The Times reports that there is still strain between Hillary and Obama's camps. Hillary's fundraisers and Obama's are trying to make nice, but Obama people may be resistant to giving money to help relieve Hillary's debt, including the megawatts due Mark Penn. The names of the rich men include Jonathan Mantz, Alan Patricof, Steven Rattner, Alan Solomont. I am of course focusing on Jewish names. What does that matter? First, it underlines the fact that Jews are now principals in the American establishment--something I celebrate. America really is the land of opportunity. These men's grandparents were shopowners. Now we are the war-chest for the Democratic Party (and for much of the Republican Party too--c.f. Sheldon Adelson).
The more important reason I mention Jewish names is that Jews tend to care about Israel. Solomont for instance is a backer of the Israel Policy Forum, a progressive Zionist group, probably the leading progressive Zionist group. Mark Penn worked for rightwingers in Israel, like Menachem Begin. The American public's understanding of foreign policy will continue to be clouded so long as journalists fail to talk about Jewish devotion to Israel, i.e., the Israel lobby. This morning I was reading Benny Morris's book 1948, when I came to the part where Golda Meir (then Myerson) went to the U.S. in 1947and 1948 to raise money from the Diaspora Jews to fight the Arabs. She got $50 million a pop. $100 million was a huge amount of money then. The Holocaust obviously played an important role here, Jews felt tremendously insecure, even in America. I wonder if I wouldn't have been volunteering myself then, so angry would I have been!
But it must be understood that that $100 million of American Jewish money, raised by Meir, a former Milwaukee schoolteacher, went to buy arms that played an instrumental role in ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, in '48.
I am just saying: Journalists should be asking these backers How important Israel is to them, and how they feel about Obama's position re Israel/Palestine.
Howard Wolfson, Hillary's former spokesman, has now gone to work for Fox, where he joins Lanny Davis. Davis has grown hawkish over Israel. Wolfson is hawkish too. He has said that Obama wants to meet a Holocaust denier (Ahmadinejad). Is this the Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party heading across the aisle? How long before some of these pro-Israel types declare for McCain? What is happening to the Jewish presence in public life? And how is it affecting the definition of American interests? Watch this space.
(Thanks to Jack Ross for explaining the Wolfson thing to me)
"The Holocaust obviously played an important role here, Jews felt tremendously insecure, even in America. "
They also felt sympathy and hope.
"But it must be understood that that $100 million of American Jewish money, raised by Meir, a former Milwaukee schoolteacher, went to buy arms that played an instrumental role in ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, in '48."
And ALSO an instrumental role in defending Jewish residents of the region FROM ethnic cleansing.
"How long before some of these pro-Israel types declare for McCain? "
They have already. McCain looks a lot like my uncle (not the one that you know, Phil). Comfortable. My uncle will likely vote for McCain. My mother will be attempted to be swayed by my uncle, and depending on who she converses with the day of the election and how convivially will either vote for Obama out of spite for her brother, vote for McCain out of trust in her brother, vote for McCain in some reaction to me, or vote for Obama in sympathy with the same appeals that he (and Kennedy had) with me.
I expect that a LOT of Southern Florida Jews will similarly.
As Nader said in 2004, if the democrats can't win an election in this economy and war, then they are in trouble as a party.
By EVERY measure, the economy (and the republican approach) is an utter failure. Unemployment, median income stats, even the stock market (even with the enormous tax giveaways on dividends and capital gains).
Well, some people didn't want to see another 600,000 Jews knocked off. Some people, like Phil Weiss and his loyal fan base would have seen that has a desireable outcome. But here is the thing, even when you factor in the fact that the Arabs through pure dumb luck are sitting on most of the worlds oil reserves. And even when you subtract what they blow on casinos and blond hookers. And new developments for their society like tolet paper. They have never lacked for money, then and now.
Pure disgusting SOG/Pearlman.
LeaNder: the truth hurts.
"it underlines the fact that Jews are now principals in the American establishment–something I celebrate" – Philip Weiss
The rest of your article begs the question "What is there to celebrate?"
Parade July 4th question to Obama & McCain: What is Patriotism?
Obama [Sacrifice For The Common Good]: "–the essential American ideal–that are destinies are not written before we are born… Not just a love of America in the abstract, but a very particular love for and faith in, one another as Americans…we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up
in the fates of all who share allegiance to America's singular creed."
McCain [A Cause Greater Than Self-Interest]: "To love one's country is to love one's countrymen…(including) the countrymen we will never know, who will be born after we are gone."
If enormous quantities of oil hadn't been discovered in the Gulf, the politics of the world would be VERY different now.
The Arab states would likely not figure prominently in America's math of what is in its interest.
I suspect that very few of the goyim would
be bothered by the egregious over-representation of Jews in positions of wealth, power and influence if the goal of
their activism were the improvement of the
country and the planet, rather than the
well-being of their tribe.
"a very particular love for and faith in one another as Americans … part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of all."
This sentiment is so central to western culture, that it's easy to forget that these are actually fightin' words to tribal separatists like our Bill Perlman and Richard Witty.
The idea that "our destinies are not written before we are born" invalidates the notion of choseness.
I suspect if oil was never discovered in the Gulf, Israel would not exist in Palestine. Walter Rothschild understood the potential value of oil because of the Rothschild Baku experience and so supported a Jewish homeland in the Palestine. The sentimental connection is for the benefit of the common folk.
Walter Rothschild is probably the first member (or oligarch of Judonia).
See The Balfour Declaration.
"Is this the Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party heading across the aisle? How long before some of these pro-Israel types declare for McCain?"
Interesting how on the issue of Israel and Zionism, the inner authoritarian is becoming increasingly difficult for average Jews of the Zionist persuasion to conceal. Authoritarian Communism also had huge appeal to similar personalities, which is how many Jews came to their left-liberal identities. Statist authoritarian Communism, statis authoritarian Zionism, statist authoritarian Neoconservatism — why don't they just admit they are control freaks who want to use government to kill their enemies and be done with it? The intellectual burden of maintaining multiple identities must wreak havoc with them, psychologically. That's probably a main reason why so many American Jews are assimilating. Who can blame them? It's really the only way for the sane ones to ever attain peace of mind.
SOG\Pearlman has posted numerous times in my real name on this blog; over the last week he was at it again, while I was off my computer because my son was visiting me. For regular posters, I'm guessing they would recognize my posts from the content, but otherwise? I'm tempted to post in SOG or Pearlman's name as a tit-4-tat, but I won't. SOG\Pearlman is a very nasty human, filled to the gills with his own righteousness and ready to justify any means for his ends.
That said, here is our government in action of late:
July 9, 2008
Verbatim, as delivered
Opening Statement by Chairman Howard L. Berman at hearing, “U.S. Policy Toward Iran”
If Iran were to acquire nuclear arms, the world would be forever changed. The most active state sponsor of terrorism could, and possibly would, wield the most terrifying weapon of all.
Iran’s mere possession of a nuclear capability would be transformative in the Middle East and beyond. As a member of the nuclear club, Tehran’s destructive leverage in international diplomacy would increase immensely, even vis a vis the United States and the West. Sunni Arab states would be intimidated, and more likely to follow Iran’s lead. Achieving nuclear status would exponentially increase Iran’s influence and the appeal of fundamentalism throughout the Islamic world.
Tehran’s terrorist offspring such as Hezbollah and Hamas would constantly clamor for access to Iran’s nuclear know-how – and can we comfortably rule out the possibility that they would acquire it, through direct or indirect means? We can’t even assume that Iranian nuclear security, even with the best of intentions, would be airtight against theft by these groups or their sympathizers in Iran’s paramilitary services. The international nuclear arms control regime would be effectively dead, as numerous states in the Middle East would rush to acquire nuclear arms to counter-balance Iran. In short, this would be a world in which the United States and its friends and nations throughout the region would be constantly under threat of nuclear attack and never at rest.
The deadline for solving this looming problem is fast upon us, as Iran daily inches closer to the point where it can produce enough weapons-grade uranium to make a nuclear bomb. No one knows precisely when that will happen, but most experts say it will be soon. Some predict as early as the end of this year. The NIE published earlier this year said it would be sometime in the 2010-2015 time-frame and possibly as early as the end of next year. When it does happen, a threshold will have been crossed; once Iran is producing nuclear weapons-grade material, the difficulty of keeping it from becoming a nuclear power will be massively increased.
For one U.S. ally, Israel, the threat posed by a nuclear Iran would be existential. To illustrate the immediacy of this point, we need look no further than today’s news of an Iranian long-range missile test – a missile capable of carrying a nuclear payload to Israel. This, coupled with the belligerent talk from Tehran of "enemy targets" being "under surveillance," could not make it any clearer that we need to use every diplomatic and economic tool available to steer Iran away from developing nuclear weapons capability.
There are optimists who believe that Iran, were it to acquire nuclear arms, could be deterred, just as the Soviets were. But given the martyrdom mentality of the Iranian leadership, one cannot be sure. The risks are too great to hope that an Iranian government that frequently calls for the end of Israel’s very existence will be calmed and pacified by a nuclear arsenal.
Stopping Iran’s nuclear quest is our most urgent strategic challenge. The United States should give this threat the priority it deserves.
We need to impose sanctions on companies that invest in Iran’s energy sector. We’ve had a law on the books for a dozen years that requires such sanctions, but it never has been enforced. Some of these companies are based in Europe. It’s time for our European allies and their corporations to cease investing in Iran.
Major EU states acknowledge that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear arms, and the EU has begun slowly to ratchet up sanctions, including, most recently, on Bank Melli, Iran’s leading financial institution. But it’s time for them to take far more significant steps along the lines of cutting off all significant commerce with Iran, as we did years ago – or at least I thought we did. I’m not so sure, after yesterday’s Associated Press report that U.S. exports to Iran have increased nearly twenty-fold during the Bush Administration years, up to nearly $150 million in 2007.
Iran should also be at the top of the agenda in our bilateral relationship with Russia. Some believe Russia’s major foreign policy priority is to thwart U.S. policy at every turn. I question that, and Secretary Burns’ perspective on that issue would be of great value. At the least, we should test the proposition through disciplined prioritization of our goals – followed by hard bargaining – with Moscow.
Last month our country again joined the “EU-3” — Britain, France, Germany — along with Russia and China, in offering Iran generous trade and even certain types of assistance. Iran, which brushed aside a similar offer two years ago, responded to the latest offer just last week. That response has not been made public, but perhaps Ambassador Burns can enlighten us today about its contents. Nevertheless, my understanding is that our offer has once again followed our tradition of making dialogue with Iran conditional on Iran’s suspension of its uranium enrichment program.
Perhaps Iran is determined to go nuclear, but we need to make a direct, unconditional effort to engage them and to dissuade them from that course, as the international community has demanded. Moreover, I’m convinced we won’t be able to rally world opinion to our side if we don’t make clear our willingness for unconditional engagement with Iran, and I reject those who believe that talking is tantamount to surrender.
So we should agree to join the “EU-3”, Russia, and China in an unconditional dialogue with Iran – or, if our partners prefer, we should meet with Iran bilaterally — on the understanding that our partners would fully support crippling sanctions if Iran rejects our dialogue offer or ultimately refuses to cease enriching uranium.
Administration policy towards Iran has been a failure, veering from one approach to another. Iran has made continuous progress in its nuclear program throughout the Bush years, international support for sanctions has not gathered much steam, and our allies still do far less than they should. It is time for us to give the Iran problem the priority it deserves and the creative policy it requires — before it is too late.
I don't do that Keating, never did. But welcome back from the father/son bund meetings. Hows that plan for the 4th Reich coming along.
Yeah, right. SOG/Pearlman.
Actually, my son is half-Jewish, and we don't have a plan for the 4th Reich. Just a plan for all humanity.
BTW, I've noticed how you say the Palestinians haven't contributed to the human race. A good look at Jewish contributions over history results in a stalemate–as much bad as good.
So, now what?
How about the Jew Jesus, who cared about the lowest?
BTW, I am not a Christian.
And what bad what that be, the polio vaccine, the Marx brothers. I am curious though, was your son given a bris, a bar mitzvah. Somehow I don't see you has a sedar kind of guy but what do I know . Just because your wife decided to stick it to her parents by marrying you doesn't make your kid a Jew.
SOG, if you are an Ashkenazim, you’re not an Israelite Jew, either.
“An invention called 'the Jewish people'
The first Jews of Ashkenaz (Germany) did not come from the Land of Israel and did not reach Eastern Europe from Germany, but became Jews in the Khazar Kingdom in the Caucasus.”
Charles, not that it makes any difference, but I do not believe Pearlman is the impersonator. There were glitches in the matrix when Phil left the observer. Pearlman was revealed as a consistent entity. I don't think he changed that when he decided to return to mondoweiss as sog. Changing names was his way of returning in other guise because he could nor bear the shame of doing it after having pronounced mondoweiss terminated, saying he would leave it for good. It must have been hard enough to be proved utterly wrong. Poor creature, crawling back, tail between legs, little sewing needle… I mean sword, in hand.
But as commenter he is far above the impersonation level. Though in his new found shyness he is not showing all he is capable of.
'And ALSO an instrumental role in defending Jewish residents of the region FROM ethnic cleansing.'
There's two sides to EVERY story, eh Richard? Well, everyone else's story anyway.
Charles – 'SOG\Pearlman has posted numerous times in my real name on this blog'
SOG – 'I don't do that Keating, never did'
Here's proof from this very thread –
'Pure disgusting SOG/Pearlman.'
Posted by: LeaNder | July 09, 2008 at 12:08 PM
'LeaNder: the truth hurts.'
Posted by: Philip Weiss | July 09, 2008 at 12:46 PM
That wasn't you, huh?
Glad I'm not doing time inside your brain Bill.
And well said once again Jonathan Ekman. You don't spout much but it always makes sense.
'SOG, if you are an Ashkenazim, you’re not an Israelite Jew, either.'
And if he is an Israelite Jew, he's genetically too close to the 'camel jockeys' for comfort.
OK, Pearlman, I guess that was you. I created something for you.
So, no chance from now on.
Don't forget Dick Morris!