Liberals like to deceive themselves about Jewish power

Bernard Avishai (author of a fine book called The Hebrew Republic) is coming to D.C. for the J Street conference and has a great post attacking Jeffrey Goldberg’s typically-snaky stance on the conference (Goldberg seems to be re-migrating right). Avishai also said this lately about how the Israel lobby works, and I need to take him on:


the key to AIPAC’s emergence was a Manichean view from America; the fight against the Evil Empire, or since 9/11, the clash of civilizations. In this drama, Israel became cast as America’s biggest regional aircraft carrier. AIPAC has succeeded by staying close to American hardliners, arguing against pressuring Israel (to give up territory, to stop settlements, etc.) for the same reason a basketball coach will not foolishly demoralize his slightly brazen power-forward. At the center of the argument was a way of thinking about American hegemony in a dangerous world.

YOU CAN SAY that AIPAC was misguided, that it’s even become a pernicious force, but you can’t deny that it got its strategic premises ordered properly. One cannot just assume that the Congress will care what Jews want. One has to start with America’s foreign policy strategy and then apply its logic to the Middle East.

The error here is an important one. It is that American power is American power, and Jews are just bit players. The heart of the argument is that American support for Israel arises from American superpower interests as understood by "hardliners." Thus the statement, "One cannot just assume that the Congress will care what Jews want."

The reason it is important to take this argument on is that it is the now-traditional deception that liberals practice on themselves about American power politics: Jews are outsiders in American society. Liberals perform this self-deception because they do not want to be guilty of echoing "anti-Semitic tropes," as the saying goes, and they do not want to foster pogroms. I understand the concern.

The problem is that Avishai is flat wrong. And until liberals wrestle with the real phenomenon of Jewish power, their analysis of foreign policy will be limited and their action ineffective.

Avishai’s claims that American hardliners want the settlement program to continue, and  "One cannot just assume that the Congress will care what Jews want" are absurd. Over and over, American presidents have said they oppose the colonization program; over and over these instincts have been nullified politically because of the Jewish presence in the power structure. The Senate is dominated by Democrats, and 1/5 of them are Jews, even though Jews are just 2 percent of the population. The Washington Post has said that over half the money given to the Democratic Party comes from Jews. Obama’s top two political advisers are Jewish, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. The news lately has been dominated by Obama aides Kenneth Feinberg and Larry Summers. And what does it mean that the Treasury Sec’y gets off the phone with Obama to confer immediately with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman and Jamie Dimon of Morgan (Dimon’s Jewish; Blankfein would seem to be)? As I have frequently said, the biggest money game in town on the Republican side is Sheldon Adelson, a Zionist Jew, who got engaged in 2000 with the specific aim of nullifying the "peace process." Today is Obama frustrated by "hardliners"? No: he’s frustrated by the likes of Chuck Schumer, who refuses to go to J Street.

More on Jews in the Establishment: In the last week or so I typically found myself counting Jewish names in media broadcasts. Everyone from Ezra Klein commenting on Charlie Rose about the Congress to Andrew Ross Sorkin on Terry Gross yesterday, talking financial policy, to Brian Lehrer having on three different Jewish journalists today, and one of them, Nina Totenberg, kvelling about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Last week on Charlie Ross, the political theorist Michael Sandel, who I believe is Jewish, said that the chief criterion of a society’s view of justice is not how it deals with killers but how it confers honors and recognition. Well our society confers honors and recognition on Jews way out of proportion to other groups. I don’t see this imbalance as a political issue, except as it touches on questions of Jewish identity and support for Israel. Because support for Israel is today a tenet of American Jewish identity construction– Ezra Klein’s criticism of the Gaza war being a heretical one inside Jewish life, Daniel Schorr’s Zionism being far more representative. And to think that that the Jewish presence in the media is not also a factor in the disastrous American foreign policy re the Middle East is not to think at all. Avishai’s analysis evades this issue.

The Israel lobby is powerful for a lot of reasons. Because it’s a special interest, and because it cares more than anyone else. But also because of the Jewish presence in the Establishment. It is a piece of heartwarming liberal nostalgia to put the blame for the settlements on big bad American hardliners. Like Chomsky talking about corporations–that’s how the world works. 

But just consider America’s "foreign policy strategy," as Avishai puts it. In Iraq, that strategy has called for negotiations with terrorist groups who killed Americans so as to make a political solution, it has called for an end to the occupation of Iraq, and investigating atrocities by American troops. We suspend all those standards when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Why? In a word, because of American Jewish engagement on these issues. Failing to acknowledge this reality does not serve readers, not does it serve the necessary process of soul-searching inside the Jewish community over our responsibility for the denial of Palestinian freedom.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in American Jewish Community, Israel Lobby, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics

{ 45 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Pingback: Liberals like to deceive themselves about Jewish power | JewPI

  2. Again,
    You mistake Jewish names for “Jewish predominance”.

    When liberal Jews kvell about the presence of liberal Jews in positions of responsibility (distinct from “power”), they are more kvelling that someone that thinks like them, that shares their values, is in position of authority/power.

    Liberal Jews similarly kvell about the presence of liberal Unitarians, or liberal Quakers, expressing their values professionally in positions of responsibility.

    I do. I assume that I don’t know what others’ ethnicity is. My name, Witty, is not particularly a Jewish name. A few Jewish Witty’s are known in New York fashion circles (Witty Brothers suits), and in my region there are non-Jewish Witty’s that run a chain of funeral homes. “Are you related to the … Witty’s”?

    The point is that I DON’T count Jewish names. I know Cohen’s, Levi’s, and Weiss’s that aren’t Jewish. I know Smith’s that are. I know Witty’s that are, and Witty’s that aren’t.

    I get the possibility of your thesis that Jews don’t need to fear their suppression as much as they do. There is a point to that, and also a very very savage irony that conflicts with that point.

    That irony is the degree and enthusiasm of assimilated German, Polish, Hungarian, French, Iranian Jews for their host country, that responded to that comfort of assimilation by purges and genocide.

    I consider fear to be information, not a basis of action. I hope that you concur. I DIFFER from you in your interpretation of expression or noting of fear, as action, as statement.

    Rather than respond to the neo-conservatives and drifting neo-liberals by stating “that is only a fear. Please don’t neglect that, but don’t presume that fear is current reality”.

    Your response to the presence of fear, has been, “Your fear is irrational. Your feeling is irrational. It should not be.”

    Its the difference between the liberal considered view, and the radical view, that similarly ACTS (harrasses) on the exageration of their fears into imagined reality.

    • It is irrational to ask that Palestinians not be afraid, not experience their traumas as pain, not experience their disappointment as disappointment, not experience the presence of a norm that it is utterly foreign as foreign.

      It is similarly irrational to ask politically and historically aware Jews, to not note that fascism is possible even in the best of times (particularly those like Herzl who did endeavor to assimilate but experienced the understood impossibility of it), that anti-semitism exists as an undercurrent and in some settings as a norm.

      • Citizen says:

        Of course, that’s why Mel Gibson made his jesus movie and neo-nazis study the talmud.

      • Citizen says:

        Meanwhile, although Witty says his brain never registers who is a jew and who is not because that is irrelevant to both American domestic and foreign policy (you know, don’t count the number of blacks on a pro basketball or football team), the truth
        is that it does matter, and equally so, whether one is an Arab or Persian American, or not. I apologize for the article I am copying here because it’s long, but there is no link to it available to me, and because it’s authors are banned on this blog as far as I know:

        Whither After the Goldstone Report?
        Karin Friedemann

        The debate over the Goldstone Report is a huge distraction from the real problem: the Report’s inadequacy and the futility of bringing the case to the International Criminal Court. The Report itself, written by a Zionist Jew, is extremely flawed and biased in favor of Israel. Richard Goldstone’s daughter Nicole told Israeli Army Radio (in Hebrew) that her father, as head of the UN Fact Finding Commission on the Gaza Conflict, had actually softened accusations against Israel. Goldstone’s Report creates a fictional equality of power and obligation between Hamas and the State of Israel. In addition, it incorrectly tries to fit both within the same legal framework, as Goldstone misapplies the Geneva Conventions to Hamas.

        The Geneva Conventions apply to Israel because Israel is a state and a signatory while post-WW2 Nuremberg Law provides the appropriate legal framework for resistance movements like Hamas. The Nuremberg indictment of the Nationalist Socialist Government concerning German conquests and the Sudetenland, which was annexed to the Reich under international agreement, charges (International Military Tribunal, vol. 1, p. 63):

        “In certain occupied territories purportedly annexed to Germany the defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavored to assimilate these territories politically, culturally, socially, and economically into the German Reich. They endeavored to obliterate the former national character of these territories. In pursuance of their plans, the defendants forcibly deported inhabitants who were predominantly non-German and replaced them by thousands of German colonists.”

        If State of Israel replaces Germany, Zionist State replaces German Reich, and Jewish replaces German, the Nuremberg accusation precisely describes Zionist goals from the start of the Zionist movement until the present day. Until Israel negotiates an agreement with the resistance, all Jewish colonists today just like German colonists back then are legitimate targets for the resistance anywhere throughout the occupied lands of Historical Palestine.

        The Palestinian-Jewish conflict has existed since before I was born. The UN essentially caused the conflict and has not solved it. Current UN actions show no evidence of bringing any improvement. Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting to get different results. Maybe we should try something else besides asking for UN help.

        Furthermore, why waste time with the ICC? Even if it ruled against Israel, the ICC does not possess the power to enforce its decisions. One can only conclude that the Arabs are so traumatized by perpetual injustice that they confuse ineffective posturing with effective legal tactics.

        Few Americans would ever argue that Jewish and Arab Americans should receive unequal treatment under US law. Yet the Department of Justice is unconstitutionally selectively targeting and prosecuting individuals and organizations. Jews file terror victim lawsuits against Palestinian organizations; for example a US judge ordered the PLO to pay $116 million to a Jewish American family; but no one files lawsuits on behalf of non-Jewish American citizens, who like Rachel Corrie and Suraideh Gharbieh have been victims of IDF terrorism.

        In the American legal and political process, Jews seem privileged over non-Jews, thanks to efforts of the Israel Lobby, which is actively engaged in Conspiracy Against Rights (US Code Title18, 241). Yet no one in government or media discusses the situation. Obama administration Zionists want to bury the Goldstone Report because it provides specific evidence under US law that the IDF is a terrorist organization (e.g., paragraph 798):

        “With regard to the shooting of Muhammad Hekmat Abu Halima and Matar Abu Halima, the Mission notes that the Israeli soldiers had ordered the tractor on which they were transporting the wounded to stop and had ordered the two cousins (aged 16 and 17) to come down. They had complied with those instructions and were standing next to the tractor, when the Israeli soldiers standing on the roof of a nearby house opened fire on them.”

        US anti-terrorism law is clear with regard to aiding and abetting, material aid, and conspiracy to aid terrorism. Practically all Israel advocates should be arrested forthwith, and their assets should also be seized. Such is the current US practice whenever Jewish Zionist groups or individuals accuse Arab or Muslim organizations of terrorist ties under flimsy, ridiculous or counterfactual evidence.

        Because Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey is clearly not applying US law to American Jews in the same way that he applies it to American Arabs and Muslims, he is preventing enforcement of US law in time of war and should face immediate charges for Seditious Conspiracy (US Code Title 18, 2384).

        Criminal complaints should be filed with US law enforcement officials in order to bring charges against all Zionists violating US law or subverting the US government. If some number of Arab or Muslim American lawyers started to work on the project, US-based legal processes could start within a matter of weeks.

        Karin Friedemann is a Boston-based writer on Middle East affairs and US politics. She is Director of the Division on Muslim Civil Rights and Liberties for the National Association of Muslim American Women. Joachim Martillo contributed to this article.

  3. DG says:

    I can’t imagine how anyone not counting Jewish names could make sense of current events. Would they think that the “Joel Leyden” behind ungoldstonereport.com was a public-spirited benefactor?

    So long as Jewish effectively means Zionist, and so long as Zionism means an antagonism toward the rest of the world, we are forced to identify our enemies out of self-defense.

    By the way, my standard technique is to plug the name plus “Jewish” into Google and see what associations turn up. Anyone else have any more efficient techniques?

    • Dan Kelly says:

      That’s what I do. I’ll also plug in “Israel” after the name to look for any connection to Israel. I’m always happy when I notice no love for Israel on the part of the person I’m inquiring about. The most recent nice surprise is the owner of the Indianapolis Colts, Jim Irsay: link to ynet.co.il

      Now Robert Kraft, on the other hand…

      • Scott says:

        Steve Sailer parses the question of George Steinbrenner (and others).
        link to isteve.blogspot.com

      • Donald says:

        I gotta say, this is a creepy habit you guys have.

      • Dan Kelly says:

        I gotta say, this is a creepy habit you guys have.

        Then this whole blog is based on a “creepy habit.” I think it’s fascinating…

      • potsherd says:

        I’m with Donald. Isn’t the root of actual anti-Semitism in obsessing about who is and who isn’t Jewish?

        It may be eye-opening at times, but it feels kind of creepy.

      • potsherd says:

        You guys are making the case for a Jewish political monolith, and I don’t think it’s so.

        The greatly-demonized George Soros is Jewish. (How much of the hate directed at Soros is because he is Jewish and thus a traitor in the eyes of AIPAC?)

        Russell Feingold, poster boy for PEP, was one of the leaders in the opposition to the Iraq war. How did his acknowledged Zionophilia play against this?

      • Isn’t the root of actual anti-Semitism in obsessing about who is and who isn’t Jewish?

        In that case, The Forward must be the most anti-Semitic newspaper in America today!

        I do find myself wondering whether a person is Jewish or Zionist based on their statements and action. I don’t hold anything against them for being Jewish; Zionist is another matter, admittedly.

        Go ahead and contrast that with the sentiments of Elie Weisel cited here recently, from 1962, that Jews should hate Germans (not Nazis, Germans) with a special passion, indefinitely, irrationally, incontrovertibly.

      • DG says:

        Donald, of course it’s creepy. But how else can you determine the extent of Zionist power in our society? From a priori principles?

        (Oops, I suspect “Zionist power” is going to creep you out too.)

      • Citizen says:

        Why shouldn’t, e.g., an American born and raised, wonder why there is a Holocaust Museum on precious DC ground, but not, e.g., a native American museum? And how many native Americans are in congress? Or in the MSM, telling us what is what? Why is it after 60 plus years we are still going after old men for supporting the Nazi regime, and Obama cannot even face the facts in the Goldstone Report? Why is David Duke on the outer fringe of our society, but not Lieberman–either one? Why is it that jewish pundits can impeach the credibililty of anyone speaking about USA enabling of Israel’s de facto policies that may not be in the best interests of the USA, Israel, or humanity, by simply accusing them in blatent or discreet veribage of being “anti-semites?” Why is it that jews can count their own kind as a litmus test on any issue, but nobody else can? What’s wrong with looking very closely at the background of anybody hogging the USA MSM, telling us what we as Americans should do? Especially since everybody always claims to speak in behalf
        of “the American people,” and/or Humanity? Why shouldn’t we, as American citizens with a duty to apply informed consent or dissent, look at all that is not taught in High School history or politics classes? How many regulars here on this blog still go along with what they were taught in High School or Undergraduate college about the world as it was or is? I bet, none. Shouldn’t we all factor in the
        background of anyone who is in the limelight, telling us what we need to do with
        our blood, sweat, and tears? In a way, the whole problem is something like the usual generation gap, where the Parents want to teach them from their experience,
        and yet the kids have a somewhat different experience. Both are full of a sense of
        righteous justice, and neither are totally wrong–yes, Jews once suffered from
        pogroms, but how about being a white kid bussed into the a violent ghetto to set history right, or a Palestinian kid facing an Israeli tank–they don’t count? Is it really true that the whites of the USA are just dumbasses sporting bibles and guns, and are all those Palestinian kids just anti-semites, dumb rascists too?

        • GibsonBlock says:

          “Why is it after 60 plus years we are still going after old men for supporting the Nazi regime”

          The guys we go after didn’t just support the Nazi regime as you put it. That must a deliberate whitewash. They worked in the slavery and killing system.

          A separate issue: even if you were against the war in Gaza, it’s hard to equate it with what these “supporters of the regime” did.

    • Donald says:

      Forced to identify our enemies? I mean, wtf?

      I despise the way Israel’s war crimes are covered up and the way people are accused of antisemitism for being critical of Zionism, but there’s false antisemitism and then there’s the real thing. Checking up on people’s ethnicity because you have to “identify our enemies”–good lord.

      • Dan Kelly says:

        I don’t endorse the “forced to identify our enemies” line. Those are not my words.

        I do investigate prominent individuals in media, entertainment, politics, business, etc. I am curious to know if they are Jewish and, more importantly, what ties, if any, they may have to Israel or Israeli-centric organizations.

      • Yeah, Donald, I think there’s validity to your concern. Some people really do see organized “Jewry” as the enemy.

        That’s not the case with me or with many of the posters here, IMO.

        But considering the degree to which Zionism is enshrined in Jewish institutional life, it can illuminate a person’s motivations somewhat to find out that they are Jewish. I frankly don’t see what’s wrong with that.

        Imagine if you were having a conversation about baseball with somebody, and they seemed very biased against certain teams. Wouldn’t it make sense to wonder who they rooted for?

  4. “In the last week or so I typically found myself counting Jewish names in media broadcasts. ”

    During the run-up to the Iraq War, I began to pay close attention to the number of people in the media who were, or seemed to be, Jewish. It’s a habit that has persisted since. Somewhat to my own chagrin and embarrassment, I became quite adept at this game. It seems strangely pertinent.

    For what it’s worth, here are some conclusions I reached:

    About two-thirds of the employed commentators and reporters for NPR are Jewish. About one-half of the persons interviewed or quoted are Jewish.

    At any given time, about 70% of the regular political columnists at both the Washington Post and The New York Times are Jewish. More than 50% of the reporters at each paper are Jewish. I suspect that similar percentages apply at the WSJ, but I don’t read it often enough to be sure.

    Across the board in American television, about two-thirds of all (non-uniformed military) commentators, guests, or interviewees commenting on American foreign policy issues are Jewish. Likewise, financial and economic issues. About one-half of such persons (excluding elected officials) commenting on other issues are Jewish.

    At what I judged to be the 20 most prominent political journals on the web, in the aggregate at least half of the regular writers are Jewish.

    I arrived at additional estimates in other media areas, but will let it go at that.

    • Dan Kelly says:

      I realize yours is hardly a “scientific study,” but my own observations would seem to be in line with yours. And even if the stated percentages are off by 15-20 percent or more, it’s still an absolutely amazing “coincidence” that 2 percent of the population would end up holding such a disproportionate number of positions in media.

      How much of this is due to discrimination in hiring and promotion? I mean, is it possible that there just aren’t that many non-Jews interested in these positions? That would seem to be absurd. Are the non-Jews that aspire to be in these positions just not as qualified, or as good at their jobs, as their Jewish counterparts? How do we explain this incredible disproportionality?

      • Todd says:

        Can you really listen to Terry Gross or Keith Olbermann and not come away thinking that many other people could do the exact same thing? Gross stammers through her show, and Olbermann is on par with Hannity. The MSM is pretty lousy in all forms, so I would guess that the Jewish members are nothing special. The question is why are so many mediocre Jews in the positions they are in! Phil has hit on that before.

      • Dan Kelly says:

        My “questions” concerning the disproportionate number of Jewish personalities in media were largely rhetorical. As you say, Phil has hit on it before, as have many others, and it’s been admitted to on at least one occasion by someone in the upper rungs of the Jewish media establishment: he will hire a Jewish person ahead of a gentile because he feels safer with the Jewish person’s positions vis a vis Israel.

      • Citizen says:

        Yeah, veddy interesting, as the guy with the German WW2 helmet use to say
        on that famous US comedy show. WASPs like Phil’s wife, use to usually prefer their own
        ilk, and although that’s only natural for jews and gentiles alike or blacks and whites, etc; in earlier times it really meant something since WASPs had the power to implement right or wrong; now, as Phil has often said, the establishment is
        much less WASP than Jewish in terms of which group is on top. Forbes can help you see this, or a head count of congress or those in high appointed fedral slots. Name one group interest the congressional black caucaus defers to other than the
        Israel First crowd. An average American can simply see with his eyes the make up of the pro basketball teams or football teams. So, those eyes can’t see anything in
        us domestic and foreign policy? When sports is no important than our nation’s foreign policy, the scales will fall from all eyes. This means that they won’t fall in time to prevent WW3, or even in time to stop the milking of the blood, sweat, and tears of the USA population for values that population does not embrace.

    • DG says:

      My own estimates would be almost identical, CMI.

      (I remember when the Canadian magazine Adbusters first ran an article about the neocons way back in 2004 entitled “Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?”, with an asterisked list and everything. It was the first time, that I’m aware of, that the polite media had dared speak about the elephant. I was shocked, I imagine much like Donald feels today.)

  5. “Well our society confers honors and recognition on Jews way out of proportion to other groups. I don’t see this imbalance as a political issue, except as it touches on questions of Jewish identity and support for Israel.”

    I agree that this imbalance is a major issue in regard to support for Israel and US Mideast policy. But I do not agree that the imbalance would not be a political or social issue otherwise. When such a preponderance of influence is wielded by a tiny minority in a society that purports to be an equal-opportunity democracy, that will inevitably become a political and social problem in the minds of the majority.

    • Dan Kelly says:

      When such a preponderance of influence is wielded by a tiny minority in a society that purports to be an equal-opportunity democracy, that will inevitably become a political and social problem in the minds of the majority.

      What percentage of the majority even recognizes it?

      • “What percentage of the majority even recognizes it? ”

        This is a question I have pondered since 9/11. It is certainly hard to make a judgment because of the very strong taboos surrounding the matter. To admit to having noticed the phenomenon exposes one to the suspicion of antisemitism (very broadly defined), which has become the most opprobrious of all hate-crimes. There are many lines of work in which even a faint taint of suspected (however fictitious) antisemitism can ruin one’s career.

        Given the unusual force of the taboos serving to disconnect thought from speech on the subject, but piecing together, in a most informal way, what evidence I could from personal experience and eclectic reading habits, I have the impression that this percentage among the general population (largely non-antisemitic) is higher than one might think. The percentage of people aware of the issue seems to have been increasing since 9/11, especially among the more literate half of the population. (Again, this is only one observer’s assessment based on limited information.)

        One can be fairly sure that a thorough scientific study of the subject spanning the last half-century would never get written, much less published.

      • As a caveat to my comment just above, I would mention a conversation with my sister about two years ago. I casually asked who her favorite political columnists were. She replied, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and George Will. Knowing that she is a Christian Zionist, I asked if she was aware that the first two are Jewish. She was quite surprised to learn that. I moved on to another subject.

      • Citizen says:

        CMI, this is typical. There are way more jews who count jewish heads with flashlights than the tiny percentage of the 98% non-jewish heads who do the the same thing. The difference arises because every Christian knows all about the Shoah, which is melted into their brain along with Jim Crow from infancy. The cement for this is that the USA congress
        knows if it speaks out against any Likud First policy, it will be cancelled.

      • Citizen says:

        Further, there’s a big difference between Christian morality, which is basically humanitarian, and Jewish morality, which always seeks tribal continuity first.
        There’s a good reason why the Jesus narrative is thought of as perfecting the
        Jewish concept of Judiasm as Anne Coulter put it. Personally, I’m an agnostic.
        But I do see that neither Christianity nor Judiasm as implemented over the centuries
        is something to believe in; that goes for Islam too. As to the Asian thought process,
        for example, Buddism, or Shinto–they are useless too for anyone wishing to
        find a practical template for the highest aspirations of mankind within the context
        of the nation state or even a perfect UN.

    • Any concentration of power is of concern. A concentration of power in a hostile minority with a long-standing historical grudge against the majority is especially alarming.

      • Citizen says:

        Yep, that point about the grudge is apt. It applies to the Jews, and to the Blacks.
        It also applied to the Germans as a result of the Versailles Treaty, no? And so things go, right up to Dresden, and now Gaza.

  6. Citizen says:

    Now, let’s take a look at the financial services industry (with five lobbists for every congress person), the big players–wanna start back
    when they put the kabosh on anyone daring to suggest OTC derivatives should be regulated, taken out of their black box and made transparent? Looks like they’re still going strong, still big machers, now pretending maybe a tad of regulation would be OK…
    a tiny fig leaf perhaps, a slight nip n tuck around the edge of the black box…. wanna start Greenspan or Summers and–well you know the names…

  7. Excellent post!

    And until liberals wrestle with the real phenomenon of Jewish power, their analysis of foreign policy will be limited and their action ineffective.

    I would add it relates to domestic policy too. For example, look at all the painstaking conditionalities that were attached to the GM bailout, vs. how freely (and irresponsibly) far more money was doled out to big finance. Is part of it due to the different ethnic compositions of Main Street vs. Wall Street? Do our trade policies that destroyed the auto and other industries reflect that difference as well?

  8. Todd says:

    What I still find surprising is that Americans continue to approach this issue gingerly and as if it might not be the case that Jews do hold power out of proportion to their numbers, and exercise power undemocratically, in ways that tend to benefit Jewish interests mainly/only.

    I’m still waiting for the examination of Jewish influence to go beyond Israel/ME and the myths of Jewish involvement in the civil rights movement, to look at the wider role of Jewish influence on the nation over the last 60 years. America is a very different place than it was just 20 years ago, and much of the change has been bad for the nation, undemocratic, and often directly against the will of the vast majority of the legal citizens.

    The media and cultural elites (largely Jewish) are obsessed with how the majority deals with the minority. When does the discussion on the opposite begin? What does the minority (powerful or not) owe to the majority?

    • Citizen says:

      Not to worry, when the minority completely takes over–don’t forget the whites will be a minority nationally, not merely in many key urban regions, in about 30 years,
      then the 2% of Jews will be obsessed with how the new majority (Latinos-Blacks-Asians) deal with the Jews. It should be interesting if you should live so long, I will only suggest that neither the Latinos, Blacks, or Asian Americans feel any empathy
      or guilt regarding the Jews. Why should they?

      • Todd says:

        I’ll probably still be in the workforce in 30 years. I suppose the forces at work can’t be turned back peacefully, but revenge is never out of the question. Whatever the actual demographics are in 30 years, the dispossessed will not be a significant minority, and will still make up one of the largest single groups.

        To be honest, I’ve never understood the long-term reasoning behind the support for immigration and demographic change that almost every Jew that I have discussed the issue with puts forth. I don’t believe that Blacks, Asians and Latinos can successfully be played against one another the way that Whites and Blacks have been. The civil rights mythology will hold very little water with people who view themselves as victims–which will be pretty much every group if our experiment as a propositional nation goes sour.

  9. Chu says:

    You could write a book about this idea.
    Liberals often look pathetic in their stance on Israel and liberal justice.
    I’ve understood why many use the term fake liberal
    for Democrats in the US.

  10. Mooser says:

    Jeez I don’t worry about whether a person is Jewish, I worry about whether they are a Zionist. Doesn’t seem that hard to me.
    Look, things are changing. As little as five years from… hell it shopuld only take a years or two, whether a person is Jewish or Gentile will not be a sure pointer to whether they are Zionist or not. There will be far fewer Jewish ZIonists, and possibly many more Christian Zionists. Firast of all, Jews who have never been compelled before will feel they have to speak up, and many Gentiles are getting caught up in Christian ZIonism.

    None of that matters to you guys, tho. As far as your concerned, if a person is Jewish, they must be a Zionist supporter, and in the worst way and from the worst motives.
    But, I suppose, since you aren’t capable of thinking about people apart from the racial framework you need, that’s the way it’s going to be.

    So, America Fust cless, are you saying that all Jews who claim to be anti-Zionists are simply trying to trick Gentiles into trusting them. And all those posts about Jews re-thinking Zionism are just lies, right?

    • DG says:

      “I don’t worry about whether a person is Jewish, I worry about whether they are a Zionist.”

      But Google doesn’t have that search feature yet.

      If 90% of American Jews are Zionists, isn’t knowing whether or not an official is Jewish a helpful, if incomplete, piece of information for American citizens?

    • “Look, things are changing. As little as five years from… hell it shopuld only take a years or two, whether a person is Jewish or Gentile will not be a sure pointer to whether they are Zionist or not. There will be far fewer Jewish ZIonists ….”

      Let’s hope you are right.

  11. Mooser says:

    You guys really need to get into Gilad Atzmon! Thinks just like you do, and he plays dynomite Jazz saxaphone. He is really down with you on the essential nature of Jews, too.

    • Danaa says:

      Great guy, Gilad; and boy, do they hate his guts over there in the jewish/zionist versailles. Any quotation from him will get you the big A-S scarlet letter(s), if you are not jewish, and the S-H (self-hating) mark if you are. Almost as bad as quoting Ilan Pappe – he who is crucified for having hailed from israel. Ilan escaped for dear life just before the undertow claimed him. I can’t wait until Bernard joins his true bretherns somewhere out of there. I can see how the undertow is already reaching up to claim him as well (I read his blog religiously, having been most impressed with his “tragedy of zionism” book. didn’t finish the Hebrew Republic because I saw right off the bat evidence of that sickening undertow and it made my soft liberal heart bleed for him. Of course, gotta know it to see it…).

      Maybe some day you too, Mooser, will see the tragic, sad truth of it all…

      Though I am not sure your sense of humor will come through it intact.

  12. Pingback: Racism in Jewish Life | America at War