Here's a pro-Obama piece in Moment, a Jewish publication, by Letty Cottin Pogrebin, a leading feminist, co-founder of Ms. I think of Pogrebin as a big liberal. And what's interesting here is that she basically says that McCain and Obama are indistinguishable on Israel. Both good, why the New York Sun has even testified to Obama's bona fides, she says. And therefore the Jewish issue in the race is… abortion. Almost all the piece is about abortion rights, the Supreme Court.
Now I share Pogrebin's views on choice, though they don't have the same primacy for me as for her. But what's interesting here is that she makes no effort to speak of Obama's position on the Clinton parameters, say, or the settlements, versus McCain's. Not that there's a dime's worth of difference. But there is a dime's. J Street has been eloquent on this score. Good for them. But Pogrebin can't even say, McCain is allied with neocons who have opposed the peace process and it is therefore vital to support Obama. No, she actually invokes the neocon rag, the New York Sun.
I am not saying that Pogrebin is a neocon. I doubt she is. But I believe that the liberal Jewish pro-Israel crowd is so close to the neocon vision of the Middle East–they're our brothers, our neighbors, in the Jewish world–that she is loath to sell them out. Loath to take them on. As Obama is loath to take on the neocons, because he knows they have encampments in the liberal Jewish community. The Mel Levine's, the Howard Berman's. These guys are for Obama, but I doubt they have shriven themselves for their support for the Iraq war. So if Pogrebin and Obama come out against the neocons, they fear that the Jewish vote for Obama will drop to 70 percent, 60 percent (let alone Jewish spondulics). And so they fudge on a central issue of American policy in the Middle East, which is a red flag of injustice across the Arab world.
And actions while in office are what is important.
Bush's are obvious. McCain's are evident. Obama's is evident as well, balanced with confidence for each.
Do you still contend that the "Israel Lobby" is static, and solely an advocate of expansion?
And, not predominately representing a community that genuinely seeks a confident and just peace?
Zionism is merely one of several issues upon which the GOP and Dems have merged: open borders (for cheap labor), globalization (money and markets as a societal organizing principle) hyper-secularism (everywhere except Israel), violent US market hegemony under guise of “spreading democracy” (liberal interventionism, neo-conservatism). It’s as if the elite and their dedicated useful idiots have agreed to pursue their primary agenda (Israel and money worship), close ranks, and just throw everyone else under the bus.
This is completely off the subject of this post by Phil, and I apologize. Does anyone know where to get a "review copy" of Sniegoski's book, The Transparent Cabal? I have been in touch with a couple columnists at the Newark Star Ledger and one of them has asked me if I know where he can get a "review copy" of the book. I've done an admittedly cursory investigation on the internet and I haven't been able to find out. I can't even find an email address for Stephen Sniegoski.
Reading back through the recent Weiss post/comments about Daily Kos (featured today on Anti-war.com), and the testimonials about how left-liberals sites like Kos and Huffington Post berate and ban anti-Zionists, I realized that the “secular”/atheist left-liberals serve a vital function for the keepers of Zion: they suppress and prevent any non-Jewish religious cohesion or organization, and work to ridicule and discredit religion in general, except, of course, for organized Judaism in the form of Zionism. Of course, this hypocrisy is intellectually untenable, hence the need to ban those who raise it with a barrage of “anti-semitism” charges and summary censorship.
Note how, on the left-liberal side, Christian Zionism is also ridiculed (rightfully in my view) but criticism of “Jewish Zionism” or Zionism in general is met with righteous indignation.
It seems the left-liberals have internalized the Jewish supremacist view: that God is exclusively the province of “the chosen,” and should be jealously guarded on their behalf, and the rest of humanity is mere cattle, to be managed and manipulated, dumbed down and brainwashed in failing secular public schools, distracted and hypnotized by the culture of smut and pornography, drugged up with meds when they act out, and generally kept in a state of stunted development.
This should make any thinking person very suspicious of “liberals” who insist Christianity is the root of all evil. In fact, it should make them wonder if they’re not Zionist operatives (whether they know it or not), programmed by the keepers of Zion in a fashion similar to the way they have inculcated anti-Christian bigotry into their own people.
"not predominately representing a community that genuinely seeks a confident and just peace"
Certainly not. The Israel lobbies predominantly represent chauvinist colonialism and hatred of arabs.
higginslads:
Attention media: call or e-mail today for interviews with the IHS Press publishers or for information on upcoming titles and/or events:
IHS Press
222 W 21st St. Suite F-122
Norfolk, VA 23517
(757) 423-0324
*****************************************
I remember this publisher from: link to neoconned.info
rel=”nofollow”>neo-conned; neo-conned again. So it may well be this publisher. Although the Catholic context doesn't seem to make sense at first sight.
please someone address this: so are all the left/liberal jewish professional media lying in regards to the situation in israel/palestine? are all these journalists, who in other ways make a point of caring about injustice, lying or are they afraid? jews i know, no matter how liberal, pro-obama, polically aware, will not discuss israel with me, a gentile. the topic gets turned off with a joke or a phrase that indicates discussion closed.
okay, fine, they don't trust me. however, as phil says over and over , why isn't this a part of the national conversation? i want to know the psychological fact. what is going on in their heads? not the richard wittys, that is sort of interesting too but i'm not going there. the secular, liberal,jews, do they know there is an outrageous regime in israel? do they know about the injustice to palestinians and condone it? do they pretend to themselves it's not happening? do they discuss it among themselves? and then lower their voices when gentiles are near? do they know it's happening , know it is supremely not okay, but rationalize it away because they are attached to israel? do they not know about it? or try not to know about it, because jews can't possibly be unjust and on the fascistic side? are jews brought up as children hating and fearing gentiles so that lying to them is okay?
we are talking about all the jews in america. there are only a handful like phil who are speaking out. what is going on?
i use the word 'lying' because it's the professional's duty to out the truth. not writing about it, avoiding it, amounts to lying. i this a terrible anti-semitic question? i don't want to be anti-semitic, i want to understand.
Peters, it's a variant of a common enough phenomenon, called nationalism, where everything is interpreted to conform to a violent and expansionist form of ethnic self-interest.
See e.g. the German (liberal!) intellectuals' manifesto of 1914 at: link to net.lib.byu.edu
/>
Thank you neo-conned?. Phil was kind enough to forward me Stephen Sniegoski's email address directly, and I in turn have forwarded it to a couple of columnists at the Newark Star Ledger (one of whom expressed interest in obtaining a review copy of the book). Thanks again.
peters,
There's only a handful of "gentile" columnists who've spoken out too. This issue has been the proverbial "elephant in the room" for far too long, but I really feel like we're reaching a breaking point.
There isn't an outrageous regime in Israel.
The regime is quite civilized, and considers multiple responsibilities in its deliberations, some of which it does well and wisely, and some it cuts corners.
It requires reform, which it is getting and will get.
higginslads
I ahve to say many gentiles who have spoken out have had their careers destroyed along with some of their Jewish counterparts – however, a Jewish citic does fare better. Many gentiles are so terrified of being smeared as anti semites they are cowed. I feel pretty much ashamed of what we have allowed to take place, what is still taking place. It was not in my name but I feared being called a self hater and so kept quiet too. I hope you're right about us coming to a breaking point over this issue as that is exactly where our military and international standing is – at breaking point. Economically, we're looking into an abyss, people losong their jobs and homes might not care too much about being called anti semites.
Sniegoski's book is very well put together, well writen and pretty scary, I admit.
This can't go on.
Leah Shabba,
I too was terrified at one time of being branded an "antisemite" and I can only imagine what the horror must feel like to be branded a "self-hater" by people you are close to.
I do think we are at the precipice, and I honestly think things will get better – more honest, and more rational. It's probably going to be hard at first, but it will be well worth it for everyone in the long run. I've invested too much time and energy in educating myself about Zionism and the Israel Lobby to back down now. I will continue to contact reporters, columnists, and my elected officials as much as I can in order to shine much-needed light on this issue. Also, I no longer back down in my personal conversations with people either, and that may well be the most important aspect of all.
"If large numbers of people believe in freedom of speech (or freedom to talk openly about Zionism and the Israel Lobby), there will be freedom of speech even if the law (or societal pressures created by false information and "antisemitic" branding) forbids it. But if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them." -George Orwell – [Eric Arthur Blair] (1903-1950)
The regime is quite civilized,
Yes, the "regime" you refer to is rather civilized, however it is little more than a public relations decoy, in fact powerless to do anything about the underlying colonial system and its brutal expropriation of more and more land and resources previously belonging to someone else.
Olmert said he was against the settlements and more went up. The colonization continues no matter what. And useful fools like you, Witty, come up with ridiculous rationalizations–because that's just what you do.
The issue is not "the regime." The issue is the ungovernable, unstable, and unsustainable racist colonization. It's apparent to all, at least all who've gotten themselves off the holosauce.
otto,
the link you posted has expired or something.
somehow to me nationalism may explain it but it doesn't quite tell me how liberal jews deal with their consciences, i guess i mean particularly jewish journalists and pundits. what about amy goodman? aren't there things she should be covering and doesn't choose to? we must to continually remember nazi germany.
leah, thank you for making the point you did. yes, it must be jews who break this thing, gentiles don't have a chance.
The issue for the vast majority of formerly diaspora Jews (descendants of those forced from Europe, forced from Asia, forced from North Africa) to self-govern.
If that is not a democratic concept to you, then you have your head you know where.
The inference that liberals are essentially coopted bigots, is insulting and results in division rather than unity.
The 5,000,000 are turned away, while the 5,000 parade their political purity.
It ain't no movement.
A movement is one that doesn't require revision of history to succeed and sustain.
It holds conflicting truths and still chooses the humane.
Peters raises some interesting and reasonable questions about Jewish psychology. Although overstated, questions along a similar line have been raised about German psychology re the Holocaust: why did they look the other way? Many Jews concluded (and have loudly proclaimed) that there was something innately wrong with German character, just as they concluded there was something innately wrong with Russian character in the wake of pogroms, and today maintain and loudly proclaim that there is something innately wrong with Arab and Palestinian character. Yet, if non-Jews were to reach and loudly proclaim similar conclusions about Jewish character, they would be derided as anti-semites.
That said, my opinion on why Jews collectively look the other way re Zionist atrocities and Mideast intrigue is because they have been programmed by the religion and their culture to. Judaism is some 3,000 years old, the longest continuous culture in history. You don’t continuously sustain a culture that long without indoctrinating your people into beliefs about their own historical necessity, value and superiority (“choseness”) as well as the relative failings and inferiority of non-Jews. A corollary to that is the necessity of denigrating the humanity of non-Jews, and especially of those victimized by them. When it comes to “survival,” (and they seem to view even mild criticism as an existential threat, or have been indoctrinated to) anything goes.
In many ways, this all makes them the perfect war propagandists, and masters of rationalization. No wonder many of them have been harnessed by the warmongering elements of Washington and the shrewd power brokers, and utilized on behalf of the war agenda in Washington, in media, and elsewhere. In fact, they have made themselves so indispensable to the entire process, they are now largely running the Washington insane asylum.
ed, what you are saying vis a vis the acculturation is no doubt true. but if that is the reason why jewish intellectuals are colluding with the zionist program then it means they are cynically manipulating the gentile us population. that means that they are total liars and hypocrites. i know that somehow witty has done some sort of mental jujitsu and he actually believes the stuff he is saying but that could not be true for most of the names we read and listen to everyday. what about noam chomsky? the new yorker editor and most of their writers? the staff of the new york times? npr?
what the fuck is going on in their heads? does it go like this-" we have to keep a lid on this latest attack in gaza, the goyim if they find out might finally get pissed, so let's say 'neighborhoods' instead of 'settlements' and maybe they won't catch on, they're dumb anyway."?
any jews out there want to tell us the truth about how it goes?
this IS like the left making up excuses for stalin. it's the SAME. i wasn't there watching that show but i guess it comes down to the ends justifying the means.
"The inference that the [so-called] liberals are essentially coopted bigots, is insulting and results in division rather than unity."
It's absolutely clear that those who call themselves liberal Zionists or liberal parts of the Israeli lobby are overwhelmingly 'coopted bigots'. They may not like being called that, but that is their fundamental essence.
Peters, BTW, that URL works: just copy and paste and see what 'liberal' German intellectuals said when they were 'coopted bigots' under the influence of virulent racist nationalism. (Quite a good phrase 'coopted bigots', Richard W., it will see some use here I think).
'There isn't an outrageous regime in Israel. The regime is quite civilized, and considers multiple responsibilities in its deliberations…'
Does a civilised country allow it's soldiers carte blanche to shoot rock-throwing children, and then shield the perpetrator from prosecution? Does a civilised country bomb a just-completed swimming pool for poor children, then fail to pursue the perpetrator? Does a civilised country fail to hold all such miscreants to account (indeed, protect them as a matter of course), so long as their victims aren't Jews? Does it shell a neighbour with thousands of deadly unexploded cluster bombs in civilian areas? Does it keep stealing propoerty belonging to the native occupied populace while pretending to work on a road map? Speaking of roads, does a democratic country have a system of roads which are off-limits for some citizens according to race?
And this, from the CS Monitor:
'Earlier this summer, Israel's parliament, the Knesset, passed two troubling pieces of legislation: the first (which still awaits final ratification) exempts the state from compensating Palestinians harmed during Israel Defense Force (IDF) operations in the territories.
The second, aimed at curtailing the travel of Arab members of the Kenesset (MK), states that any Israeli who has visited an "enemy country" shall be considered a supporter of armed struggle against the Jewish state (unless proven otherwise), and will be prevented from running for parliament in the seven years following the visit.'
Civilised my arse.
Glenn,
Address the wrongs, not the existence.
You don't conclude, "the application of Zionism is in error". You state "Zionism itself is in error."
But, don't ask the same questions about other entities in the region, or in the world.
There is no revolution that I've ever been aware that offered improvement. Reform offers improvement.
Let me give you an example. I argued in 1977, that the Shah of Iran was a ruthless fascist, propped up by the US (even as he expressed contempt for the US), and that social change was necessary.
When in 1978 and 1979, various coalitions of activists (Islamic, democratic, socialist) organized a grand social revolution, I was pleased.
When in 1979, Islamicists citing the necessary emphasis on a political morality led that revolution, I was ambiguously pleased, hoping that they meant what they said, and in the way that I heard it.
When, quite quickly, it became obvious that they were to impose and ruthlessly, rather than liberate via discussion and democratic establishment, I became an opponent.
It was close to home for me, when in 1980 I worked for an alternative daily newspaper in DC, I attended presentations of Iranian socialists (civil, not religious) and democrats, all participating in the Shah's removal, they described the purges that were occurring in Iran and in foreign lands, in which leftists were being silenced, mobbed, beaten, killed at the decree of "revolutionary Islamic councils" (each faction having separate authority to authorize murder, without any central control or means of accountability.)
It was a fascist revolution. Truly a theocracy, not a state in which the limited extent of theocracy is state funding for religious schools, and some stores closed on Saturday.
An "Islamic" democracy?
It wasn't improvement, and couldn't be.
The greatest feature of democratic states, is that include a non-violent means to accomplish social change via election, convincing a majority to enact laws consistent with a set of principles.
It definitely takes work and money even, but it is a viable path.
You can go door to door and explain your reasoning. The worst that will happen is that someone will not want to talk with you.
Zionism is a fascist movement – that's quite clear.
What do you think it is, Witty?
BTW -when you refer to a movement that relies on revising history(to paraphrase)which history are you referring to?
Those that desire the localized conflict between Israel and Palestine to extend regionally in a larger struggle, are a different beast than those that want to successfully address the I/P conflicts.
Whether they are neo-conservatives, or anti-Zionists.
"BTW -when you refer to a movement that relies on revising history(to paraphrase)which history are you referring to?"
Anyone that revises malevolently for political ends. Peace isn't constructed by denial of what was/is done to you, nor what was/is done to one's neighbors.
Its constructed by working things out.
Witty is addicted to the spoils of colonialist zionism, but he just can't admit it.
Really, Judaism deserves better.
Bullshit.
Zionism is the self-governance movement of the Jewish people. In practise it values minorities rights, and has equal due process under the law as its norm.
In that PRIMARY sense, it is more democratic than nationalist even.
It needs reform. It needs information on how to improve, to reform. It needs that specific accountability, from within and without.
otto,
thanks, i tried again and it was worth it. amazing document. and EXACTLY LIKE RICHARD WITTY. so i guess what the phenomenon is like is a blank space in their head when it comes to israel. so say a nytimes writer doing a piece on the west bank just automatically deletes from his mind any evidence that doesn't suit his world view. so it's not exactly a lie but a form of psychological denial. like being told you're about to die of cancer and you can't believe it for a while. and anyone who reminds you of if gets the back hand.
otto,
thanks, i tried again and it was worth it. amazing document. and EXACTLY LIKE RICHARD WITTY. so i guess what the phenomenon is like is a blank space in their head when it comes to israel. so say a nytimes writer doing a piece on the west bank just automatically deletes from his mind any evidence that doesn't suit his world view. so it's not exactly a lie but a form of psychological denial. like being told you're about to die of cancer and you can't believe it for a while. and anyone who reminds you of if gets the back hand.
otto,
thanks, i tried again and it was worth it. amazing document. and EXACTLY LIKE RICHARD WITTY. so i guess what the phenomenon is like is a blank space in their head when it comes to israel. so say a nytimes writer doing a piece on the west bank just automatically deletes from his mind any evidence that doesn't suit his world view. so it's not exactly a lie but a form of psychological denial. like being told you're about to die of cancer and you can't believe it for a while. and anyone who reminds you of if gets the back hand
otto,
thanks, i tried again and it was worth it. amazing document. and EXACTLY LIKE RICHARD WITTY. so i guess what the phenomenon is like is a blank space in their head when it comes to israel. so say a nytimes writer doing a piece on the west bank just automatically deletes from his mind any evidence that doesn't suit his world view. so it's not exactly a lie but a form of psychological denial. like being told you're about to die of cancer and you can't believe it for a while. and anyone who reminds you of if gets the back hand
It is not just the Left that is claimed by the Israel Lobby.
Take a look an an image from my kids' junior high school world civilization text.
Economists are as controlled as high school history writers.
I tried to put some previous comments together into a coherent discussion of the issue in Shock Therapy Comes to America.
Anyone seeking an understanding of Jewish Denial Syndrome (JDS), and its adjunct, Self Righteous Liberal Syndrome (SRLS) need only study Witty and his rationalizing. From the JDS view, Zionism is merely the self-association of ethnic Jews, and has nothing to do with an entire, religious-based regime of institutionalized discrimination and terror of non-Jews everyone not suffering from JDS or conditioned philo-Semitism knows it to be.
Because Witty also suffers from Self Righteous Liberal Syndrome, he can’t bear to admit to himself that Judaism is a deeply conservative religion, and hence, in its personification, is going to produce a deeply conservative regime. He and other liberal Zionist Jews would rather imagine Israel as a progressive ethnic utopia that has been forced into conservative defensive positions as a result of its neighborhood.
This is a common mindset of diaspora Judaism, which has been indoctrinated for hundreds of years to see itself as besieged and threatened (hence the need to circle the wagons/prevent any out-breeding), while it simultaneously has been conditioned (again, by conservative keepers of Zion) to send out operatives to undermine and de-stabilize the surrounding majority by employing liberal tactics such as attacks on the majority’s religion (ACLU, ADL), economics (Wall Street chicanery) and culture (Hollywood smut).
Witty and other “liberal” Jewish operatives might not even know it, but they are the product of deeply conservative keepers of Zion, and doing operational work on their behalf. Because they need to internalize liberalism to a certain extent to effectively do their work, they then suffer from cognitive dissonance when Israel’s deep conservatism is thrown in their faces, hence the retreat into JDS and SRLS. These robots aren’t programmed to let logic, morality or and intellectual consistency get in the way of their destructive mission. They are programmed to destroy the cohesion of the gentile “opposition,” and to shut down when liberal standards are held up to the home base of Zion. Some, like Witty, also wind up producing lame, unconvincing rationales seeking to explain away or refute Zion’s fascism.
You can tell a real advocate of justice when they use the term "operative" to describe someone's politics or perspectives.
I no longer find it hard to believe that given the vengeful nature of jewish national culture, it is universally considered a point of jewish honor to impose population reduction programs on nations that have a record of supporting or even tolerating nazism, which as is well known attempted a population war against the jews.