Great post by Steve Clemons demanding to know if Chuck Schumer has ever sided with the U.S. against Israel. "Has Chuck Schumer EVER Criticized Israel or its Leadership in the Way He Just Unloaded on Obama?" Says that Schumer's tonguelashing of the Obama administration for putting pressure on Netanyahu comes close to sounding like he should be in the Knesset not the Senate.
This is the 2nd time I know of that Schumer has publicly crossed the line when it came to zealously blaming his own government and colleagues in delicate matters of US-Israel-Palestine policy.
During the third of three major efforts of the George W. Bush administration to get the recess appointed US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton confirmed in the US Senate, Senator Schumer launched a passionate personal campaign to help Bolton succeed.
Schumer called many Democratic Senate colleagues and bluntly said, "A vote against John Bolton is a vote against Israel."
I love that journalists are finally beginning to sound like journalists on obvious questions. And I like the dual-loyalty issue, because... it's real; and voters deserve to be informed on the question. Oh and something else. A lot of liberals like to blame the Christian Zionists for our policy in the Middle East. Does Christian Zionism have anything to do with Schumer's advocacy? Or that of his protege Anthony Weiner? Or the abandonment of Obama by a significant portion of his own political base on this question? Does it explain Dennis Ross running the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute and then running Iran policy under Obama?
Does Christian Zionism have anything to do with Schumer’s advocacy?
Of course not, but Corporate Zionism does, and that has always been the real power behind the movement anyway. If Schumer wasn’t serving the lusts of corporate barons, he’d be run out of office and replaced by someone who would.
Christian Zionism might have a lot to do with Republican support for the most reactionary Israeli policies. This wouldn’t apply to Schumer, of course.
Spent much of today reading a 61-page master’s thesis by US Army Major Brian Stuckert, titled “Strategic Implications of American Millennialism.”
Stuckert’s thesis is that apocalyptic beliefs of American evangelicals, comprising about 40% of US adult population, heavily color US foreign policy decisions and strategy, “most importantly, toward Israel.”
Stuckert asserts that
As if on cue, World News Daily (WND) blasted Stuckert, his thesis, the US Army for allowing/requiring that he write it, and the institutions responsible for the electronic squiggles that captured Stuckert’s research in a permanent fashion. www dot finaltrump.com/2009/12/u-s-army-major-lose-evangelical-christian-beliefs/
Stuckert musta hit a noive.
These are tough questions to ask, and ones that require honest answers. It’s not easy to ask them, so… thank you.
So when will Progressive Hero Alan Grayson be making a statement on behalf of Israel?
Anyone surprised that Grayson voted yea on starting WWIII? You shouldn’t be.
Yeah! Grayson is another AIPAC stooge – and all for taking East Jerusalem. He symbolizes the corruption of Democrats. Talks a good game, but he’s as rotten as the whole cart of apples.
Check the video at about minute 29:30. What a laugh!
link to democracynow.org
Mondoweiss: Grayson and AIPAC
Schumer has a long history of advocacy in favor (one might even say, on behalf) of Israel against US interests. Back in 1991, for example, he was the leading figure in Congress that organized a coalition against president Bush’s administration and against the express recommendations of James Baker. Thanks to Schumer, within days, Bush came under enough pressure, both political and financial, that he reversed his decision on freezing the housing loan guarantees for Israel due to Israel’s refusal to stop colonial settlement construction in the occupied territories.
That was the last time a US president had the courage to withhold aid to Israel over the settlement issue. In fact, while Clinton seemed to have invested himself in the so-called peace process, he was approving arms and military hardware shipments to Israel that (to the best of my knowledge) no other US president has done. Then came Bush Jr…….
Schumer at minute 4. This was a fun-filled hate fest that Blumenthol covered. Should have went, but my alarm clock didn’t go off.
link to youtube.com
I remember when he made that ludicrous comment about the text messages, among other nonsense he mentioned, all the while eye witness testimony about how the Sammuni family was corralled into a building and bombed kept playing in my head. 29 members of the same family. Juxtaposed next to each other, Schumer came off sounding like a little Nazi. That’s right. I just dropped the N bomb.
For many in the senate, Israel seems to be their main pork barrel project. They’ll trim the fat on health care, domestic spending, etc. But I was surprising in discovering during the past five years, how many of the ‘lef wing’ senators were just as willing to close their eyes to the crimes of Israel’s governmental policy. The hypocrisy is unreal, but it must be tough to say no to your campaign contributors, come the election cycle. b.t.w. thanks for the updated historic compromise map.
The problem is partly that Obama doesn’t stand up to these people in what is supposed to be his own party. Boxer leads the charge against him, then he flies out to campaign for Boxer.
He is in a pickle, no doubt about that.
Phil: “I love that journalists are finally beginning to sound like journalists on obvious questions. And I like the dual-loyalty issue…”
Witty’s not gonna like this at all. He may act as the chief op-ed board member, but sure glad he’s not the site censor…
Phil can dismiss Witty simply by pointing out that it’s not really anti-semitic to discuss conflict of interests, that’s a well-established legal principle high above the nasty baggage sitting at the rail tracks going back to Dreyfus.
The reason that the dual-loyalty theme is repugnant is the history of fanatic left and right interrogation, specifically the interrogation culture of Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, American McCarthyism.
Its repugnant when done in Israel. Murderous in Gaza (two executed last week for “collaborating”). Horrific in Iran (dozens of periodic “spy” show trials).
Sickening to encourage in the present US.
What will it take for the American masses to wake up to the conflict of interests Clemons suggests? Which congress people voted for the Obama Administration to keep its disagreements with Israel behind closed doors as a matter of Executive OP? And what percentage of Shumer’s voting constituency backs that OP? Why doesn’t the average American know that
a key, if not THE key, motive for 9/11 was rubber-stamping of Israel? The 9/11 Commission received testimony of that from the “evil doer” mouth, then covered it up with a generic conclusion for official publication that US foreign policy naturally always has some blowback. Where was the MSM? Nothing to report to the American people on the WHY of 9/11, it was so unimportant? Similarly, where the the MSM during the set up for attacking Iraq? And now, where is the MSM (& congress) on the drumroll for war on Iran?
The comments following the article say it all!
Watch Schumer’s speech to AIPAC this year.
link to aipac.org
(“He noted that his name is a derivative of the Hebrew “shomer,” or guardian, and said he was pledged to guarding the security of the Jews and Israel. “)
Sounds more Likud than Democrat, and I am sure overbearing Chuck knows how to push around the yellow freshman and senior members of his party. He makes Lieberman look respectable.
While an American Jewish Zionist who has not yet made his aliyah has an obligation to be an Israeli agent, in Schumer’s case Israel’s demands are trumped by Wall Street’s. He has always been and always will be sleaze.
Needless to say, my views on I/P are diametrically opposed to Schumer’s. Still, I do not share this dual loyalty (or preference for Israel) line of reasoning in attacking him.
What exactly are the interests of the United States? In this context, it certainly seems that they are interpreted as the interests as defined by the President. Schumer comes under criticism for daring to criticize Obama, and taking the side of a foreign state over his own President. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Over my lifetime, the Presidents of the United States have committed crimes costing millions of lives, and depriving billions of people of freedom. The US supported brutal, bloodthirsty dictatorships in Chile, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, the Philippines, Zaire and many other countries. In many instances, the US acted to undermine and even overthrow popularly elected regimes.
Was it wrong to oppose these policies, which were implemented by the Prez, supposedly in the interests of the US? Charges of treason were made against opponents of the Vietnam War, the first Gulf War, the Iraq and Afghan Wars, etc. Weren’t those dangerous charges that threatened the civil liberties of those who dissented from US policies?
The fact that Schumer is siding with Israel against Obama is not what bothers me. What if Dennis Kucinich had announced he favored the Saudi peace plan proposal of 2002(?) over the policies of the Bush Administration, or presently over the Obama Admin. Wouldn’t he be vulnerable to the same criticism heaped on Schumer? What about people who oppose the severe restrictions on contact with Cuba? Are they siding with a foreign govt over US interests? What about those who opposed our assistance to the leaders of the 2002 Venezuelan coup that briefly toppled Chavez?
Obviously, I have enormous differences with Schumer, but frankly, I have no problem with public criticism of the US President, whether it be Bush, Obama, or anyone else.
David,
I will explain to you what your problem is. You do not have an irrational hatred of Israel. You do not want to destroy Israel, you want to change it for the better as you see it. That is not the motivation of most of the other commentators on this site.
You really think you are going to get much sympathy from David, eee? If you’re calling people like Goldstone “traitors,” what exactly are you going to to do to Mr. Samel?
Oh, that’s right — as far as you’re concerned he’s going to just disappear anyway.
No wonder you’re pretending to make friends with him. You’re hoping to get written into the will, proverbially speaking.
People like David and Shmuel have some skin in the game because they have family in Israel which they care about. I may not agree with them politically, but they are not my enemies like you and the neo-nazi choir you belong to. David and Shmuel are motivated by the fact that they really care for Israel’s future while you are driven by irrational hatred.
Oh, I get it. This debate itself is something else you want to make Jewish-exclusive, huh.
eee, I knw you are trying to be complimentary, but I have to disagree with you. I, and probably Shmuel (though I hate to speak on behalf of others), do not think there is any value in engaging in “fuck you” discussion here. There certainly are other commenters, such as Chaos, who have taken a different approach, but so have you. That is a choice of tactics. On substance, I have to say I have found many of your opinions to be not just wrong, but reprehensible, but unless I can point that out in a reasoned way, I see no reason to yell and scream.
That is the principal difference between me and Chaos. I think you’re completely wrong about his supposed irrational hatred. He and others may show intense hostility toward you, but that does not translate to hatred against Jews or Israelis as much as an ideology that they perceive as racist. You are wrong about my motivation as well, though it is true that I have some cousins who live there that I love. I am certain my opinions would be the same if I had no family there (and I don’t have much). To the extent my Jewishness plays a role in my differences with people like Chaos, it is because I was brought up to be a Zionist and have many loved ones who remain Zionists, and understand how difficult it is to shed that viewpoint. Those who have not experienced this upbringing tend to look at Zionism as an obviously racist ideology that should be rejected out of hand. They cannot understand how this idea could have caught on in the first place.
David,
I agree with your approach, but see eee’s remark as merely another attempt to avoid honest discussion. On this thread it suits his purposes to create a dichotomy of “good” vs. “bad” critics. On another thread, he refers to Richard Goldstone (who has strong ties to Israel) as a traitor. He is here merely to smear and distract, to which end one argument is as good as another.
Right, eee, the gentiles here are all motivated by anti-semitism.
Got it. As for Shmuel, seems to me he sees no inconsistency between being pro-universal human rights and regarding himself as a Jew. In his case, I’d say all his comments bear out he has excellent integrity and character.
David,
I think you are deluding yourself and have too much trust in your new found allies. Their irrational hatred was evident to anyone without blinders way before I started posting here. You are like the left leaning Iranians that supported the Mullahs in getting rid of the Shah only to find out afterwards that they were next in line to be eliminated.
Continuing with this analogy, getting rid of the Shah maybe the right thing to do, but you better find allies that have the good intentions you do.
Yes, intentions are hard to discern 100% accurately. But the fact that you are willing to justify what some commentators are saying just because they did not get a Zionist upbringing is proof your intuitions are not even in the ball park.
Furthermore, no course of action should ever be judged on its own but always relative to other options to act. What were in your opinion the alternatives that the Jews had pre WWII? Wasn’t Zionism the least bad of the lot even according to your views?
This is coming from the same Israeli who posted this, right?
link to mondoweiss.net
Just, you know, so Mr. Samel knows what kind of ally you really are. :)
Do you really think David is not aware that assimilation is a huge problem for the long term viability of the Jewish diaspora in the US?
Citizen,
When 3e first appeared, I had a brief exchange with him in Hebrew. The question he kept repeating was: “but what are you doing here with these anti-Semites?” Universal ethics are obviously beyond him, which is why he cannot grasp Chaos’ concern for Palestinian rights or Goldstone’s “betrayal” of his tribe. As you so aptly remarked, No he Kant.
With regard to being a Jew and a universalist, Chaim Zhitlovsky put it best (I know I’ve quoted this before):
Oh, well, why don’t we see what Mr. Samel himself thinks about it. Why should either of us presume to speak for him? :)
Shmuel,
Universalist ethics are just not possible. It is a pipe dream.
Try this simple thought experiment:
A robot that cannot lie kidnaps one of your children. He calls you and gives you two options:
1) He will kill your child or
2) He will return your child in full health but will kidnap and kill two random children
Which option do you choose? Which option would 99% of people choose?
I am not a universalist, I love my kids more than I love other people’s children.
I didn’t know you could make an android out of pure straw. Your post, eee, is like the illegitimate love child between the Tin Man and the Scarecrow.
Welcome to Israel!
Universalism is an orientation not a dogma. Straw men hypotheticals are completely beside the point.
Israel so loves its kids that it kills other people’s kids to steal their toys.
Morality is universalist. All moral principles must be universalizable. Your illustration is an excellent one of the fundamental immorality of Zionist Israelis, based on principles that are exceptionalist, not moral.
“Universalism is an orientation not a dogma. Straw men hypotheticals are completely beside the point.”
Well that is a nice first step. I thought it was a dogma for you.
I have to go now, but we can pick this up tomorrow.
It’s just a flesh wound, huh, eee.
An ethics lesson for 3e:
What he fails to grasp are the implications of his position. e would sacrifice two random children to save his own. But by assenting to this, he is effectively agreeing that anyone else, faced with the same forced option, would kill his own children to save theirs.
When you make a moral choice, you are choosing for the entire moral universe.
3e claims that universalist ethics are not possible, but what he reveals in saying so is the black pit of selfishness that lies at the root of Israeli exceptionalism, that results in a nation cheering at other people’s children being seared by white phosphorus because they hold them of lesser moral worth.
Eee, you do see, don’t you, that the concept of genocide itself is based on the assumption of universalist ethics?
Or a belated welcome to Hitler’s Germany. Now that eee has given us the guiding light, all those who’ve spent years pondering how and why the Polish farmers could till their soil while the Jews were going up in smoke in that new industrial park not far away–can move on
to something more practical, less of a pipe-dream. Those who harbored Jews in Nazi occupied lands all died in vain along with their families–that’s according to eee’s philosophy. And those “righteous gentiles” honored in Israel? Traitors to their own families. What were they thinking, risking their own kids for Jewish kids? If eee were Dutch, he would have booted out Anne Frank’s family or turned them in ASAP back in the day. Eee’s anti-univeralist values also turns Kant on his head, as well the
Golden, Silver, and Platinum Rules. Nice to know the US shares
values with the likes of eee and is giving its blood and treasure for the likes of eee. “Shared values” is a very key the US politicians tell the American people–to why the US must keep supporting Israel the way its been doing for decades.
I did not observe the comments until now, which is why I did not reply. (I used to flip through my emails for comments I should respond to but I guess that’s been deactivated.)
eee, I do resent your patronizing tone toward me, as if I am naive and need your understanding. As I said elsewhere, I have found some of your opinions to be reprehensible, and have no solidarity with you whatsoever. Frankly, I am conceited enough to believe that my thinking on this conflict is more sophisticated than yours. I am not interested in forming an alliance with you. And it certainly is presumptuous for you to say that I am “aware that assimilation is a huge problem for the long term viability of the Jewish diaspora in the US.” I don’t have the slightest problem with assimilation, and don’t see why you thought otherwise.
shmuel and chaos have pointed out other obnoxious things you have said, but of course I was aware of some already. I thought you mind-numbingly offensive on the subject of Goldstone’s bar mitzvah. I’m sorry if you misinterpreted my apparent reasonableness as some sort of affinity with you, but it was not meant that way. Perhaps I made a mistake in responding to you at all.
David,
Just as you are allowed to your opinion that your thinking about the conflict is more sophisticated than mine, I am allowed to my opinion which is that you are ultra naive and don’t understand the real motivation of many other commentators on this blog.
Take a look at one example of many, a post you can find in this thread:
“If Israel didn’t exist, then its supporters wouldn’t be corrupting the US government.
If Israel weren’t corrupt, then the US government wouldn’t be complicit with its corruption.
If Israel weren’t murderous, then the US wouldn’t be an accomplice in its crimes.
You have to attack the rot at its source.”
I am not looking for an alliance with you. I am using you to make a point. There is criticism that is constructive is aimed to make Israel better. Your criticism, even though I don’t agree with most of it, falls in this camp. Many other criticism on this blog just aims at attacking Israel and is just a thin veil for irrational hatred.
You should check well and often who your bed fellows are.
EEE- “Do you really think David is not aware that assimilation is a huge problem for the long term viability of the Jewish diaspora in the US?”
AHA! Now we get to the heart of the matter! You are concerned PRIMARILY with the EXISTENTIAL threat to the JEWISH PEOPLE posed by assimilation. You could care less about the health, happiness and well-being of individual human beings who self-identify as Jews, your concern is with the preservation of Jewish tribalism and in-group solidarity. To you, a universalist perspective of human connectedness and solidarity is inherently ANTI-SEMITIC. Chauvinist, heal thyself!
According to eee’s philosophy, the Righteous Gentiles honored in Israel should be despised at home by their kin for putting their own family at risk to save the children of the Other. He thinks what he says on this blog is helping Jewish people. Go figure.
Yeah, DS, quit sleeping with the Other. Don’t you know they will save their own kids at the expense of your kids, when push comes to shove? Oh, wait, eee admires that POV because it is his stated POV on this site. I Kant understand him, DS. Now, who’s in Kansas? Toto, or Tit4Tat?
Aw Keith, eee is just singing Hitler’s song about how one German fingernail is more important than all the Jews in the world. Eee just switched the clothing. He calls it living in reality and not smoking a pipe dream. It’s like Sophie’s Choice for eee, except
according to eee’s philosophy, if one of her kids was part jewish, Sophie would save that one, and sacrifice the pure gentile.
“irrational hatred” again
And again, is there rational hatred? Or is all hatred irrational by definition?
eee says that those of us who aren’t Israelis should “leave Israel alone”. This means that we shouldn’t be trying to make it better.
eee says that we should reform our own countries first. This means that we should root out the corruption that infests it.
Then eee gets all puffed up with righteousness when people do just as he has suggested. There is a name of this – inconsistency. Inconsistency is a mark of irrationality. But eee condemns irrationality as hatred. Or hatred as irrational. eee is not clear on this point.
I don’t think eee has much standing to go calling others irrational.
“Universalist ethics are just not possible. It is a pipe dream.”
Translation:Universalist ethics are just not compatible with Zionism. That’s the pact that Zionists have to make.
potsherd ~ “leave Israel alone”
link to youtube.com
For anyone committed to American democracy, assimilation is not only not a “huge problem” it is no problem at all.
I object. My hatred is completely rational.
eee, calm down with the theatrics. I don’t wish the destruction of Israel, and realistically this will not occur.
I just want to the US to stop funding & providing Israel with weapons systems. If we can stop this (which I believe you have agree to) is there a problem?
Chu,
No, you have every right to work towards your goals.
What I don’t understand is why you are targeting your criticism at Israel and not the US?
You will say AIPAC, but then AIPAC is an American institution. If it is acting in some illegal manner, it is the US courts and justice system that should handle it.
Why do you support BDS of Israel, when you really should be supporting BDS of the US?
I thought you said all Jews were a nation unto themselves. Have you retracted that?
Of course the Jews are a nation. So are the Native Americans tribes in the US. What is the problem with that?
AIPAC is a US registered lobby. If it is not legal, go to the courts and get it banned. Otherwise, learn to live with it. Nobody is stopping you from using ANY legal means to curtail AIPAC. So why are you complaining?
eee,
Most of my criticism, is based on the US representatives, like Chuck. I can’t control what Israel does (their government, military or religious body), but we can stop funding them and supplying weapons systems.
AIPAC is to blame and many Jewish Americans are at the helm of AIPAC’s many institutions. Of course, there are always military contractors and politicians, who want a piece of the pork pie, and they are responsible also.
I support BDS against institutions that are complicit, so either way I do support it. The onus needs to fall on Israel, as they are the primary cause.
If Israel didn’t exist, then its supporters wouldn’t be corrupting the US government.
If Israel weren’t corrupt, then the US government wouldn’t be complicit with its corruption.
If Israel weren’t murderous, then the US wouldn’t be an accomplice in its crimes.
You have to attack the rot at its source.
great use of syllogism…
Um, not a syllogism.
Sure, eee, and similarly, all gentile whites are a nation, so that’s cool. David Duke’s been saying that forever. As for AIPAC, the death of JFK stopped his trying to make
the zionist organization, later known as “AIPAC,” register as the agent of a foreign government (same his death stopped his attempts to keep Israel sans the bomb). Johnson, of course, allowed Israel to become a rogue nation. Talk to any still living survivor of the USS Liberty.
Lame. “Legal” can mean whatever the makers of the law want it to mean. Slavery was once “legal”. So were the Nuremberg Laws.
Hate Israel why do i have an obligation to like godam fucking Israel, you phony? Yes i hate your fucking Israel the same way i hate oppression in some other Arab countries…
The destruction of Israel i don’t give a fuck about your fucking country! why would i like the destruction of it? you are so paranoid my dear eee like the whole Zionist scum!
A virulent response, but aparisian raises a good point. I find the practices of countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt almost as reprehensible — only almost, because they don’t slaughter civilians in anywhere near the same volume as Israel. My activities through my peace organization have also highlighted nuclear proliferation in Pakistan and North Korea as well, and Tibet, Darfur and the Congo remain prominent topics in the media I subscribe to.
This notion that Israel is being “falsely targeted” by “racists” is bunk.
Also, the racism charge is bunk twice over when one considers that eee shares more DNA with me (we are both of Eastern European descent) than he does with anyone actually native to Palestine.
Virulent but honest.
I can’t understand why the hell we need to countries that don’t share my values?
Not to mention, those Arab countries are not laying seige to, nor occupying for decades another people outside Israeli legal jurisdiction.
sorry i meant.
Virulent but honest.
I can’t understand why the hell i should love countries that don’t share my values?
can you prove that Chaos? i’d like to see actual scientific evidence? How does Tay-Sachs fit into your claims?
Hey, according to eee’s philosophy (anti-universal rights), no average American should give a flying f**** about Tay-Sachs, or Sickle-Cell Anemia.
What’s wrong with Clemons comparing Schumer’s quick public criticism of Obama with his lack of same regarding, say, Netanyahu? From Clemons article:
“Note to Senator Schumer: you have certainly unloaded a lot of blame on the White House today. I have done a quick lexis and Thomas search and have been unable to find a single instance in which you criticized the behavior of the Israeli government at any time on any issue.”
So, eee, we see clearly how you and your crystal ball divine the motivation of “the other commentors on this site.”
Neither you, eee, or David, have addressed at this time of my writing this comment, Clemons’s point. BTW, DS, do really want eee to be
your soldier?
Schumer’s refusal to criticize Israel for anything is reprehensible, but not because he does criticize Obama. Clemons takes issue with that and I don’t.
As for eee being my soldier, puhleeeze. I did write above to eee: “I have to say I have found many of your opinions to be not just wrong, but reprehensible.” Elsewhere, I engaged in a lengthy discussion with his intolerable views about the Goldstone bar mitzvah. I don’t know what he thinks about the Clemons-Obama issue nor do I care.
Relatedly, I hate to use diplomat-speak, but I did think aparisian’s outburst was unhelpful, to say the least.
I’m sure he found it therapeutic. I can attest that from experience. :)
I didn’t find aparisian’s outburst helpful either, DS. Do you ever thinks it is enlightening to point out a double standard? If so, give me an example. If not, why not? Thanks. Also, does it mean anything at all
if an American political leader publically criticizes an American president for his tentative foreign policy regarding a given foreign state, yet that American political leader has a history of never criticizing that foreign state, even when, for example, that foreign state’s activities resulted in the Goldstone Report, and that foreign state is engaged in policies
opposed by offical US foreign policy, e.g, regarding the Israeli settlements, and that foreign state gets the lion’s share of stringless US foreign aid?
Yes, the irrational outbursts of hatred are therapeutic…
I’m glad that I could be of service as an Israeli even if it is just a target for your irrational hatred.
David,
Ignore and discount the evidence about your allies at your own peril.
Citizen for example is clearly angry at the power Jews have in the US. It is evident from his posts.
Yes of course, eee; what you say follows from your dismissal of all non-jews on this site as anti-semites. I am frustrated by the power of AIPAC, but this does not mean I am angry at all Jewish Americans, nor that I hate them I married a Jew. I am angry at the power of large corporations in the USA. I would like to see our campaign finance system changed, but this is not likely since real change would not benefit incumbents, nor would it benefit big business, or big finance, for example.
“Citizen for example is clearly angry at the power Jews have in the US. It is evident from his posts.”
eee your entire argument rests on conflating jews with Israel – which citizen has not done. Why don’t you engage with the actual comments instead of makin’ stuff up?
Israel is the Jewish state so no conflation is needed. Much as Arabs do not need be conflated with Ishmael, there is not much conflation to be done vis a vis Jews and the tribes of Israel
Thanks Sumud. Triple e is above engaging actual comments in the same manner you know who is above actually talking about the reality of Jerusalem today, prefering the word Jerusalem because it’s mentioned so many times in the Old Testament.
eee has a new phrase today: “irrational hatred”
At least he isn’t putting it in caps.
So, eee, is “irrational hatred” a redundacy? Is all hatred irrational, or is there hatred that is rational? Is it rational to hate Hitler?
If the latter, I will assert that hatred of Israel is perfectly rational when it is based on knowledge of the evil that it does.
DS, Clemons explicitly compared Schumer’s pubic criticism of Obama with Schumer’s long track record of lack of public criticism of Israel or its leaders. Schumer can’t see anything worthy of publically criticizing about Netanyahu? The point is Schumer’s double standard. The US and its leaders clearly should be criticized without worrying about being called a “traitor, ” as you well-showed. Accordingly, Shumer is fairly open to criticism that his record shows a large moral/ethical blind spot when it comes to Israel.
I don’t think so, Citizen. Yes, Schumer should be criticized for his “moral/ethical blind spot when it comes to Israel” and his incessant cheerleading for Israeli policies. But that has nothing to do with his criticism of Obama or any double standard. If I agreed with Schumer on Israel, I would have no trouble with his taking on Obama. Clemons, and many others, are quite clearly pissed off about this in particular, and I don’t share that point of view. I think it has terrible implications as I outlined above.
I agree any American has the right to criticize their government and its leaders. You, DS, agree Schumer should be criticized for his moral/ethical blind spot when it comes to Israel. And how is one to rationally reveal that blind spot except by comparing the double standard used as Clemens did? Something more is needed than to simply say some leader has a blind spot and is an incessant cheerleader. How is any conflict of interest revealed?
I think Schumer’s blind spot can be exposed simply by dealing with the pros and cons of Israel support. If Israel is violating international law, and Schumer supports that violation, that’e enough. Schumer’s refusal to ever criticize Israel is enough. Does it really help to show that Schumer has criticized others, like Obama, or Ahmadinejad, or Bush, or anyone else?
When we say that Schumer is putting Israel’s interests ahead of the US’s, aren’t we really saying ahead of Obama’s? The problem with Schumer is that he promotes Israel’s interests ahead of the value of life and simple human decency.
No. US interest is bigger than Obama’s, or any POTUS. The Vietnam War and Bush JR’s attack on Iraq, for example, were not
in the best interest of the US, although both were sponsored by US presidents. What Obama is allowing now, and not doing, is also not in the best interest of the US. Nor would be, e.g.,
an attack on Iran, by us directly, or by in anyway giving Israel the green light to attack Iran. The problem with the American Schumer is that he promotes Israel’s interests ahead of America’s best interest, as well as ahead of the value of life and simple human decency.
Schumer’s refusal to criticise Israel is enough? Schumer also criticizes Obama for speaking out against the Israeli settlements in public even though those settlements are against official US policy (and international international law). It’s one thing if a US political leader refuses to criticise Israel and also refuses to
criticise Obama on his handling of Israel, quite another to draw
the distinction Schumer makes in his selective criticism when it comes to anything concerning Israel, whether a remark made by Obama or one made by the Israeli PM. I don’t put “blind spot” in
quotes, as you do. A clear conflict of interest should be pointed out.
[The US supported brutal, bloodthirsty dictatorships in Chile, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, the Philippines, Zaire and many other countries. In many instances, the US acted to undermine and even overthrow popularly elected regimes.]
US intervention in the Philippines is taken equivocally. Oppositions to US is easily found among the campuses (government ) due to academic freedom, among the subversives (NPA and their communists political fronts). But the rest of the nation would even welcome the visiting US officials and forces. In Luzon, Filipino males scramble to apply for US Navy (for much higher pay in US dollars and better career oportunities)…It is even wondering why the US are able to recruit and induct Filipinos for the US armed service in the Philippines…But anyway the Filipinos generally are taking it no issue, and even enjoying it for their families at all…perhaps after decades of US occupation folliiwing 400 years of the Spanish domination…
Please clarify your point, zamaaz. Nobody here is justifying US government support of the regimes you mention. From what I’ve read on this blog from those critical of Israeli de facto and sometimes de jure policy, those here critical of Israel are equally criticial of the US government peversion of US core values. This is a blog about the war of ideas in the middle east, not in the areas you mention. Quit engaging in the hasbara point “a pox on all houses.” # 4?
oops typo: peversion-perversion
Can the “white man’s burden” be laid on even thicker?
When the US intervened and flew Marcos to Hawaii most of Filipinos were happy and felt relief…. (that was the first people power in the Philippines)..
My point is, not all US intervention are opposed by people in general of countries involved…This idea, against US intervention, remains completely debatable…
You mean instead of, you know, letting him stand trial for his crimes? Yeah, I’m sure the Filipinos are very happy the United States made room for a new puppet when the old one wore out.
David,
I appreciate your posts here, but I have to disagree with you.
I don’t think Schumer is on the right side of the history. You cite bloodthirsty dictatorships (in Chile, Haiti, Indonesia, etc.), but to me, Israel is the aggressor state that cannot satisfy it’s land growth and continues to defy international law (the same can be said for righteous USA, as noted). Schumer is defending the actions of a foreign nation that is at odds with most of the established international laws, but is a representative of New York State and the US Government. That is problematic for me.
Can he clearly make the case about Israel on the Senate floor? Of course, but is there ever a real discussion about these important issues in the senate? Not that I’ve seen in the past 30 years here.
Schumer can side with the Khmer Rouge, and he has that right to do so, but is this a justified position of his government, and yet, will the general public be aware of his stance?
Chu, the gist of your criticism is that “Schumer is defending the actions of a foreign nation that is at odds with most of the established international laws.” Needless to say, I agree with that 100%. But I find it just as objectionable when any politician defends the actions of the US in violation of international law, or supports our government’s attack or sanctions on a foreign nation that is immoral. Your complaints about the lack of legitimate discussion in the Senate are well taken. But none of this has anything to do with the criticism of Obama that Clemons finds so objectionable. It is easy for those of us with brains to have a better opinion of Obama than Bush, but analytically, there is no difference between the appropriateness of criticizing one or the other. Any argument made against an Obama critic could be made against a Bush clone.
btw, it’s interesting that you raise the Khmer Rouge. My daughter called from college very late last night, horrified that the US govt supported the KR into the 1990′s, refusing to hold it accountable for its terrible crimes, as a counterweight to Vietnam’s support of a contrary regime. (Frankly, I do not remember the details of such US support for the KR). Picture a senator denouncing Reagan or Bush I for such stance, and ask would it be reasonable to criticize such senator for siding with a foreign government over the US Prez? That is what Clemons is doing.
Our differences, Chu, are not over Schumer’s position vis-a-vis Israel, on which you and I agree, but over Clemons’s specific “dual loyalty” criticism of Schumer’s stance. It raises red flags to me.
David,
Schumer plays hard ball with statements like ‘a vote against Bolton, is a vote against Israel’, which is reprehensible and I am glad the Connecticut senator stood up to this crooked approach (the pot calls the kettle…). I think that so much of the Congress has enough blame & blood on their hands [Iraq specifically] it’s difficult for them to know where they crossed the line, and ironically they’re the lawmakers.
One note: Clemons raises the question of Schumer’s loyalty to the the Knesset or the Congress. Dual-loyalty is a hobgoblin historically, and I assume that was the part that got you. But what would be a better way to address this issue in your opinion? There is always this ‘fine-line’ and whisper talk when historically discussing this relationship, so it helps to understand this complex puzzle by clarifying the offense. To avoid open & frank discussions is to censor the problem away. Is this a “conflict of interest” or is this “dual-loyalty” charge a real issue?
I must admit, Chu, you raise some good questions in the end that I cannot answer. Is there ever anything to the dual loyalty issue? Maybe. It just made me uncomfortable here.
Last time I looked there was no KR lobby in the US back then, so that’s a straw man as a practical matter, DS.
DS, I understand your discomfort–it goes back at least as far as the Dreyfuss affair. I suggest to you and Chu that it’s a conflict of interest, which has to be pointed out. The concept of conflict of interest is not an irrational one–it’s why our finding fathers wrote our founding documents the way they did, and most especially, built in a system of checks and balances between the branches of our government. I admit, it’s treacherous ground, given how honest inquiry can be used by demagogues. In everyday life
conflict of interest usually pertains to local politics or business ethics; when it gets into foreign policy patriotism can be inflamed–with or without justified warrant.
David, for me, it’s often a real tough nut to crack, and it really depends on the situation – thanks for the thoughtful response.
Hmmmm, I find this curious. David, what exactly made you uncomfortable? The dual loyalty issue? Care to elaborate? By the way, I think someone as yourself should have the fortitude to step outside his comfort zone once in a while. It will only make you stronger in the long run.
Chu,
David Samel and Donald have yet to scale that proverbial mountain. They are still grappling with certain issues, both in regard to personal identity and Jewish identity.
David is not “comfortable” with the dual loyalty issue and has yet to make that leap.
Donald, if you noticed, continues to convince himself that both Palestinians and Israelis have committed atrocities, while admitting that the Palestinians have committed fewer atrocities than the Israelis. Notice the differentiation on the basis of scale of proportionality, rather than coming to grips with the categorical differences between the two parties and their actions.
So you see that there are similarities between David and Donald.
Hopefully David will decide to honestly deal with the issue of dual loyalty, as would Donald with the false equivalence of using “atrocity” to compare what Israel has done to the Palestinians and what the Palestinians have done to Israel.
Mind you, at the same time, for Donald it’s a matter of semantics.
At least David Samel is honest about his comfort zone.
So I’m dishonest about the dual loyalty issue? What does that mean? That I disagree with you? I see the dual loyalty issue as somewhat regressive, not something I would ever care to leap for. There are overtones of blind obedience to the US president, and the necessity of showing him respect, that turn me off. And I don’t mind at all being lumped together with Donald. You’re taking unfair pot shots at us both, for reasons mysterious to me.
David,
You said that you were uncomfortable with that dual loyalty issue. There is no need to be defensive. I am simply asking, (If you wish to indulge me, if not, so be it) that you elaborate on how that fits into your personal identity and Jewish identity.
Avi,
It does take some fortitude to come out of the comfort zone and it takes time for others to evolve in their positions. How long it takes is the real crux of the matter.
(Frankly, I do not remember the details of such US support for the KR).
Because it wasn’t exactly like that, I think. I am not a specialist but I think I wouldn’t go further than that the US support of the military coup of General Lon Nol somehow helped to trigger the larger scenario. So whatever your daughter had on her mind it must have been an indirect support of the Kmer Rouge. Don’t forget Sihanouk’s earlier neutral position in the larger cold war scenario. And the KR’s alliance with North Vietnam. And Kambodia as an escape route, in the context of America + South versus North Vietnam. …
(Frankly, I do not remember the details of such US support for the KR).
Because it wasn’t exactly like that, I think. I am not a specialist but I think I wouldn’t go further than that the US support of the military coup of General Lon Nol somehow helped to trigger the larger scenario. So whatever your daughter had on her mind it must have been an indirect support of the Khmer Rouge. Don’t forget Sihanouk’s earlier attempts at neutrality in the larger Cold War scenario, KR’s alliance with North Vietnam, Cambodia as an escape route for Vietcong, the larger context of America + South versus North Vietnam. …
Hmm? I thought I could stop it, we spell Cambodia differently as you see above. Anyway …
We supported the Khmer Rouge after the Vietnamese overthrew them in 1979. We did it because we were trying to punish the Vietnamese and also to be on good terms with China, which was also allied with the KR against Vietnam–
link
“Hopefully David will decide to honestly deal with the issue of dual loyalty, as would Donald with the false equivalence of using “atrocity” to compare what Israel has done to the Palestinians and what the Palestinians have done to Israel.
Mind you, at the same time, for Donald it’s a matter of semantics.
At least David Samel is honest about his comfort zone.”
Ah, Avi is still trying to ferret out my nefarious tendencies, and calling me a liar. I didn’t catch this. You’d make a great inquisitor, Avi, always looking for heretical tendencies in people.
My “semantic” issue is a human rights issue and it’s not limited to this Israeli/Palestinian conflict There are usually atrocities committed by both sides of any conflict, even when there’s a clear right and wrong side and it does no good to pretend otherwise. Orwell said in “Notes on Nationalism” that there’s a tendency, cutting across all ideologies, for many people to employ double standards in judging which acts of murder or other atrocities they will condemn. It’s the source of my disgust with RW. I think the Israelis (or Zionists in the period before Israel existed) are the aggressors in this conflict–those who intended to form a Jewish state were implicitly planning to commit an act of ethnic cleansing. And since then they have done so, along with all the other sorts of atrocities imperialists generally commit. Some Palestinians have committed atrocities in resisting this, murdering children in some cases. Atrocities are wrong even if one is on the right side of a just war.
I’ve encountered people before who take what I just said as “false equivalence” even though I’ve clearly laid out which side I think is much more to blame. But you don’t have to think that Palestinian crimes are equal to Israeli crimes in order to say that Palestinians have committed crimes. You don’t have to “pretend” Palestinians and Israelis have both committed atrocities, while Israelis have committed more. You don’t have to pretend because it’s all true.
But just as Orwell wrote, that there are people who think everyone should just line up behind one side and never say anything critical about their crimes and if you do you are engaged in “false equivalence”. The funny thing is one often hears this from the political right. Orwell was a very observant guy.
“those who intended to form a Jewish state were implicitly planning to commit an act of ethnic cleansing.”
I think that is a ludicrous description, a prejudicial one.
“I think that is a ludicrous description, a prejudicial one.”
Well, you would, wouldn’t you? And I thank you for jumping in–nothing is going to make me look better than your opposition.
There were some Zionists who were cultural Zionists, as I understand it, who didn’t want to create a Jewish state, but live side by side with Arabs in peace. (Judah Magnes, I think, fits this description.) The ones who came to Palestine with the intent of creating a Jewish state in a land already inhabited mostly by Arab Christians and Muslims would have to be willing to “persuade” them to leave in sufficient numbers or else to get Britain to “persuade” them one way or another to submit to the Zionist goal.
MOST, literally the vast majority, were simply people that sought to build a new community in an area that was largely unoccupied (not entirely).
They came to value the need for defense and then for a state.
The orchestrated riots, the armed insurrections, the out and out civil war, and then the externally orchestrated Arab League military war, convinced them that the need for a state was not excessive, but rational.
Only a very very few, very ideological non-Zionists retained the view that a state was not needed to be a community.
Less than that was suicide.
Its literally too bad that the Arab world regarded Palestinian as exclusively promised to them. They were well aware of the Balfour promises to Jews, and didn’t take the steps to form an accommodation with the Jews that were there, or their later need (NEED) from the holocaust.
The revision of the original history is partially true, so that gives you the basis to buy into to the whole of the condemnation, but your maximal interpretation is a misrepresentation.
“They were well aware of the Balfour promises to Jews, ”
Yeah, exactly, they were aware the British made a promise they had no right making.
As for unoccupied, the world in general had many fewer people in it, so I suppose every place was “unoccupied” when compared to the present. Nice rationalization you’ve got there.
Still clinging to that word “maximal”. It’s like a kid with a new toy, but you’ll get tired of it, I imagine.
thanks Donald, I had a vague memory there was something peculiar but at the same time a direct support of the KR by the US felt odd in Cold War days.
I should have remained quiet, but it kept my from interfering in the “double loyalty” topic. I agree with DS, but I can also see that in this special case the topics criticizing the President and supporting Israel are more deeply interwoven that his careful differentiation suggests.
The two different perspectives on the larger WWIII/IV scenario are still very much around.
Israel as an early warning center recording anti-Western sentiments in the region, that better have to be “preemptified”. Versus war in the ME as the best recruitment of terrorists as much as Israel’s military actions are usually accompanied by heightened antisemitism. Or the Israel-Palestine conflict as a core feeding anti-Western sentiments in the ME.
The question is, does Schomer follow his conscience only, since he honestly believes that a resolution of the I/P conflict will not make the “pan-Arab threat” to the World/West disappear, a scenario in which Israel is only some kind of early warning center to the threatened Western world. Would that be double loyalty? Hardly.
What does his voting record, considering the huge support for Israel in both congress and house tell us really about what he thinks. Since I do not know him, I’d love to read a portrait by Phil.
Slightly provocative addition, admitly from a mild anti-American perspective, I do not consider Europe too different, by the way.
His disinterest in those “have nots” in the WB and Gaza, his disinterest in their plight, suffering and humiliation, quite in tune with the larger US mainstream thinking of winners versus losers. From that perspective one could ask, isn’t he absolutely loyal to American “values”? And not guilty of a “double standard”?
I just discovered by the way that one of the most interesting Palestinian ladies, I ever met: Sumaya Farhat-Naser is planning to or already emigrated to the US. Congratulations to you to have this “new” American in your country. She is really amazing.
I agree with you here. I’m not too crazy about the dual loyalty theme most of the time. I don’t want to say it’s never appropriate–it might possibly be with the Kass issue, depending on what the facts are regarding whether she still has Israeli citizenship and yet also has a security clearance. That would be strange. But it’s probably true there is so much crap and nonsense and unpleasantness going on inside the bureaucracy of the national security state one more ideological hack isn’t going to make that much difference.
Getting back to dual loyalty, as you say this sort of accusation is leveled against lefties for criticism of US foreign policy. It was at its most extreme right after 9/11, when you couldn’t say anything bad about US foreign policy without being accused of apologetics for Al Qaeda.
Still, I don’t think you ever see a Senator explicitly taking the side of a foreign country over our own President except with Israel. I might be wrong about that, but I can’t think of an example. Critics of US policy usually walk on eggshells to avoid looking like they side with some foreign leader over our President. Maybe it should happen more often–I used to daydream about someone, anyone in political life coming right out and saying that our Presidents have been a succession of war criminals or enablers of war criminals.
Though actually, even then I’d want the Senator to take a pro-human right stance, not a pro-foreign government stance. One could and should have opposed the Vietnam War without siding with the North Vietnamese government.
Well, think about it. During the Bush years, the sentiment was overwhelmingly to side with Bush over our long-time ally, France, when it came to Iraq. To the point where there was actual (and absurd) levels of anti-French sentiment in the United States. Freedom fries, anyone? And while it was predominantly a Republican phenomenon, I don’t think anyone can fairly say it was exclusively so by any means.
So Israel really is the soul exception case in American politics.
(There was a French restaurant on Park Avenue that had to get all sorts of American flags, a custom designed array of banners and styles, to show they were not anti-american. I believe it closed down a few months later.) Sad story for the entire restaurant and their workers.
RE: “Still, I don’t think you ever see a Senator explicitly taking the side of a foreign country over our own President except with Israel.”
Not to mention 327 bipartisan House members:
link to hotair.com
I’d say this should give any American pause. What does Obama have except the public bully pulpit over the heads of congress when it comes to trying to make Israel slightly accountable?
I agree and made that point also. How delicate do we need to tread upon these eggshells, and whose says it to be so?
(Don’t silence me! ya heard…)
And I cannot think of one senator who has said that we have no conclusive proof that Iran is building a bomb. Maybe Kucinich, but I’m only guessing. They all say the opposite, and that’s incredible. But they are losing credibility, since this is replaying like Iraq (part 2, of course); and Iraq was an illegal invasion ordered by the president, through the authority of the congress, and in part supported by Israeli interests. Chuck is pro-war every time, so treading lighting with him is a hard sell.
Yes, treading lightly with Chuck is a hard sell for those with information gleaned from other than the US MSM. That’s another problem, and another reason why I don’t buy all DS says, though I appreciate what he says and I think he is an honest appraiser.
David,
I don’t see how you reached that conclusion. Did you read my post above about 1991 Schumer? There is a track record here that cannot be ignored.
There’s a difference between public criticism and repeatedly defending a foreign nation, as was the case with the protest to which Chu linked to above, the one covered by Max Blumenthal.
I’m truly surprised at how you reached your conclusions.
Is this a matter of being proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Hypothetically speaking, would it require an explicit admission from Schumer to convince you otherwise? Or is it a case of a preponderance of evidence?
You strike me as someone who comes from an engineering background where every little peace, every microscopic detail has to fit in just right to form a whole, while inductive and deductive reasoning is risky business in engineering.
What say you? Yay or nay?
Avi, you refer to reasonable doubt and preponderance, which is on the right track. I am a criminal defense lawyer, not an engineer. I’ve really gotten some negative feedback from my opinion, which I don’t mind, except that it seems to stem from a misunderstanding.
So let me try again. I am absolutely opposed to the US embargo on Cuba. If I were a senator who consistently favored lifting the embargo, and I consistently criticized my President’s position, I would be siding with a foreign government against my own, “repeatedly defending a foreign nation” as you put it, sort of the same thing Schumer is doing. If I were defending the legitimacy of Chavez’s presidency in Venezuela against my President’s intimations of dictatorship, I also would be “guilty” of this offense. As you well know, I utterly oppose Schumer’s position (though neither I nor you nor many people here share Obama’s view) but not over this foreign allegiance thing. He’s just dead wrong on the merits. If he were right, or if he were criticizing US policy on Cuba or Venezuela, I’d have no problem with it.
As for your 1991 history, it doesn’t prove anything more than that Schumer has consistently been on Israel’s side. I do not require any admission on his behalf. His actions speak loudly for themselves. He feels 100% committed to defending Israel. I do not see how the merits of that position (of which I find none) depend on whether the US government shares it or does not.
And no offense – you are extremely articulate in English, but it is not your first language – but “piece” not “peace” is the word you wanted.
David,
See my responses here
and here
And no offense – you are extremely articulate in English, and since it is your first language I’m surprised that you made this error:
As you may have noticed, “for”, not “from” is the word you wanted.
I’m thankful that Schumer has consistently been on Israel’s side. It should be noted that his constituency is Zionist as well.
He’s one of the best US Representatives that Israel ever bought, huh.
” It should be noted that his constituency is Zionist as well”
His constituency is American.
David,
You are of course right that there is nothing wrong about criticizing Obama on Israel (or any other issue). The problem arises when people like Schumer consistently take Israel’s side and oppose the US. In cases like that a legitimate question arises–whose side is Schumer on? The people who elected him or the state of Israel?
Schumer, it appears, has come down on the side of Israel. That’s his right but, if it’s true, I submit he has no business being an American senator.
>> ” … when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk,” Schumer told Segal. “Palestinians don’t really believe in a state of Israel.”
” … when you give the Israelis hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk,” Schumer told Segal. “Israelis don’t really believe in a state of Palestine.”
Hey, whaddaya know, it works just as well the other way! :-) Very much unlike, say, the following: “Apart from white phosphorus, the Israeli army used a variety of other weapons in densely populated civilian areas of Gaza in the three-week conflict that began on 27 December.
. . .
An anti-personnel weapon designed to penetrate dense vegetation, flechettes should never be used in built-up civilian areas. The Israeli army has used them in Gaza periodically for several years. In most cases their use has resulted in civilians being killed or injured.”
Well, the Israelis have sat down and talked in the past, precisely because Israel was assured the US (Clinton et al) would be “Israel’s lawyer.”
“Does Christian Zionism have anything to do with Schumer’s advocacy?”
I mean, yeah. Christian Zionism isn’t just ideology, it’s money and votes and lobbying. CUFI and its ilk spend massive money on lobbying efforts.
Schumer and others who are genuinely ideologically committed to an “Israel-first” world view wouldn’t be able to maintain their power without Christian Zionism anymore than they would be able to maintain their power without corporate support.
And, just stating the obvious, Schumer is always catering to his actual voting constituency and its donors.
His first constituency is Wall Street, his second is Israel, and somewhere far far below are New Yorkers. Wall Street provides real money. The US media, more correctly known as the Israel Lobby, provides publicity money can’t buy. The American public does not have the media power to propagandize itself into believing that Israel is the victim of the Palestinians rather than occupier and ethnic cleanser. The American public doesn’t have control of the media to direct its well organized non-stop publicity campaigns to coerce politicians, almost always Congressional Democrats, into spending US taxpayer dollars for white phosphorous and whatever else Israel imagines it needs to starve out, burn out, and blast out the Palestinians.
Yep.I recently read that most of Chuckie the Doll’s Jewish constituency favors keeping any arguments with Israel behind closed doors. Otherwise, you might wake up the dirty blatent (not many, under legal PC) and latent anti-semites. Nothing new under the Jewish sun.
I suspect Philip Weiss is one of Schumer’s Jewish constuents.
Well said. Trickle down at best. I am one of his geographic constituents and I am at the bottom of the totem pole.
Phil has published that he is a constituent of John Hall.
New York Congressman John Hall.
God forbid we “yell & scream” in the face of unmitigated brutality and apologia of the same, oh heavens no. That’s why Libs and Progs never get anywhere. I’ve heard the definition of a liberal was someone who reasons in the hope the Neo-Cons eat him last. Schumer is more than repugnant with his ubiquitous press conferences over this or that. I find him aesthetically displeasing as well, he has that phony gravitas act down with his glasses always at the tip of his nose like an earnest Felix Frankfurter. Feh!
You talkin’ to me? I’m the only one who said I don’t “yell and scream” in this comment section because I think it’s pointless. If you were criticizing me for that, and claiming I fit your definition of liberal, you were being most unfair.
I don’t yell and scream because it is not going to convince the person I’m talking to – eee, for example – and I find it boring to wade through comments that have curses without content. I get nothing out of it. So what’s the point? It’s not like I concede there is any merit to eee’s arguments. Maybe I’m being oversensitive to your insult.
I think the point, DS, is that US and world humane interests are not in Israel’s activities favor. What do you think we should do about the Hitler philosophy spread by the likes of eee?
I think there’s a difference between yelling and screaming (how is that done over a medium such as this anyway?) and using some strong words to convey the urgency and volatility of the situation.
Mere academic musings have yet to motivate people to go out and start a grass roots organization or join a civil rights movement. Passion needs to be injected into it as well, from time to time. That is something that many Americans are not used to, while many Europeans, and people in Israel ,including the Middle East, understand very well. By and large, Americans prefer to play it safe and avoid confrontations. It’s something that I have noticed early on when I first moved to the US.
I get nothing out of it except grief and dismay from the you hate Israel argument. It paints the specific topics with too broad a brush.
David,
There are elements of truth in EEE’s argument, even if the “its our land” isn’t.
There are elements of truth in the “dual loyalty” argument, even though it is a fascistic litmus test of conformity, enforced through cruel political interrogation asking people to adopt politically correct thinking (but only through punishment, not through better alternative).
In 1948, my assessment is that Zionism was necessary for Jews, European refugees, and that the theme of “never again” that appealed to many was also necessary to shift Jewish thinking from utterly in the desparate victim mode to the assertive self-determining mode.
In fact, many in diaspora still think as if they owe the world an apology for being Jewish residually, and more importantly to choose to be Jewish presently and communally to whatever extent.
Phil asked a question many times of whether it is now necessary, or whether Zionism has become irrelevant (to the issue of Jewish haven from centuries of persecution, or even prospective persecution). His contention is that it doesn’t seem to be, and sites the absence of anti-semitic incidents widely in the US (unlike what our parents experienced), and the relative power of Jews in public establishment (also unlike our parents’ experience).
Others observe the willingness of many dissenters, Arab communities, and Palestinian solidarity vanguard, to ignore the discipline of not equating Jews vs Zionists, and threaten Jews in general for Zionism. That some site objection to collective punishment to apply that approach of collective punishment, is hypocritical to the point of being sickening.
The liberal Zionist assertion is that we need a body, that Israel needs a body, and that world Jewry need a potential haven. And, that with that body, we should be as good neighbors as is possible.
Being a good neighbor is different than the current. And having a body, a state in this case, is different than what dissenters propose.
Many dissenters claim that it is impossible to simultaneously be sympathetic, a supporter, of Zionism and do good.
Again, I think that argument is analagous to saying that if you as an individual has a body with any sense of boundary, that you cannot also be a good neighbor.
Reform is then called for, not revolution.
If 1948 were 5 years ago, 20 years ago, then it would be a valid current reference of democracy. Its not. Its now three generations old, past.
An approach urging reforms allow Israelis to consider their intentions. An approach urging revolution or regime change of an entity that most Israelis consider necessary, makes war only. “Which side are on becomes the only question relevant.”
And, for a humanist, or anyone that has a large portion of their political sentiment derived from compassionate humanism, that is the wrong question.
Your assessment is ofno interest to us Witty. When are you going to get it that the rest of us don’t give a crap what you brlievd and don’t hang on your every word?
An approach such as “a vote against Bolton, is a vote against Israel” is a vote for the status quo, for what the zionist body is doing to its neighbors, and has been doing for way too many decades. Zionist ends do not justify Zionist means unless under triple e’s specifically anti-universal basic rights philosophy as triple e has articulated it on this bl0g.
Looks like eee has made a change in both tactics and strategy, having no doubt gone off to consult his tribal elders.
So we see the “strategy”, such as it is, evolving from the #4 at its most basic (what about the aboriginees of australia? why don’t YOU give it back to the mexicans/eskimos/indians!!) back to #3(b)ii and corrollaries which consist of the demureful tribal incantations “But we are all on the same side!”. And thusly we have eee appealing to David Samel’s inner tribal child to cease and desist from making common cause with them “others” (a la Chaos, citizen and whoever else eee guesses may not be kosher jewish). He tried the same before with Shmuel; “what are YOU doing running along with those frothy anti-semites”? such nice Jewish boys – aren’t you ashamed of the company you keep?
Needless to say, both Shmuel and David are way beyond this transparent tactic, which surely every jewish person who throws their lot with the universalist over the particularist has been amply exposed to.
So much for strategy. But there’s also that change in tactics; from striking out in all directions at once to see what sticks, “yado b’kol veh yad kol bo” style to more targeted slithery whispers in the ear “hey there, it’s me – your fearful reptilian self – run for your life! the assimilators are e’comin’!”
We, on the sidelines, watching the cyber kabuki can barely stand the suspense: will the brave DS succumb to fear-of-assimilation? can Shmuel-the-smart be seduced by the sirene ghetto calls? will Chaos the wild let loose finally? will the chorus split right in the middle – kosher jews this way, not-so-kosher whatevers thither? and, the craziest potential plot like: will the ever–present ophelian Phil and Adam be prey to Yago’s whispers?
Oops, looks like I just went from Kabuki to Greek tragedy and back to shaekspeare. Maybe eee can see his way can to correct my incorrigible wandering lust? or am I doomed to forever reside in cherem- right along with my favorite – Spinoza?
It looks like you spent a lot of time on this, Danaa. Just in case you were wondering if it was worth it, I thought it very funny, so it wasn’t wasted on me.
Nor was it wasted on me, Danaa. One day it may be in a new updated edition of the Golden Bough. And we also need a new version of the Merchant Of Venice. Perhaps a key character, a Palestinian, could say,
“If you cut me, don’t I bleed?” I suggest Arafat was ugly enough to say this in the new version. Oh we can even meld Shakespeaean dramas. Obama as Othello? Rahm & Axlerod as conflicted Iago whispering in Obama’s big ears?
Citizen actually, Yassar Arafat cast as the Merchant if Venice actually does strike me as quite apt — less so visually in my mind, as metaphorically.
My thanks too, Danaa. Lovely way to start the day on this side of the pond.
A propos Arafat as the Merchant of Venice, there was a great Israeli movie in the ’80s, called Avanti Popolo, in which an Egyptian soldier – a Shakespearian actor in civilian life – does a wonderful version of Shylock’s monologue.
Salim Dau’s Shylock in Avanti Popolo.
After the monologue, one of the Israeli soldiers says: “What’s he babbling?” And the other answers: “He got the roles mixed up.”
The irony of course is that the Israelis have the guns and the water and the Egyptians are lost and helpless, but the Israelis still consider themselves the “Jews” of the situation.
Chaos, it works both ways.
Wow. Thanks for sharing, Shmuel.
This clip is perfect underscore, Shmuel. How do you come up with these things? do you have a secret garden with a fountain of all-things-relevant?
Citizen, alas, poor Axelrod is not a good casting choice as Iago – way too affable. As for Emanuel, we have to first figure out whether Obama makes a good Othello. I sincerely hope not, or else we are all really screwed. Just think who gets cast in the Ophelia role.
Not so much [time] actually. Just taking a brief break from a ‘weighty” patent I am writing. Mondoweiss is such a great anti-dote for ennui, don’t you think? Glad you liked ……
Pingback: New Light on the Dangers of Millennialism to our Military | NEWS Gate
I’m sorry I’m replying from my phone and the reply buttons are disabled.Potsherd I would say hatred of the Officers who raped Judys brother in law would be not only be rational, one would have to be “Christlike” not to hate. David Samel I wasn’t tring to be insulting I was merely trying to point out a tendency in our body politic. I am a constituent of Schumer, he certainly doesn’t rep.my interests in any way. As far as dual loyalty goes it is an appropriate cudgel to use rhetorically against a pol.who is part of a system that values patriotism. I personally don’t give a shit about any “State”I think they are all vehicles for the most mercenary and vain to rise to to positions of authority.
demize, I’m sorry I did not see this until now. Perhaps I was being a bit too thin-skinned. In any event, I endorse your simple observation: “As far as dual loyalty goes it is an appropriate cudgel to use rhetorically against a pol.who is part of a system that values patriotism.” I don’t value patriotism, at least the type that is shoved down our throats, and that is why I have little attraction to the dual loyalty issue. On the other hand, when a Republican moralist pol gets caught in a gay sex scandal, I confess I do applaud. Obviously, gay sex is no scandal, but the hypocrite deserves to be caught in his own vice. Schumer may not lead the free world in empty patriotic rhetoric, but he surely is a practitioner, and it is reasonable to call him on his hypocrisy. But I still generally refrain from using arguments that I think could be used against positions I favor, as in the Cuba example I gave.
“Luckily in terms of Jewish people we have good representation in terms of the Supreme Court. That will continue. “
Does “Schumer the Guardian” mean that Jewish judges are good in terms of diversity or that they can be expected to make rulings for the benefit of Jewish/Israeli interests?
Does he worry about the rights or interests of those group underrepresented (women) or unrepresented (atheists)?