU on one occasion that must be the only time she’s let an opinion about politics be known, since 1952.

        1. Word from the servant in the next room is that she let this exasperation be known by letting out a very slight and quiet sigh.

    2. The answer to the Israel question should be followed up with a question about why is it that no one ever questions a politician’s stand on human rights violations in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, China (HK is big news right now after all)?

      1. In the UK Hong Kong gets a lot of coverage (we used to own it before having to give it back). We had assurances, which, frankly, no one believed. And now, apparently, we have no battleships.

        Meanwhile, China is asking us to let it build our G5 mobile phone infrastructure. Me? I’d rather they built us some new battleships. Then, at least they would know where they were in the South China Seas. Rather than where I was shopping.

        Also Saudi Arabia is not so good any more (we sold them a bunch of arms with which they are beating up the Yememinis). On the other hand, they seem to work quite well.

        With Iran, since you you didn’t ask, our main concern is that women be allowed into football matches.

        Afghanistan is a bit vague. Probably our or the US fault. (Although fighting seems forever to have been their preferred way of life. Outsiders or amongst themselves. No doubt many Afghani, with typical courtesy, will disagree and violently retaliate.)

        Pakistan is trickier. We have a a large minority Muslim population from there who mustn’t be too upset. So, although the death sentence for blasphemy is Bad, I am not sure how many editorials against it there have been, thanks to cultural sensitivity.

        Gang rape in India, especially under a Hindu nationalist, is very bad, you’ll be glad to hear.

        Disclaimer: All views my own, although maybe coloured by reading the Guardian too much.

        1. “In the UK Hong Kong gets a lot of coverage (we used to own it before having to give it back)”

          Who owned it before the UK owned it?

  6. What does it even mean to boycott a television show?

    Tlaib’s call To others to solve her problem for her sounds more like the wishful thought “I wish nobody ever pays Maher any attention ever again.”, rather than a form of social sanctions intended to drain Maher’s resources.

    Or, perhaps Tlaib doesn’t understand what a boycott is.

    1. For the social media generation I guess that is their weapon of choice – we’re going to ostracize you & you’ll get no more likes & up votes!

  7. “Why should Maher’s skin color make a difference about whether his argument is right?”

    I would bet that Maher would invite Tlaib and Hasan on his show. It is amusing to consider what their most likely reply would be.

    1. He has been exemplary in his policy of inviting guests he disagrees with. The only one I ever saw where I thought it was legitimising the person was with Kelly-Ann Conway — but she was just far too stupid and duplicitous to engage with.

      He’d certainly have them on, but there’s no way they’d do it. Antisemites instinctively avoid any context that involves factual knowledge or reasoned exchange.

        1. He seems to be an interesting – if crazyish guy. He made a point I’ve been making (or at least exploring) that Trump isn’t really a *racist* as much a horribly conceited (and likely also demented) narcissist.

          1. Mooch has made some good steps lately in recognizing the error in his Trumpian ways. However, he has some distance to go yet. The whole Birtherism thing nails Trump’s racism as far as I’m concerned. At the absolute minimum, he was trying to take advantage of the racism of others. Trump is just good at maintaining plausible deniability, if only with his followers. “He lashes out at everyone who says negative things about him. It’s just a coincidence that they are people of color.” Sure.

          2. I agreed with the Mooch on that one. I remember actually vocalizing my agreement. Sociopaths and narcissists have a very vague sense of self identity and they really have a very malleable set of ideals in that they pretty much don’t have any. They just go with whatever is going to get them what they want.

            I actually started following the Mooch on Twitter because he was cracking me up on there.

  8. The big disconnect I see here is that you are responding to RT’s comments as if this is a reasoned discussion, where she brings up actual facts and uses them to reach a logical conclusion. this is folly.
    Before someone like RT makes a statement, she does not ask herself if her facts are provable and her logic sound.
    She asks herself whether her remarks are likely to advance her political agenda. Nothing else matters.

    You cannot have a discussion with people like that. When they do respond to a statement you make, it will only be some statement intended to derail the discussion, or to put you on the defensive by making personal accusations. I really care about truth and facts, almost religiously. I find discussions with the far left folks as frustrating as banging my head against a wall.

  9. As for the distinction made by Tlaib of certain parts of speech and what they are supposedly hard wired to, I would ask Tlaib where, in her fine categories of speech, does the word “m07herf$$ker” go, and if the G-rated crowd might be listening when it is reproduced all over the world?

  10. The all white panel part is pretty funny. The panel was just sitting there anyway. Maher had to answer his own damn question because they were evading it. So what colour the panel is really doesn’t matter. Besides, he later had a black guest on so does that count? He has lots of non white guests and they talk about all kinds of things. Jesus, when Batman and Sam Harris was on, there were all white guys talking about Muslims and you know the woke hate that shit because they think of Muslims as all brown and I don’t think any one complained then.

  11. “I truly believe that the primary mission of both Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in Congress is to eliminate Israel, in which endeavor they’re helped by their comrade Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez”
    I can’t see any evidence for this in respect of a OAC. In fact she doesn’t seem to have said very much about Israel at all.

    1. Well, the activist group to which she belongs (Democratic Socialists of America) adopted support of BDS as a policy in 2017. Other than that, she has repeatedly prevaricated on the issue of Israel, not-so-deftly deflecting any questions, most notably and embarrassingly during her interview with Amy Goodman last year where she constantly gave answers like, “You know, I think this is a conversation that I’m engaging with with activists right now. Because this is a huge– especially over this weekend. This is a conversation that I’m sitting down with lots of activists in this movement on, and I’m looking forward to engaging in this conversation,” and “I am not the expert on geopolitics on this issue.” She doesn’t seem to know much of anything, but has followed Omar and Tlaib on the issue at every step.

      She’s right about one thing though: this issue is, like, totally “huge.” And it definitely needs a “conversation,” though the idea that the conversation should be only with far-Left activists is weird.

    2. I would also mention that, as part of “The Squad” and as a member of that activist group, she has not once come out and repudiated their BDS talk, to my knowledge. To be so involved with the parties engaging in it and have absolutely nothing to say just seems like shrewd maneuvering. Kind of like how both Omar and Tlaib said they were in favor of a two-state solution and didn’t support BDS before they were elected, and then announced a week later that both those things they said were the complete opposite of the truth.

  12. I haven’t watched Finkelstrin through yet but was just wondering if being denied tenure is a necessary and sufficient condition for being classed as a ‘failed’ academic.

    If that were true anyone who hasn’t managed to get tenure is either not worth listening to or least be taken with a grain of salt.

    I have never really thought about this sort of thing before, that is, what makes a failed academic.

    I believe fully in the right of Israel to exist.
    My understanding of its initial forming and subsequent defense of itself leads appreciating the position it finds itself in now as largely the fault of the Palestinian/ Arab side.

    1. It seems to Israel has, at various times, fallen over itself to be accommodating to Palestinians and try and find a reasonable two state solution.

      And, the Palestinian/Arab side has not been reasonable.

      And the reason, I believe, is the deep entrenched Jew hatred engendered and maintained by politicized Islamic religious beliefs.

      1. And the reason, I believe, is the deep entrenched Jew hatred engendered and maintained by politicized Islamic religious beliefs.

        I think it’s mostly about the land. This is a cultural thing that I think is not really understood in a Western mindset (The idea that Britain would come trying to claim the US because it was their colony a mere 200 some years ago would simply be a head scratcher. Same for Hawaii and Alaska. The West is perhaps peculiar in that we have extraordinary respect for national boundaries once drawn, but the act of drawing those lines in the first place was sometimes – I dunno, arbitrary, for want of a better word. Someone said “This is how it’s going to be”, and then it was.) I think memories and emotions for sectarian land wars run much longer and deeper in the ME. For eons various tribes had to defend their turf, and a culture of long memories evolved as part of that.

        I will say, that dynamic may be changing in the ME overall, as it has turned more and more to individual nation states. Unfortunately Palestinians are fairly isolated from that shift at the moment, given their limbo-esque status when it comes to statehood. I think it’s very important that Palestinians have their own state, the sooner the better. How on earth that will happen, though, I have no idea.

        1. It is also about how there are people alive who were around when the disaster happened.

          On that note: I would encourage, for an interesting perspective, listening to the voices of Arab (and in particular, Palestinian) *Christians* (and non-believers, if one can find any).

        2. I still disagree, as I said Israel has made every effort to allow a solution where there was land for all.

          Maybe there is cultural thing associated with the land and that’s why Israel and the Jews mention the fact that it as theirs back in Biblical times, so where do we stop and start.

          But that is not really the point, there are a few things that separate us culturally, one being Arabs having a strong honor culture.
          That combined with the fact that politicised Islam does ‘hate’ the Jews and that hatred is taught to children as is evidenced by the pre school and on songs and games we have seen building that hatred.

          You have probably seen the Egyptian TV show where guests are tricked into believing that it is really an Israeli show (when it isn’t)and note just how angry they get.
          There is a deep seething hatred that goes beyond a land dispute.

          Possibly just the wars they keep losing but still.

          Honor culture combined with religiously motivated hatred multiplies the ill feeling arising from the land situation.

          Which is why reasonable propositions have been rejected.

          Still there is something in what you say, and Keith below.

          It would be interesting to get some other actual voices in the conversation.

          1. There is no shortage of reprehensible behaviors on both sides of this conflict. I do believe that land is an important issue. Seldom do we hear of the Israeli activities in the occupied territories, unless it is something like a young US female, Rachel Corrie, being crushed by a bulldozer. I received this recently from a person working for a peaceful solution in Hebron:

            “Early in the morning of 22 July, more than 1,000 Israeli soldiers and government workers arrived to Sur Bahir in the southern area of East Jerusalem and aggressively began the process of demolishing 70 Palestinian homes. Alongside the sheer magnitude of the destruction, these home demolitions were particularly concerning in that the Palestinian homeowners had permission to build from the Palestinian Authority, as Sur Bahir is located in Area A.

            During the month of July, Israeli forces have carried out six demolitions in the greater Hebron area, according to the Hebron Freedom Fund. On 10 July, Israeli bulldozers demolished a caravan in Idhna, a village just west of Hebron, claiming that the caravan was too close to Israel’s apartheid wall – the same reason given for the massive demolitions in Sur Bahir. On 11 July, Israeli forces issued a demolition order for the Hebron home belonging to Issam Tumaizy and an order to halt construction to Palestinian farmer Amjad Islaimaya, both with the reason that they did not have building permits. On 13 July, the Israeli military raided areas of H1 Hebron (under Palestinian Authority control), put up mobile checkpoints, and delivered a home demolition order notice to Mohammed Ali Al-Allami, despite Mohammed having all of the necessary legal documents for his home construction.

            On 16 July, Israeli forces demolished an irrigation pool that the Ziad al-Jabari family used to water their crops in H2 Hebron, next to the Kiryat Arba Israeli settlement. Demolitions have long been a tool of Israeli settler colonialism. According to the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions (ICAHD), Israeli Occupying Forces have demolished over 49,000 structures since 1967. Since 2006, Israeli authorities have demolished at least 1,440 residential units across the West Bank.”

            1. This is a very strange statement: “Seldom do we hear of the Israeli activities in the occupied territories.” Western media, Arab media, social media all over the world, not to mention U.N. EU, Amnesty International and Human Right Watch are full of desriptions of Israeli actions on the West Bank. Every demolition of illegally build house is described, often with the pictures of crying children (or crying old people). Illegal houses and structures are demolished by every state in the world but only when it’s done by Israel it’s described abroad. Israel is demolishing such houses built illegaly by Jew – but these are never described anywhere except for Jewish media.

              EU has a whole policy to finance illegal Arab settlements in administered by Israel Area C. There are now many buildings, roads etc. It’s quite illuminating to read about it: https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-EU-battles-Israel-in-Area-C-598784

              Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the houses build in the proximity of security barrier (like Sur Bahir) may be demolished for security reasons. I know that a few dead Jews are of no consequence to the world but Jews are strangly sensitive to the idea of being shot at, knifed or blown up by a suicide bomber. Such unreasonable people!

              1. I noted that both sides exhibit reprehensible behaviors including murdering each other. I read a couple of newspapers each day, and watch a modicum of TV news, and stand by my statement that destruction of homes is rarely in the US news.

              2. Just checked on Google. Both The New York Times and the Washington Post wrote about Sur Bahir. I gave up further checking as there were pages upon pages of links to look at.

                BTW, did they ever write about demolition of many more houses in Rafah by Egypt? Did you defended Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza who got their legally built houses demolished?

              3. I wasn’t defending anybody, on either side, and have neither the time nor inclination to continue.

              4. And yes, Google shows a rash of reporting on July 22 of this year, but outside of that, the previous reports are dated 2017 and 2012.

            2. I have no doubt there are topical issues that don’t look good for Israel but that is not relevant to what I am saying.

              I don’t know anything about the ins and outs of these disputed territories but seeing as the article you quoted had the term ‘apartheid wall’ in it I assume it is biased and the Israeli position would be different.

              As far as I understand, since this all began there have been several sincere attempts by Israel to find a solution. A where Israel gave up quite a lot.

              In fact if Israel had played hard ball with the gains won in their wars they would probably be better off now. But they have given back a lot.

              As for that bulldozer incident, well, I’ve driven bulldozer and visibility is difficult at the best of times and that thing had so much armour that the driver wouldn’t have been able to see, probably.

              Israel is there. Everyone can see it isn’t going away, everyone can see why that is the case.

              1. Interesting observation about the sightlines of the bulldozer driver. Apparently the Israeli court agreed with that argument, finding the driver not guilty of any sort of wrong doing.

          2. I still disagree, as I said Israel has made every effort to allow a solution where there was land for all.

            Like I said, I think you’re looking at this through Western eyes, in terms of deals and negotiations. I think the Palestinians want the entire area back. And again, I don’t see that as being due to anti-Semitism any more than all sectarian tribes are anti “other”, to some extent. Look at the Sunni and the Shia, for example. They’re both Muslims, there’s no anti-Semitism there, but land disputes between the groups have been as bad if not worse.

            I don’t know what the resolution to this conflict could be. However one feels about displacement of Palestinians, it is sort of like saying we should give the US back to Native Americans at this point. I feel terrible about what happened to the Native Americans, I really do, and yet I can’t say I think that’s a realistic solution in 2019. There is a ginormous country here now, there’s no way we could just “Ok then, we’ll pack up and go!”. And the same is true for Israel. They’re there now, they’re a country with millions of people, and at this point “right of return” is not, to my mind, feasible. Where would the Palestinians return to? I feel fairly certain that old homes have been built over at this point.

            My hope is that if the Palestinians did have their own country, even if it’s not where they want it to be, the huge task of self-determination would eventually overshadow old wars in terms of priorities. I think there is such a huge psychological difference between feeling ‘ruled’ and plotting one’s own destiny. The latter does nothing but breed further resentment, the former means there are other pressing matters to attend to and a sense of national pride.

            1. I don’t know anything about land disputes between Sunni and Shia but I do know there is a lot of religiously inspired hatred there too.
              Given the hate generated within the same religion it seems a short step to believing religiously inspired hatred of the Jews would be even greater.

              Why are the countries around Israel so bitterly opposed to it, such that they are always fighting and losing wars.
              Why is Iran so vehemently against Israel, are they so sensitive to the needs of the displaced Palestinians? I doubt it.

              I know you weren’t really comparing the US and the indigenous peoples there to this, but even so it isn’t comparable.
              I don’t thing the Indians wanted it all, they wanted a fair share, but they got squeezed and squeezed.
              If the Indians were treated the same way as the Palestinian’s have been they would be a lot more satisfied.

              The right of return is not feasible as you say. History has happened, as it has many times before.

              I hope that if they had their own country they could focus on the future of peace too.

              But, I guess if either of us is correct there will always be a seething undercurrent, and I would reiterate my point that Islam would fuel and feed that discontent.

  13. “Maybe folks should boycott his show.

    I am tired of folks discrediting a form of speech that is centered on equality and freedom.”

    But….isn’t that what she’s doing by suggesting people boycott his show?

  14. The video link to Bill Maher just plays a nine second clip. A YouTube search for “full Real Time With Bill Maher p1 8/16/19” just yields a bunch of two second clips, plus one link that is supposed to be an hour long, but the audio cuts out right around the time you indicated.

Leave a Reply