I remain baffled why the mainstream media isn't doing stories about the war for the Jews between McCain and Obama, because the rhetoric is so extreme on the Republican side. The latest Republican Jewish Coalition ad presents Israel and the U.S. as sharing identical interests. RJC head Matt Brooks says, "The weak and naive foreign policy espoused by Sen. Obama is dangerous for the U.S. and dangerous for Israel." Speaks of "anti-Israel friends and advisors." Brzezinski again. The man who helped negotiate Camp David.
This is just what the old anti-Zionists warned us about, the complete confusion on the part of American Jews about which country is theirs (as Jeff Blankfort, who told me about this, reminds). And as John Mearsheimer said in Illinois 10 days ago, No countries ever share identical interests over a long period. That is the nature of the world. Oh what a mess the Israel lobby has made.
Meantime, Haaretz has a story about French President Sarkozy's impatience with Obama's position on Iran, which he reportedly regards as "immature" and threatening to the western front against Iran. Haaretz credits an Israeli source for the window on Sarkozy's thinking. Part of Sarkozy's attitude would seem to be turfy: doesn't want Obama doing an end run on Iran… How long before the RJC gets a-holt of this?
Related posts:
{ 16 comments }
You form some odd conclusions from things you hear.
ITS OK for Jews, or others, to care about Israel, even to care about Israel moreoso or more publicly than they express care about the US.
Make the BETTER ARGUMENT, rather than the better character assassination.
Nice try Richard, but our friend Phil is too far gone. All his sources are now anti-Israel ones–all others are paid off by the Jews, you see!
The subtlety is gone–he's become like his posters, people for whom Jews form the center of a worldview.
He's one step away from cheering on suicide bombers. Not becoming one, mind you, indeed not BECOMING anything because he's an incredible coward. But lending them his sympathy. Dead Jews make his legs get all tingly.
The mainstream media is protecting the radical Israeli policies by not broadcasting them. If the American people knew how aggressive and violent Isreal and its American allies realy are, they might reconsider their subsidies to Israel.
"ITS OK for Jews, or others, to care about Israel, even to care about Israel moreoso or more publicly than they express care about the US."–Witty
Sounds like Witty is channeling the old German American Bund.
Of course a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel. For TWENTY YEARS Obama supported Jeremiah Wright, who gave a life time achievement award to Jew Hater Louis Farrakhan … Obama's affiliations are riddled with Pro Palestinian – Anti Israel supporters. Obama will say, or do anything to get elected … but, once elected, he'll throw Israel under the bus in a heartbeat, just like he threw his friend of 20 years under the bus, for personal ambition and political expediency.
Weiss: "This is just what the old anti-Zionists warned us about, the complete confusion on the part of American Jews about which country is theirs"
By "the old anti-Zionist," I assume you are referring to conservative prophets like Pat Buchanan who were well aware of the Nation of Zion's (NOZ) capacity for treachery, back-stabbing and mass-murder, having educated themselves on the havoc that the Jewish Bolsheviks wrought in formerly Christian Russia.
What is it with the Nozis that drives them to the destruction of every country and region they inhabit, from Russia to America to Palestine? Are they seeking vengeance? Is it part of their materialist agenda? Are they just innately evil, and thus project destruction?
In the end, I suppose it really doesn't matter. They are what they are, and need to be identified, isolated and immobilized. Weiss, an anti-Nozi Jew, is doing the world a great service. I just wish there were more with his courage of both Jewish and gentile background.
Weiss is quickly becoming a persecuted prophet himself, who will also be proven right in the end.
Since Sen. Obama threw the Rev. Wright under the bus in order to win election, Sen. Obama will throw the Palestinians under the bus to win reelection. Until Americans understand the brutality and aggression of Israel, the Palestinians will continue to be victims of America's military gifts to Israel. Sadly, President Obama will not be the great communicator of Palestinian misery. He wants to live.
"In the end, I suppose it really doesn't matter."
If only we could answer this seemingly easy decidability problem! There is always at least one asymptotically decreasing strategy to vengeance. But evil is by design. We cannot end evil and any effort to atenuate it results only in it being thrown upon later generations with greater intensity. Vengeance is not destiny, evil is.
"Part of Sarkozy's attitude would seem to be turfy"
Yeah, and the other part's because he's been a Zionist tool from the get.
"ITS OK for Jews, or others, to care about Israel, even to care about Israel moreoso or more publicly than they express care about the US."
It's OK if you're okay with putting American Jews' loyalty to their own country in question. I'm not.
"We cannot end evil"
True enough, but we can identify, isolate and immobilize evil, vengeance and agenda all if we have the courage, the will, and the faith.
Alexander Cockburn wrote an excellent article on Obama on Sunday. How anyone who considers themselves a "progressive" could vote for this guy is beyond me. If you get beyond the "change" theme of his campaign and look at where his funding comes from, who he's surrounded himself with, and statements that he's made and votes that he has cast (as Cockburn illustrates), he offers absolutely nothing new. He is status quo:
"Obama invokes change. Yet never has the dead hand of the past had a "reform" candidate so firmly by the windpipe. Is it possible to confront America's problems without talking about the arms budget? The Pentagon is spending more than at any point since the end of the Second World War. In "real dollars" – an optimistic concept these days – the $635bn (£400bn) appropriated in fiscal 2007 is 5 per cent above the previous all-time high, reached in 1952. Obama wants to enlarge the armed services by 90,000. He pledges to escalate the US war in Afghanistan; to attack Pakistan's territory if it obstructs any unilateral US mission to kill Osama bin Laden; and to wage a war against terror in a hundred countries, creating a new international intelligence and law enforcement "infrastructure" to take down terrorist networks. A fresh start? Where does this differ from Bush's commitment on 20 September 2001, to an ongoing "war on terror" against "every terrorist group of global reach" and "any nation that continues to harbour or support terrorism"?
Whatever drawdown of troops in Iraq that does take place in the event of Obama's victory will be a brief hiccup amid the blare and thunder of fresh "resolve". In the event of Obama's victory, the most immediate consequence overseas will most likely be brusque imperial reassertion. Already, Joe Biden, the shopworn poster boy for Israeli intransigence and Cold War hysteria, is yelping stridently about the new administration's "mettle" being tested in the first six months by the Russians and their surrogates. Obama is far more hawkish than McCain on Iran.
After eight years of unrelenting assault on constitutional liberties by Bush and Cheney, public and judicial enthusiasm for tyranny has waned. Obama has preferred to stand with Bush and Cheney. In February, seeking a liberal profile in the primaries, Obama stood against warrantless wiretapping. His support for liberty did not survive for long. Five months later, he voted in favour and declared that "the ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool".
As a political organiser of his own advancement, Obama is a wonder. But I have yet to identify a single uplifting intention to which he has remained constant if it has presented any risk to his progress. We could say that he has not yet had occasion to adjust his relatively decent stances on immigration and labour-law reform. And what of public funding of his campaign? Another commitment made becomes a commitment betrayed. His campaign treasury is a vast hogswallow that, if it had been amassed by a Republican, would be the topic of thunderous liberal complaint.
Obama's run has been the negation of almost every decent progressive principle, with scarcely a bleat of protest from the progressives seeking to hold him to account. The Michael Moores stay silent. Obama has crooked the knee to bankers and Wall Street, to the oil companies, the coal companies, the nuclear lobby, the big agricultural combines. He is more popular with Pentagon contractors than McCain, and has been the most popular of the candidates with Washington lobbyists. He has been fearless in offending progressives, constant in appeasing the powerful.
So no, this is not an exciting or liberating moment in America's politics. If you want a memento of what could be exciting, go to the website of the Nader-Gonzalez campaign and read its platform on popular participation and initiative. Or read the portions of Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr's platform on foreign policy and constitutional rights. The standard these days for what the left finds tolerable is awfully low. The more the left holds its tongue, the lower the standard will go."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/alexander-cockburn-obama-the-firstrate-republican-973691.html
"Change" in this country will come from politicians like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Paul urged his supporters to vote for ANY third-party candidate (not just Libertarian Bob Barr) because it will send a message and because any of the three (Barr, McKinney, Nader) represent REAL change. Kucinich said that he was prouder of many of the Republicans in the House who voted against the bailout than he was of fellow Democrats. These are men who are aware of the two-party charade and are trying to tell the American people to wake up and take action. A vote for Obama is not going to help.
The French Embassy puts out a statement denying the Haaretz report that an Israeli official said President Sarkozy was troubled by his Iran policy:
The remarks attributed by the newspaper Haaretz to the president of the French Republic concerning Sen. Obama's positions on Iran are groundless. To the contrary, the in-depth discussions between the president of the Republic and Sen. Obama on Iran during their meeting in Paris in July demonstrated a broad convergence of views on this issue. President Sarkozy and Sen. Obama agree to oppose Iran's development of a military nuclear capability.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Sarkozy_calls_Iran_remarks_groundless.html
The Magnes Zionist: The Israeli Government's secret war.
I was puzzled about the Haaretz article, that makes sense.
Who needs Haaretz to show which way the winds blow? Just follow Senator Lieberman and you will see how to vote.
Comments on this entry are closed.