When people ask why Obama has capitulated to the prime minister of a tiny state– Bibi Netanyahu– various theories are offered about Health care first, or the economy, or Afghanistan, or oil. Few say directly: Netanyahu feels invulnerable because of the Israel lobby in the U.S. As readers of this site know, I am a bull on this issue: I think the lobby has a tremendous amount of power. And all efforts to poohpooh its influence strike me as foolish until such time as the media address it openly and vigorously, as they do, say, the gun lobby. Once there’s information and sunshine, we can argue about its magnitude.
The difficulty is that you cannot be plain about this matter without addressing the idea of Jewish influence. Israelis are often more plain about this. Anshel Pfeffer wrote in Haaretz the other day, "the most significant joint endeavor of America’s Jews [is] six decades of unswerving support for the Israeli government of the day." I.e., a hammerlock on U.S. policy. And last year at the NYPL, former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg described "two structures" built by Jews, one being Israel, the other "the semi-autonomous American Jewry, which was not here 150 years ago– powerful influence, access to the corridors of power, impact on the culture, and civilization… plus the infrastructure of the community of solidarity and fraternity and support system and education etc."
Obama’s crumple cannot be explained without talking about that influence, and Obama’s/Rahm Emanuel’s fears for a second term. Some of this power is media/Establishment presence, to which I was long a personal witness. (And yes I wonder why Nina Totenberg referred to Emanuel as "Rahm" three times in a report last night on NPR.) Some of it is financial. As former AIPAC boss Tom Dine told Helena Cobban lately of a political epiphany he had on the Kennedy campaign in 1980: "[Jews] were the kings in every city!"
The Jews were kings because of money. As I insist on stating, more than half of the money in Democratic politics comes from Jews, the richest group by religion in the U.S. The two baronial families that lifted Barack Obama in Chicago, the Crowns and the Pritzkers, are both Jewish (and one, the Crowns, includes fire-and-brimstone Israel supporters; I am not sure about the Pritzkers).
Money is famously the mother’s milk of politics, and the money that the lobby directs is playing a huge role in limiting debate of Israel/Palestine in the U.S. What follows are several items. The first three are from the recent J Street conference, which prompted this post. The later items are recycled:
–If you look at Video 5 here from J Street, at Minute 48 or so, Congressman Bob Filner speaks openly about the financial threat to a politician in going against the Israel lobby. "Campaign contributions," he explains, are the reason "why you get 400 votes for these measures" in support of Israel. "An economic weapon?" moderator Bob Franken ventures. "Of course," Filner says, with feeling. "On the issue of Israel, people are taking positions that could lead to war on the basis of…’Am I going to get a campaign contribution?’… The dangerous thing here is that people are making decisions– you could have nuclear war in this whole world, and they’re making it on narrow political, parochial grounds." [emphasis Weiss's]
What are those contributions worth? Filner says (at minute 25 or so) said that 10 years ago he voted against a resolution to condemn Khalid Muhammad, an associate of Louis Farrakhan who was making anti-Semitic speeches. Filner didn’t like what Muhammad was saying, but he felt that it wasn’t Congress’s place to condemn speech. "What about the First Amendment?" But only 10 people voted against it, Filner says. "You know you’re going to pay for that," he was told by fellow congressmen. "Then I started getting all these calls. I’m not sure which organization was behind it.I will tell you… on that vote I lost about $250,000 an election cycle in contributions. That’s intimidating to most of my colleagues. That kind of money… is an intimidating factor. Not many people would stand up to it."
–Also at J Street, Elissa Barrett, the executive director of the Progressive Jewish Alliance, in rationalizing her organization’s pitiful silence on Israel’s human rights record, said "we can’t be blase about our funders and how they stand with us." She said that "PJA has lost funders around this." Sad. Presumably she was referring to this type of lame statement in the midst of the Gaza war. This demonstrates that even in the leftleaning Jewish community, people are scared of the neoconservative shadow.
–Jonathan Chait of the New Republic warned J Street that because it was providing a forum for (mild) criticisms of Israel, a leading Democratic consultant had told him recently that he would have to advise political candidates to return contributions from the group.
–Back when Harvard professor Steve Walt co-authored his bombshell paper on the Israel lobby, Bernard Steinberg, director of Harvard’s Hillel center, brought up the money issue unprompted when I was interviewing him for the Nation: "I talked to someone in Harvard development and asked what the fallout had been, and he said, ‘It’s been seismic.’" Subsequently the New York Sun tried to maumau the Jewish benefactor of Walt’s chair at the school, Robert Belfer, and described "snowballing outrage from Harvard donors.
–When Lawrence Summers was forced out as Harvard’s president, Martin Peretz said it was out of "anti-Israel and even anti-Jewish animus" and threatened financial repercussions: "…[M]y own impression of wealthy alumni who were once my students is that Summers made them more generous… I know of at least three gifts in the $100 million range that were very likely to materialize and now are dicey."
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 51 comments }
I am at least beginning to understand, unfortunately, why you insist on conflating “Jews” and “Zionists”. And it’s pretty obvious: the rest of us get dragged along with those people by default. I find the conflation, strictly speaking, insulting, but it has a point. As I have said many times, anybody with the money and other resources can seize the Jewish narrative, and there is no established authourity to tell them “No”. To make it clear, as an example, that the Zionists are on their own, acting on their own and not as representatives for the Jewish community. But there is no one who can do that.
So nothing will change until enough American Jews feel either ashamed enough or endangered enough to sit up and start screaming “No!” And we can just about assume that any “J”ewish organisation formed for the purpose of acting on the I-P issues is co-opted.
But you wanna know something? It’s only a small minority, of any religion, who have such strong religious feelings (I do not, not, believe that Zionism is in any way a “religious feeling”) about saving their religion. For the biggest mass of Jews, when your religion makes you ashamed or endangers you, it’s a hell of a lot easier just to walk out. And that is what has happened, although nobody wants to admit it.
Someday %100 per cent of American Jews will be rabid Zionists! But a %100 of nothing is still, as Mr. Preston lyrically reminds us, nothin’.
Because, Mooser, it’s not about religion. That isn’t the glue. It’s tribalism. If you insist on reducing the phenomenon to religion, you will fatally misunderstand it.
Good way of putting it, potsherd. It has more to do with tribalism, especially since Jewishness is defined by Israel, and by many self-named Jews, not along strictly religious lines but along ethnic or affinity lines.
If you want to talk about white supremacy, you have to talk about whites and white attitudes. If you want to talk about Jewish exceptionalism, you have to talk about Jews and Jewish attitudes. Neither discussion means that ALL whites or ALL Jews are the same or have these corresponding attitudes, but refusing to talk about the source and nature of the attitudes because they are not held by all is to stunt and quash any discussion that could help eliminate the attitudes.
Mooser wrote:
“I do not, not, believe that Zionism is in any way a “religious feeling”….
Okay, but given it sure appears that a very large percentage of jews equate the health of Zionism with the health of judaism, what difference does it make?
Short version: the Israel Lobby has bought the US government.
I do not believe that the ZUSA has bought anything besides a 1200. dollar hammer
The people..GULIBLE USA brainwashed at every commercial and in every aspect by the infamous holocaust and the boo hoo,”we stand with israel” signs (which is an oximoron and should be taken down ) due to the fact not a single resolution or request has ever been followed by israel. The economic crisis by the mortgage and real estate banks credit cards and loan granted to israel has basically raped the zusa of any real future attempts at stability. The truth about nine eleven will never find enough people to listen and the ones that do are shut out or up. The patsies should come forward and show the world yes they are alive..for the moment at least that would be. People here that have been dumbed down include the state and federal agencies and supreme ass kisser court. truth is look around at who they are that is controlling all these and stop bloggin about and do something solid and concrete , since you need to write about how terrible it all is , put those words into actions real actions and stop pecking the keys. Whe you look into the mirror in the morning do not try and fool yourselves that you are righteous and blogging is your way of doing your part. Go to the three branches of government and un and criminal courts and demand the state hood be dismantled and the nukes dismantled along with the arrest of the former and current she and he devils that have been behind all the death and destruction of the very fabric of life, let alone the others.
RE: “…and the Jewish kings”
SEE – A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the “REALM”
(excerpt) A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, commonly referred to as the “Clean Break” report, was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then-Prime Minister of Israel.[1] The report explained a new approach to solving Israel’s security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on “Western values”. It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy.
WIKIPEDIA – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm
FROM merriam-webster.com/dictionary –
Main Entry: realm
Pronunciation: \ˈrelm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English realme, from Anglo-French, alteration of Old French reiame, from Latin regimen control — more at regimen
Date: 13th century
1 : kingdom 2
I disagree in the use of the term “THE” lobby, when even Walt/Mearsheimer describe a great deal of difference in perspectives of spokesmen and leaders of “THE” lobby’s goals and direction.
There is only one common trait that all of “THE” lobby articulates, and that is concern for an advocacy for the continuation of Israel as a secure Jewish state.
The variances occur with J Street stating that the way that Israel can be most secure is by good relations with its neighbors and international community, and what would otherwise compromise security concerns should be considered and constructed by treaty with third party glue.
J Street and most of AIPAC conclude that Israel should be Jewish AND democratic, with J Street emphasizing the democratic more than AIPAC.
Other groups in “THE” lobby vary. Some are revisionist in the Jabotinsky vein. Some function further to the left on some issues.
“THE” lobby is effective at non-binding votes. MOST lobbies slam-dunk those. The Goldstone vote was further afield, but I truly believe that most representatives didn’t understand the professionally defined limited scope of the report, and to quash something that is already professionally qualified, is an absurdity.
Even if the lobby is as powerful as Phil infers, then there is still the question of “so what”. ONLY, if that lobby sincerely distorts UN policy is that relevant. And, that is where the very wide variation of opinion within “THE” lobby comes into play. ONLY, if “THE” lobby were monolithic, could it be even rationally speculated “Israel caused the Iraq War” (and then on further investigation, particularly weighing evidence and representatives’ attitudes, that thesis would rationally be rejected as THE cause).
“THE” Israel lobby is not monolithic. Leaders within “THE” lobby agitated fiercely against the US going to war in Iraq, and leaders within “THE” lobby agitated fiercely for the US going to war in Iraq.
It doesn’t make sense except to a prejudicial, or conspiratorial, bent.
On the inside, an orange has segments. On the outside, it has a thick unitary rind.
Witty,
US policy since Nixon has been that the Jewish settlements are illegal. Efforts by successive presidents to curtail them have been opposed by AIPAC and the organized Jewish establishment. When presidents from Carter to Reagan have publicly admonished Israel for creating new Jewish settlements, the response by Israel was to build more settlements. Under Bush Senior, every time James Baker would make a trip to Israel, he would be greeted by a new Jewish settlement.
The response of all these presidents was limited, as it is for Obama, by the fact that Congress is securely in Israel’s pocket as scores of letters to presidents and resolutions that are almost never publicized in the nation’s media attest.
One of these days, we may again see the likes of an Eisenhower or GHWB in the White House who will have the courage to tell the American people the truth about who has a stranglehold on THEIR Congress. On each occasion, the polls have shown the American people to be overwhelmingly on the side of the president. That those who spoke out were Republicans was no accident. While about 25% of Republican funding comes from wealthy Jews, the Democratic Party is nothing more than a subsidiary of AIPAC and its friends. If Obama had looked down before he made his demands fro a settlement freeze, he would have noticed that his balls were missing. As was his lunch.
This is why the Zionists work overtime to condemn as antisemitic any suggestion that they control the US government. Because to a large extent, they do. And they are aware that revelation of this fact would indeed lead to actual antisemitism, resentment against “rich Jews”.
And a lot of Jews would rather see the truth suppressed than risk this, even while they know perfectly well that it is the truth.
What do you do with a truth that might not be “good for the Jews?” You lie, you cover up, you suppress, you indimidate.
And within “THE” Israel Lobby are prominent individuals that publicly oppose settlement construction, and write nasty letters to Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton for even appearing to cave to Netanyahu, AND prominent individuals that write to the same people asking them to cave more.
You write as if “THE” lobby were monolithic about settlements, when that is innaccurate.
Structure of “the semi-autonomous American Jewry, which was not here 150 years ago– powerful influence, access to the corridors of power, impact on the culture, and civilization… plus the infrastructure of the community of solidarity and fraternity and support system and education etc.”
Semi autonomy of Jews is nothing new:
“In Poland, … there was little question: Jews were Jews. With some exception, Jews neither considered themselves nor were they regarded by others as Polish or Polish Jews. As is well known, Jews in Poland were allowed to have their own laws and institutions. They were a nation unto themselves and they maintained their nationhood in Poland. From the time of their arrival and through the centuries, they sought to protect their way of life. They were not merely a separate religion but a tightly-knit community, leading life largely separate from Poles. They had their own
customs, culture, dress, schools, courts, community government, and language (in the 1930 census almost 80 percent declared Yiddish as their mother tongue). Menachem Begin’s father refused to learn Polish. In a word, the vast majority of Jews were unintegrated socially and culturally in the fabric of the larger society. They shared little or no national sentiment or common allegiance with the Poles. They and the Poles were almost strangers. They avoided association with the vast majority of the population, the Polish peasantry, not wanting to live like, or with, them.”
Ralph Slovenko, “On Polish-Jewish Relations,” The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, vol. 15 (Winter 1987): 597–687,
“Zionists, who dominated the joint committee of East European Jewish delegations at the [Paris] Peace Conference and enjoyed the support of the American Jewish Congress, demanded that Poland … recognize their Jewish residents as members of a distinct nation, with the right to collective representation at both state and international levels. This would entail the creation of a separate Jewish parliament in Poland, alongside a state parliament representing all the country’s inhabitants, and it would mean the creation of a Jewish seat at the League of Nations. In demanding formal, corporate, political/diplomatic status for a territorially dispersed nation, as
distinct from a state, the Zionists were challenging traditional notions about the indivisibility of state sovereignty …”
Aviel Roshwald, Ethnic Nationalism and the Fall of Empires: Central Europe, Russia and the Middle East, 1914–1923 (London and New York: Routledge, 2001),
Not just the USA: [YNET] Once Again Germans Supporting Nazism!.
“Jewishness is defined by Israel”
That is what the zionists want the world to believe, but Jews have been around nearly 6000 years as an identifiable culture/people while zionism has been around about 1/58th that time. Zionism is a political philosophy based on taking land and claiming it was given by “god” and is geopolitical in nature but casually uses the veneer of religion when convenient.
The Zionists pretend they are the 2nd coming of Moses, hijacking Judaism and making a new set of laws. But what they worship is a new golden calf.
more than half of the money in Democratic politics comes from Jews Recently someone mentioned the number of 40% . I’d appreciate it if someone could point me towards what all the numbers mean. I’m uneducated in the subject of financing parties.
There is no “official” figure about the percentage of Jewish funding of the Democrats but every estimate that I have seen for the last 30 years says it is at least 60%. When you look at the Mother Jones list of the top 400 donors to both parties in 2000, 7 of the top 12, 12 of the top 20 and at least 125 of the top 250 were Jewish with 75% of their money going to the Democrats.
That Jews contribute to politicians that they believe in comprehensively, not just about Israel issues – which they disagree about, is something to be applauded. Political INVOLVEMENT.
That’s complete bullshit. Typical lies from our resident Nazi – Witty.
Jews vote on Jewish issues. They vote for themselves not for this country. There is NOTHING to be gained from supporting Israel. Israel is practicing Apartheid and is a racist society. Not just the government, but the people as well.
Israel steals land and resources from it’s neighbors and from the Palestinians. Israel continually and intentionally targets civilians and civilian infrastructure and violates IHL w/ impunity purely because it has the money/arms to do so.
Jews in this country – whether they are Leftist or on the Right – by and large pat themselves on the back for the same reasons. The same mechanism by which a Neocon or Zionist is motivated to steal from the Palestinians and to continue to wage war on Muslims and Arabs – the Leftist Jew is motivated to ‘help’ them.
‘clay of Jewish humanism’ – perfectly sums of Liberal Jews.
You are NOT a Liberal, you fascist trash. You are a Zionist. You lie over and over here, you use intellectually dishonest rhetoric and logic and you lecture us in that yuppie Jewish, myopic paternalistic manner that is so typical in our intellectual culture.
You represent Zionism. Nothing more and nothing less. You have no friends in the Palestinian camp. No one can even reach within a mile of middle ground w/ your inanely idiotic equivocations.
In some other entry, you equated a ‘Jewish and Democratic’ Israeli State to a ‘Palestinian and Democratic’ Palestinian State. What a load of nonsense. What does the ‘Jewish’ part imply, you Nazi? What does it mean for the Arabs in Israel?
And should America become CHRISTIAN and Democratic? You’re a goddamn joke. You live in this country comfortably and you want your 2nd home to be a Jewish country club built on the ruins of another people. Fuck you.
It would be useful if there were a breakdown of Jewish funding of Democrats. What Senators and Representatives get the money? I assume many corporate contributions serve a dual purpose of acting on behalf of the Israel Lobby as well as on behalf of a given industry. For instance, a media mogul who is also Jewish may well give for a dual purpose.
les – in another thread (Obama capitulation etc.) Chu suggested a web site tracking donations to congress by aipac-and-affiliates will be a useful tool. I agreed and used the example of the usefulness of Openleft in drawing the traces of Health Insurance – and earlier – Finance directly to congressional positions (eg, the blue dogs). I can’t blame a shoe string operation like Openleft that’s dedicated to progressive domestic causes for staying away from foreign policy matters – which they are consistent at doing. People have to choose their battles, but I cite their efforts (and FireDogLake’s) as an EXAMPLE of what can be done on a grassroots level to at least try and combat the power interests.
So the suggestion you make is well and good. But political/community leadership is still lacking with so many groups each focused narrowly on aspects of the conflict. I believe we are simply in the middle of a process of transition and that we are not far away from just such an undertaking.
THANK YOU. Please see you at http://www.godsmadmen.com
Witty, to quote someone with a bit more direct knowledge about the subject than you or I, the late Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, the Democrat from Ohio, who told 500 delegates to the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council convention in Miami in February, 1991 (Forward, 2/22/091), “There’s only one thing members [of Congress] think is important to American Jews–Israel,” and he was proven correct because by the time the delegates had finished discussing issues related to Israel there was no time for anything else.
While they may disagree about the settlements, the overwhelming majority of American Jews are in favor of continuing financial and military support for Israel and that if a Palestinian state does come into being it has to recognize its legitimacy as a Jewish state and be demilitarized.
At the moment, settling the Palestinian issue is secondary. All the main groups are concentrated on preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, even if it means the US launching another war to do so. Not to worry. It won’t be their sons who will shed their blood.
In his latest outburst of blustering, BYahoo threatened that if the Palestinians took unilateral measures, so would Israel. Then added it was necessary to negotiate, placing at the top of the list the demand that Iran not be allowed nuclear weapons.
So Abbas is supposed to go to Teheran and take them away?
(BYahoo’s other points were all about Palestine not being allowed to defend itself either – nothing about any concessions he was willing to make)
As Phil has documented, there are individuals in prominent roles in establishment press for example, that have shifted to regarding conditional funding to be an appropriate US response to unauthorized uses of weapons for example.
There is a concensus among the majority of Jews that the continued existence of Israel is a critical personal concern (if threatened) and a critical component of American foreign policy, as Obama has consistently reiterated.
But, the majority of Jewish concerns are health care, education, withdrawal from Iraq, economy, environment.
Among polls of Jews, the current issues that are most important, and that drives the majority of committed funding and primarily to democrats, are social and economic issues.
Fantasies of monolithic and one-dimensional concern about Israel, are that, fantasies.
And, as such, the degree of Jewish donation to charity and politics, speaks of Jews’ ENGAGEMENT in the American society, of walking their walk.
Its something that I’m proud of, NOT ashamed of.
It speaks of their purchase of the US Congress without the consent of the people of the United States. All the rest, as they say, is commentary.
Well said.
.
Thats just an assertion, for which your “evidence” does not map a cause, but a correlation.
map a cause? Witty, you never present any kind of evidence.
Being the complete coward that you are, you rely on rhetoric games. How about you counter Blankfort with evidence of your own Witty? Or is that too much for you?
And have you read the Goldstone report yet? What is YOUR evidence to counter the Goldstone report?
Nazi.
My statements are theses, as are Blankfort’s.
I don’t think his add up to the conclusions that he arrives at.
Its like in math 3(6+3) is 27, not 21. Blankfort comes up with 21.
Or x (y+z) = xy +xz not xy +z
There is only one case where xy + xz = xy + z, where x=1. So, I guess he could “prove” that x(y+z) = xy +z
Then again, a non-functioning clock is accurate twice a day. (Sorry to be so insulting.)
Wow, you truly are insane.
Like I said, moron – try for ONCE in all the time you’ve ever been desperately trolling this blog to provide some evidence of your own.
Counter or at least mitigate Blankfort’s argument w/ your own – but w/ evidence and not purely rhetoric.
You can’t! Because you’re not well read. I mean, it would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
You haven’t read the Goldstone report and yet you supported criticism of it. You couldn’t COUNTER anything in the report because you haven’t read it yet you condescendingly dismiss it as ‘information’ (neutral – obviously another one of your equivocations).
Try harder, you fucking Nazi. Your song and dance is OLD.
Cliff,
Try summarizing what my points are. There are theses presented.
If you think that you have a more accurate description, present it.
Please ask first if your summary matches my understanding of what I said though, so we are actually talking.
Witty, I can’t present your argument if it’s nothing but rhetoric.
Example:
Blankfort says:
You respond with:
LOL – It’s like you have one set of vocab for Jews and another for non-Jews.
And anyways, Jeffrey was simply responding to another poster’s question about Jewish donors. It wasn’t as if Blankfort is saying the Juice are mindless sheep.
That’s your straw man. We’re talking about a specific context here. How Jews vote when it comes to foreign policy.
We could say Israel is the pressure point and when things get too close (relative), then the organized Jewish community will clamp down.
I’m sure you’d love for the opposition to present a monlith though. Then you could continue to rely on rhetoric.
In your most recent douchebaggery you’ve simply responded and continued to respond to a non-existent argument.
LOL – It’s like you have one set of vocab for Jews and another for non-Jews.
Cliff, to your credit you are generally brimming with astute observations, but I think I can safely say this one is your most astute today, and there were a lot of candidates to choose from.
Incidentally, I’ve decided to stop being lazy with HTML tags.
I thought that it was clear that I agreed that on questions that effect Israel’s existence, and Israeli’s safety, that most Jews do vote to support Israel.
But, I also thought that I was very clear, that that is an extremely limited scope, and that even on the question of the war in Iraq which is asserted here as an example of “Jewish manipulation”, the majority of Jews polled in opposition to the war. (I don’t know about dollar votes.)
I’m contesting the thesis of the extent and degree of “THE” Israel Lobby influence.
I suggest that it exists, but is limited, and so diverse in perspective as to extremely diminish if not trash the thesis of its “wagging the dog”.
I’m asking you to be skeptical, rather than gullible.
Skeptical (questioning) my assertions, questioning Blankfort’s assertions, questioning Phil’s assertions.
Skeptical. From the guy that buys the Israeli Foreign Ministry garbage, hook line and sinker, huh. Mind you I don’t think Witty actually believes that crap about tunnels in Gaza being an existential threat to Israel. The truth doesn’t seem to factor into his rationale. Usually doesn’t, when you’re dealing with propaganda.
Come on Chaos.
Rise to the challenge. Articulate a thesis, not only an attack.
Come on Witty.
Rise to the challenge. Present some evidence, not just bullshit.
The suppression team in practice.
Phil is an intellectual (sometimes I would say was, when his posts look more like propaganda and contempt).
Try argument, rather than name-calling (even if only Cliff says “nazi”, and not Chaos this morning)
So “thesis” is apparently Witty’s buzz word for the day.
No one is suppressing you Witty. I am not in charge of this blog. I can’t censor you. You continue to post bullshit in spite of countless refutations by far more informed/articulate and polite posters than myself.
And since you have not grown intellectually. Since you have never once been able to carry on an exchange w/ your opponents here that resulted in some kind of catharsis or a middle ground – you are, without a doubt, a fucking troll.
Even the most simplest questions put to you (Ex: Have you read the Goldstone report yet? Ex: Why did you cite denunciations of the report when you admitted you had not yet read it? Ex: What is your criticism of the report? Can you be specific? Etc.) go unanswered.
You’re a snake. You can’t face anyone here directly. You just hide behind rhetoric. You never provide evidence. You prop up straw mans like you did w/ Blankfort.
It just goes on and on.
You are a Jewish Nazi. Nothing more and nothing less.
Thanks to Philip Weiss for writing this piece, and to Jeff Blankfort and some (apparently) other Jews for supporting his viewpoint in this comments thread. I do agree with that viewpoint.
But this raises a question in my mind. As a non-Jew, am I an antisemite because I do share that viewpoint? I know that I would be called an antisemite, directly or indirectly, by some of the commenters here if I were to say the same thing as Phil in similar words. And we all know what that could mean for me personally, if I were brash enough not to be using an alias.
How did it happen that non-Jews in America, when it comes to discussion of Jewish political power, have lost their First Amendment rights? I know of no other subject area where proscription of free speech is so fiercely and viciously enforced.
This strikes me as a growing social problem because most reasonably literate people in the country seem to think of this matter more or less as Phil and Jeff have described it. They just don’t dare say so publicly.
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/falling-down/
Everyone read that. Phil you should make an entry about it.
The daily humiliation continues. The intellectual dishonesty. The emotional blackmail. Etc.
All these Nazi tactics employed today in the present by the Satanic Zionist State.
Keep in mind what that fascist trash Witty means when he wants Israel to remain ‘Jewish’. Keep in mind what all the so-called Jewish activists on the Left mean as well when they preface all their chicken shit criticism of Zionism w/ (’never again’ – cha-ching or ‘not in our name’ – cha-ching).
I’m all for One-State. And then the Palestinian majority won’t EVER have to be bullied by a bunch of Zionist thugs. Long Live Palestine. Fuck Israel.
You’re sure you don’t need to lie down for a moment now?
In that link, you can see her. You can see the girl just before those Nazis tackle her to the ground for no reason.
If I didn’t see her, I wouldn’t have posted this in the way that I did.
Cliff, I didn’t react to this single post of you. Your posts strain my Adjective Processing Device(APD) which has the job of handling the emotional load that’s plopped onto content. The device drains a lot of resources leading to unreliable results in other modules. Restraining your adjective count would help me. Nudge nudge :)
You’re right, in that context then.
On second thought you’d better cut back on the insulting nouns too I’m afraid. They’re easier to process than adjectives, agreed, but they’re still problematic and the AUP objects to them.
Comments on this entry are closed.