We often note the news that Democratic rank-and-file support for Israel is fading. Well, the California State Democratic Convention yesterday endorsed Congresswoman Jane Harman for reelection from a district around Los Angeles, but before it did so, Harman and her opponent, Marcy Winograd, both appeared before a progressive caucus at the convention, and argued Israel. The Fresno Bee calls the fight the "flashpoint" of the convention. Peggy McCormack, a delegate to the convention, says that the story will be covered today on Pacifica radio, KPFA, 10 am PST. Meantime, her report:
Jane Harman and Marcy Winograd managed to squeeze in a debate of sorts before a couple hundred Progressive Caucus delegates at the Democratic Convention. Marcy herself brought up Israel in order to distance herself from Harman. I never thought I'd hear a candidate talk about brutal occupation, lack of water, unnecessary continuous deaths and lack of democracy. Harman in response called Marcy an extremist who wants to get rid of Israel, and Marcy shot back with a democratic state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. This got a standing ovation. And, Harman stood up and said she did not go to the caucus to debate and strode out. Unbelievable. We collected enough signatures to get Marcy's signature to the floor of the convention, whereupon the vote was done in a strange but legal way with party workers counting the people holding up cards, and of course Harman won. When we called for a recorded vote, John Burton, the party chair, snarled something or other about Marcy should organize better. Clearly Marcy won the standing vote (we all waved our delegate badges) but we had not done our homework to jump at the mike and call for a recorded vote. Doesn't matter, the point will not be lost on the lobby.
Jane Harmon, loyalty first to israel … caught up in US federal gov’t investigations and overheard spying for AIPAC (israel) and yet, there she sits still – in Congress
… here’s some advice Jane, walk out of Congress never to come back and don’t let the door hit you on the ass
It’s obvious that she wouldn’t debate on Israel because, as we have seen here, there is no defense for Israel, only badmouthing and maligning the Zionist critics.
RE: “I never thought I’d hear a candidate talk about brutal occupation, lack of water, unnecessary continuous deaths and lack of democracy.” – McCormack referring to Marcy Winograd, Harman’s opponent
Fight the Big Bank Candidate – Support our TV Campaign
From: Marcy Winograd for Congress
Sent: Fri 4/16/10 4:21 PM
Dear Friend,
I’m Marcy Winograd and I hope you’ll help me put my “People Speak” commercial on the air.
On June 8th, less than two months from now, Jane Harman and I will go head to head to represent California’s 36th congressional district. Harman’s relentless pursuit of corporate contributions will enable her to barrage voters with her Blue Dog message.
We need to broadcast our own message: Your Street, not Wall Street.
Please watch my latest commercial and donate so that we can get it on the air. Lets take the next step toward winning this election.
LINK - https://winogradforcongress.com/commercial/
P.S.
Marcy Winograd for Congress - https://winogradforcongress.com/
To Contribute - https://winogradforcongress.com/contribute/
That’s the first thing that popped in my head when I read her name.
It makes one wonder how she got re-elected.
Same reason Joe Lieberman got reelected — money wins elections in the United States, not political stances.
“Same reason Joe Lieberman got reelected — money wins elections in the United States, not political stances.”
Sure, money talks, that is the truth. Take a look at Harman’s portfolio circa 2006. In fact I will show you –
THE HOUSE – JANE HARMAN – $222,175, 772 TO $596,678, 002
In fact, you have entire entourage of financial elites in both houses-
THE RICH ELITE TRAIN OF “REPRESENTATIVES” PURPOSEFULLY SET UP THIS WAY
We need to stop placing individuals in office who do not represent the people. We have this long trail of elites, who do not identify with any working class people – we have an entrenched class process going on in public office.
People who have no monetary cares make policies for individuals that count pennies, health policy is formulated by people who have never sat in a public clinic or have never had the problem of no money for health care – transportation policy is made by those who have never ridden a bus or looked for a parking space – our education policies are legislated by people who have never sent their kids to public school – daycare by those who have high payed nannies to care for their children.
These type of people (above) always say and believe that people of low income are doing just fine, the environment is just fine (they retire from work on their estates). If you put these elites in they will always equate the national interest with the people they rub elbows with, not with the likes of you and I.
They see the poor and working class as deserving little because we are regarded as contributing little. This is the same type of person who has brought you the WTO, that was made to fly above the will of the people and national sovereignty! Community interest is subordinated to the interest of finance capital and multi-national corporations. These people meet in secret and do not publicize their proceedings and are not subject to administrative appeal.
With this we are in the process of being brought to the lowest common economic denominator “least trade restrictive.” The common fallacy is that the elite person you elect is going to rise you higher, or to their station (or so they say), no – no, they have gotten to where they are by suppressing you, and they will continue to do so in public office!
So I have made these statements in regard to the representatives that the American people put in office, are they true statements? Here is a chart (below) of the average income in these representative bodies… (see link)
You are correct, VR; the international investment bankers are now
preying on whole state’s e.g., Greece. The WTO partners with the IMF and WB. The Clinton regime got rid of the Glass Stegel Act;
and the same sociopathic investment bankers have moved on to the whole world as their elite (very elite) playing field, their “market.” They recognize no fiduciary duty except their own material profit. The whole world outside of their tiny circle are as
the skinned buffalo & the starving tribes that once honored and lived off them on the plains of historic America.
And, as the buffalo were nearly finished off in just a few years, the
sociopathic investment bankers’ pace is picking up fast, watch the domino effect after Greece goes belly up.
Citizen, if will note, while i was writing this (2008) I did not tie it too the “lobby or Israel,” however when you see this frequency of insensitivity and the activity of some so-called representatives it bears mentioning. The reality of a representative body bought off goes without saying, but when it has with it interests that do not even remotely set on the American people it becomes doubly troublesome. So, while I do not specifically say that this idea of self-enrichment, or the people who are in office whether Jew or Gentile do not have these same issues (disconnection from the people because they are a financial elite), but that the added complication of specific interests in Israel and so on become exacerbated.
Jane Harman was complicit in spying on our government for a foreign country.
But because that country is Israel and not say China, she is still allowed a seat in Congress…
link to salon.com
Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.
Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.
In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.
Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”
And lets just say we gave her the benefit of the doubt. That maybe the whole thing is a misunderstanding as many of her supporters allege (meanwhile Harman refuses to even address the issue). Harman should at least address the issue, clarify why she was conspiring with an Israeli spy, and make it clear that she had no intention of accepting the bribe offered her.
Ironically Harman was a big advocate of wire tapping =P
Didn’t she make a deal with Bush to back him up on the wiretapping bill and in exchange have the DoJ drop the case against her or something to that effect? The details of the case escape me at the moment.
Found it:
oh and this today from Ehud Barak:
[I've made bold the final paragraph]
he warned that while Israel is militarily strong, it needs international legitimacy as well.
“The world isn’t willing to accept — and we won’t change that in 2010 — the expectation that Israel will rule another people for decades more,” he said. “It’s something that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world.”
Palestinians aspire to a state of their own, he said, and “there is no other way, whether you like it or not, than to let them rule themselves.”
Barak heads the Labor Party, the only political party in Netanyahu’s government that is not considered hawkish.
But in his three years as defense minister, Barak has not even taken down the two dozen settlement satellites that Israel promised the U.S. it would dismantle in 2003. Dovish critics have accused him of making Labor a fig leaf for the Netanyahu government’s hawkish policies.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/middle_east/view.bg?articleid=1248319&srvc=rss
The internal organization of the Democratic Party is one of the major battlegrounds on which to fight the Israel Lobby. The process of vetting officials and candidates for loyalty to Israel before promotion/advancement within the hierarchy needs to be stopped.
Yes, Colin; it’s indeed so, and the choice between these too is indeed stark; it’s between a classic corporate-financed war monger and Israel firster, and a real grass roots opponent who takes no corporate funds, and is a true progressive.
The vote count was shady; and Marcy will still run sans the party’s endorsement–gotta watch this race as emblematic of things to come, same as the recent Berkely student sentate vote concerning divestment.
The times, they are a-changin’ (despite Dylan).
And yes, this will really send AIPACers into a new tizzy.
link to blogs.alternet.org
And so Harman ‘waddles’ out of the debate…
Let’s hope the point isn’t lost on the Party
I think I’ll send a campaign contribution to Winograd.
I’m taking the liberty of posting all of this, to add additional context:
Winograd vs. Harman in CA Primary: Will U.S. or Israel’s Interests Come First?
POSTED: 12:37 am, March 22, 2010 COMMENT NOW!
(This article is based on one that will appear in the upcoming May/June 2010 issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: link to
Sunday, March 14, 2010, ushered in two welcome events to Southern California: the inauguration of the headquarters of the bustling Winograd For Congress primary campaign, and an extra hour of daylight to help Marcy Winograd’s swarm of supporters evict Jane Harman, the wealthiest Democrat in Congress, from her eight-term seat in the House. Photo by Linda Milazzo
This is progressive Democrat Winograd’s second run against blue-dog conservative and AIPAC insider Harman. Winograd’s first effort in 2006 resulted in a respectable 38 percent of the vote after a short three-month campaign. This time, the determined challenger has given herself ample time to meet with residents throughout California’s 36th Congressional District, hear their concerns and identify their most critical needs. Not surprisingly, her industrious boots-on-the-ground campaign has been well received by constituents who were often ignored by their incumbent whose career focused more on rising through the ranks of Congressional ‘Intelligence’ than on the needs of constituents back home.
Winograd’s grassroots momentum so concerned her opponent that Harman retaliated with an ideological assault of minor relevance to most residents in her district. Rather than going toe to toe with Winograd on constituent specific matters, Harman chose Israel as her main campaign strategy. Though Harman and Winograd are both Jewish Americans, they hold radically different views on Israel. Winograd is co-founder of L.A. Jews For Peace and a critic of Israel’s Gaza blockade, West Bank settlement expansion, and refusal to grant Palestinians the right of return. Conversely, Harman is an AIPAC darling who believes Israel can do no wrong. Harman’s uncompromising support for Israel has brought her substantial financial rewards. In addition to individual contributions, Harman has received a career total of $103,771 in pro-Israel PAC contributions.
To launch her Israel assault and tap into the psyches and wallets of her Jewish supporters, Harman solicited co-AIPAC loyalist, Congressman Henry Waxman, to compose a letter to Jewish donors blasting Winograd on Israel. Waxman, who like Harman, disdains critics of Israel, willingly obliged. His letter excoriated Winograd, calling her views “repugnant in the extreme.” He went on to say:
“To me, the notion that a Member of Congress could hold these views is alarming. Ms. Winograd is far, far outside the bipartisan mainstream of views that has long insisted that U.S. policy be based upon rock-solid support for our only democratic ally [Israel] in the Middle East.”
Winograd, taken back by the harshness of Waxman’s attack, responded in kind with a powerful letter of her own. She stated in part:
“Like you, I am intimately aware of our Jewish history. On my mother’s side, my great-grandparents escaped the Russian Pogroms to make a better life for themselves in Europe. On my father’s side, my great-grandparents were killed in the Jewish Holocaust of Nazi Germany. Because of our collective experience with persecution, it behooves us to stand in opposition to persecution anywhere and everywhere, rather than sanctify reductionist state policies that cast all Jews as victims who can only thrive in a segregated society. Furthermore, we must stand in explicit opposition to the Israeli persecution of the Palestinians; the brutal blockade of Gaza, an act of war by international standards, denying children clean water, food, and medicine. We are better than that.”
(The full text of Waxman and Winograd’s letters are available in my January 11, 2010 article on the Huffington Post)
Regrettably for Harman, infusing the highly charged issue of Israel into her primary race appears to have backfired. Contrary to incumbents’ tradition of downplaying the primary challenger, Harman’s actions have heightened interest in Winograd, resulting in an onslaught of high profile media discussions. Tikkun, Politico, Huffington Post, The Nation, Washington Examiner, Glenn Beck on FOX TV, and dozens more venues have invoked the impassioned campaign. Interestingly, the article that seems to have stirred the most interest is that of Jewish Journal editor-in-chief, Rob Eshman, who offered to host a debate on Israel between the primary challengers – an invitation incumbent Harman probably hadn’t expected.
Winograd accepted Eshman’s offer the day the offer was made, writing on the Jewish Journal:
“Thank you for inviting me to debate my opponent at a public forum on the establishment of a lasting Middle East peace. I gladly accept and look forward to engaging in a community dialogue sponsored by the Jewish Journal. Ultimately, I believe we all want peace, though we may have different opinions on how to achieve it. It is time for serious soul-searching and what better time than now.”
Harman, however, took nearly two months to respond. I contacted Eshman and John Hess, Harman’s chief of staff, numerous times by e-mail and phone to inquire about Harman’s decision. Eshman kept me up to date, stating he’d personally reached out to Harman but hadn’t heard back. Hess never responded.
Finally, on March 3rd, Hess sent Eshman this cursory e-mail declining the invitation:
“Hi Rob—thank you for your message and your invitation. However, Congresswoman Harman declines the kind offer and believes her views on Israel are very clear. John H.”
Eshman was less then pleased with Harman’s refusal, as evidenced in his article, “Harman Declines Jewish Journal Debate Invite”
Winograd again responded immediately to Jewish Journal:
“I commend Editor Rob Eshman when he calls for open and intelligent debate on Middle East peace and thank Rabbi Dan Shevitz of Temple Mishkon Tephilo for offering to host a critically-needed conversation. I hope my opponent reconsiders her rejection of Rabbi Shevitz’s offer.
“In the meantime, I would like Jewish Journal readers to know that I will support a peace agreement, be it two states or one state, which both sides—Israelis and Palestinians—acknowledge will respect equality, dignity, and human rights for all.”
It’s fairly standard in American politics for the incumbent to decline to debate a primary opponent. In this case, however, the reasons for Harman’s refusal may be more complex than traditional political gamesmanship. Jane Harman has not served herself well by rebuffing her Jewish Journal ally and turning down Eshman’s request to debate. But this debate had the potential to harm Jane Harman, whose many personal and ethics controversies would have likely been exposed by Winograd.
Harman could have feared being challenged on her wiretapped conversation with former AIPAC employees that resulted in accusations of improper information sharing and exchanges of favors with agents of a foreign land [Israel]. Harman could have feared being confronted on Israel’s widely condemned mistreatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, for which there is ample proof of brutality via the Goldstone Report and eyewitness testimonies by Sen. John Kerry, Reps. Keith Ellison and Brian Baird, and former President Jimmy Carter.
American public opinion of Israel is declining rapidly as details of the Palestinians’ plight is more widely revealed.
Israel’s growing national disfavor increases the probability that Waxman and Harman’s assault on Winograd originated not only as a political ploy, but also from their fear that electing a potential critic of Israel to Congress might weaken the United States’ middle east policy that has always favored Israel – much to the detriment of the U.S. For legislators like Harman and Waxman, whose foreign policy decisions have been predicated first and foremost on serving Israel, such a possibility could be cause for great dismay.
But Israel/U.S. relations are now on shaky ground and the current Israeli government has been damaging to America. It’s impossible to ignore that Harman declined the Winograd debate two weeks after five of her congressional colleagues, along with members of J Street (the year-and-a-half-old pro-peace/pro-Israel PAC), were snubbed and disrespected in Israel by the Israeli deputy foreign minister, and their pre-planned visit to Gaza was blocked by the Israeli army. These events would have assuredly come up in the debate since Harman and Waxman’s colleagues, in particular Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts and Bob Filner of California, have been outspoken in their outrage over their mistreatment by the Israelis. The question of Harman’s collegial allegiance would have been unavoidable in the debate.
In mid-March, during Vice President Joseph Biden’s visit to Israel, Israel announced the building of 1,600 new homes in the disputed territory of East Jerusalem – a direct insult to the United States and a rebuke of the U.S.’ demand that Israel freeze further settlement expansion. Israel’s announcement infuriated Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Adding insult to injury, a subsequent announcement by Prime Minister Netanyahu declaring that settlement expansion will continue unabated, drove a further gulf between the two nations.
Schisms are forming in American government amongst American legislators over Israel, chipping away at Waxman’s proclamation of rock-solid legislative support. And those schisms are sure to grow wider as Israel’s expansion into Palestinian territory and human rights abuses continue, figuratively spitting in the face of President Obama and ultimately forcing his and Congress’ hand. Some believe Israel is acting out because the United States hasn’t been harsh enough with Iran. But the American public and American coffers won’t readily support a third war when the American economy is in such disarray. Thus, the question of Israel’s value as an ally has more frequently come into play.
Truth be told, Harman and Waxman’s congressional districts are not immune to the eroding pro-Israel sentiment that is spreading nationwide. Also true is that Harman and Waxman have underestimated the growing support for Winograd, who is no newbie to the political scene. She’s co-founder of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, a former officer in the California Democratic Party, and her esteem amongst Jews and non-Jews traverses the boundaries of Los Angeles. She is feted by the Jewish community much like Harman – albeit Winograd’s supporters tend to be less ideological and more open-minded.
I asked Winograd what responses she’d received after the ruckus raised by Waxman and Harman’s provocative letter. Winograd answered:
“Americans, many of then Jews from across the country — from San Francisco, Portland, Washington D.C., and New York City – emailed me to express gratitude that a candidate, aware of the political minefield, was nonetheless speaking out for human rights. People of diverse religions were outraged at the attempt to censor all debate on middle east peace, to declare critical debate somehow off the table.
Congressman Waxman’s letter mobilized incredible support for my campaign, with people stepping up to host fundraisers, organize precinct walking, and volunteer at events. They felt they had no choice, that history was calling them.”
On February 18th, just such a fundraiser was held by iconic Los Angeles couple Betty and Stanley Sheinbaum, leaders in the Los Angeles progressive community who hosted a well attended event for Winograd, co-hosted by prominent members of the Jewish community and keynoted by Gore Vidal. This is one of many Jewish sponsored events for Winograd, whose accolades from Jewish supporters are glowing. Photo by Linda Milazzo
Well known Rabbi Michael Lerner, national best selling author, and publisher of Tikkun Magazine, shared this with me about Winograd:
“Marcy Winograd’s critique of Israeli policies fits right into the best traditions of prophetic Judaism. While I do not agree with her call for a One State solution, I believe that position to be a reasonable alternative to endless and blind support for the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and its blockade of food, medicine, and other vital necessities from the near-starving people of Gaza (however much I deplore Hamas’ violence).
Congressional reps Waxman and Harman consistently take the low road–attacking the messenger because they can’t refute the message of the Israeli peace movement and its supporters (like Winograd) in this country: that the Occupation is immoral and self-destructive for Israel and for the Jewish people, and a violation of the highest ethical vision that has sustained Judaism for the past thousands of years. Substituting short-term political advantage for a strategy that could actually work to protect Israel and the Jewish people, Harman and Waxman jump on to the “Israel can do no wrong” bandwagon that seeks to silence all legitimate criticism and thereby fosters deep resentments toward Jews that will likely come back to haunt the entire Jewish people around the world in the form of a new anti-Semitism fueled not by ancient religious disagreements but by the behavior of Israel and the suppression of debate by its ultra-nationalist American advocates (including both Jews and Christians who think they are doing Jews a favor by their blind loyalty to Israel’s self-destructive path).
Many Jews in Congress have told me privately that they agree with this position articulated in Tikkun magazine, and perhaps if Marcy Winograd gets to Congress she will help give them the backbone to say these things publicly.”
Lila Garrett, long time activist, J Street Board member, Progressive Democrats of America Board member, two time Emmy Award winner, host of Connect The Dots on KPFK Los Angeles and a woman who worked in Israel as far back as 1953, conveyed this to me about Winograd, speaking candidly of Waxman’s assault:
“Waxman’s blatant attack on Marcy Winograd is not only embarrassing; it’s irresponsible. It’s one thing to debate an issue; it’s another to stab someone in the back who doesn’t agree with you. And that is what Henry Waxman did with his widely distributed letter which he did not bother to send to Marcy…
As far as Waxman’s letter is concerned there is an undercurrent of hysteria about it which is extremely disturbing. He represents a large group of people. He Chairs an important committee and too many people look to him for calm, steady leadership. Times are too uncertain for us to tolerate a leader who shoots from the hip. Waxman is using the same fear tactics to justify Israeli violence against the Palestinians that Bush and Cheney used to whip us into supporting the savage wars against Iraq & Afghanistan. Marcy doesn’t use fear that way. Her views represent careful thought and a realistic knowledge of history. A two state solution cannot work as long as one side refuses to allow a second state. That’s foreign policy 101. A one state solution is not working either. Same reason. What does Waxman suggest….mass annihilation? That’s what his rant seems to imply.
This blast against Marcy should have been written by Waxman’s worst enemy not by the Congressman himself. The Henry Waxman I’ve known for over thirty years would have been a strong Marcy Winograd supporter.”
Considering current Middle East events, it appears that Waxman’s proclamation at the behest of Harman that
“Ms. Winograd is far, far outside the bipartisan mainstream of views that has long insisted that U.S. policy be based upon rock-solid support for [Israel]…”
stems more from Waxman and Harman’s personal bias than from America’s current truth. One would hope that any legislator elected to serve the U.S. would insist that U.S. foreign policy uphold the interest of the U.S. before that of a foreign nation – Israel or any other. With Waxman and Harman, however, their foreign policy focus seems to be Israel’s interest first. With Marcy Winograd, the interest of the United States, not Israel, would undoubtedly be first.
One final note: Jonathan Tasini, U.S. Senate candidate from New York – a Jew who lived in Israel for seven years and whose father was born in Palestine – has filmed the following deeply personal video that supports an end to Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Please take a moment to view Jonathan’s touching message to grasp the extent of the growing opposition to Israel’s policies. Much like Marcy Winograd, Jonathan Tasini embodies a humane position on middle east policy that puts U.S. interests first and seeks to end the unflinching pro-Israel bias that undermines U.S. prestige and the legitimacy of our diplomacy in the region.
Go to the website, and scroll to the end for Tasini’s video clip:
link to blogs.alternet.org
Or, here it is on Youtube:
link to rabbibrant.com
[PS: Tasini has also been outspoke on the weakness of the Health care bill, and on the disaster caused by the like of Goldman Sachs:
link to jonathantasini.com
I know this is off subject for this blog, but here's the big picture view
of how the likes of Goldman Sachs around the world, the international investment banking elite, all sociopaths, who are now gobbling up the likes of Greece, and via their tools the IMF & WB, will soon gobble u
Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy; and eventually Britain and the USA--it comes from Mr Gold himself--beware it's very long, but valuable:
Great stuff, Cit!
I’ve supported Tasini ever since he was running for Hillary’s seat. The need for more non-Zionist Jews in Congress is urgent.
Tasini is a loser. He won’t get 5% of the vote.
I suppose he doesn’t have Big Pharma, Wall Street, KBR and Blackwater behind him like your candidates do, Julian.
Just another self-hating Jew, eh? Atta boy, Julian. Tasini must have learned that during the seven years he lived in Israel, eh?
Tasini is a loser
—————-
I’d rather be a “loser” than be a traitor and a spy on my people like Jane Herman..
Any day.
An American who is clearly sympathetic to Israel is not a traitor, nor an enemy…it is viewed our moral obligation to our American Christian values…
Yes, “citizen,” you were correct when you said you were taking the “liberty” of posting my article – since you posted it without any attribution or proper link to the original. From now on I hope you will be more respectful when you post and attribute articles properly, as most people do. Here’s a link to the original article which I posted to numerous sites.
link to huffingtonpost.com
My apology to Linda Milazzo, the author of the long comment I reposted above without including in my cut and paste her credit line (Winograd vs. Harman in CA Primary: Will U.S. or Israel’s Interests Come First?
POSTED: 12:37 am, March 22, 2010).
Jane Harman,
It’s good to know there’s at least one true American Patriot in Congress. And, it ain’t you – you anti-American Zionist shill for a racist, murderous “Settler State”, that shitty little country called Israel that provoked 9/11, that’s putting our troops and jeopardy and threatening the lives of every living American. For that prank you pulled last year(trying to sell American Intelligence secrets to Israel) – you should be sent to Gitmo and raked over the fucking coals. Before that happens- my advice? MOVE TO HAIFA, NOW! Get going, Jane. Haifa. Burn a Palestinian 3 year old girl with white phosphorous if it makes you feel any better.
Harvey Cohen
Hermosa Beach, CA
…a little bit of a heated reaction, but I think it’s rather important to note that by and large, Americans (of all ethnicities and religion) are reaching the conclusion that the current US government no longer represents the best interests of its US citizens.
Debonnaire, have you by chance been talking to General Petraeus, in some happenstance meeting in a tavern perchance? Or did you meet Beiden there? So, what–they were unwinding after a hard days work
and just left their hair down? Does Petraeus still want to bring Palestine into his CENTCOM orbit so he can fulfill his mission with the least harm to his troops? Thought so.
Great news from the Left Coast.
Small wonder this concept got a standing ovation from Californians:
a democratic state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River
Marketing gold: short, sweet, simple to understand.
A better title would be “We lost again.” With all the progressives, financed and organized you couldn’t even win a progressive caucus. If you can’t win a progressive caucus what can you win?
I hope your kids enjoy growing up in a world where they’ll have to get a second mortgage on their home just pay for basic surgery.
I also look forward to your kids dumping your sorry ass in a second-rate nursing home when your proverbial promissory notes come due.
I have great medical insurance as do the people who work for me. Obamacare is a disaster. The left wouldn’t even support their own president without being paid off.
That’s right, and AIPAC is out there in the front lines paying them off right now.
Who says the left was paid off? Do you see a public option anywhere in so-called “Obamacare?”
You’re an idiot, Julian. And sooner or later you’re going to crash that delicate ship you’re helming right into the shoals of your own avarice, myopia and sheer stupidity. I feel bad for the poor saps working under you. I’ll bet you’ll stiff them out of a paycheck or two, in the end, when it is said and done.
Given his constant mendacity, and exaggerations, and based on the intelligence he shows here, what do you think the chances are that Julian owns a business, and runs it? His going rate is about three lies per comment, what are the chances he is telling the truth about this?
Please, Julian, give us the name of your business, and a link to your company’s (Stolenlivesandland.com?) web page, so we can all patronise your establishment.
Good luck Marcy!
I just sent you a contribution from NYC to Cali!
I admire you, you got big cojones!!
Give her hell!
Don’t forget that a handful of Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harmon, beause of their leadership positions, were let in on some of the details of the torture that was taking place during the Bush administration. They were unwilling to probe further. No whistle blowing by these members of the loyal opposition. I think of them as members in good standing of the Josef Mengele Democratic Club.
Yeah, really. I have absolutely zero faith in the Democratic Party at this point. About the only thing they’ve proven their good at is standing in line right behind Republicans. Say what you will about Republicans, but at least they had the balls to take the steering wheel and drive — even if they aimed us right off a cliff.
Pelosi hates Harmon and always has … she’s known all along what she is and has done everything she could to block her when she can … Pelosi does not know fear and is not afraid to play her cards or call in her chips when she’s ready … if she can nail Harmon (get her booted from Congress) she absolutely will
While this is true, it is a hatred of like for like. Pelosi is every bit as big an AIPAC whore as Harman.
Winograd has taken an idiotic position.
Neither Zionists nor Palestinians polled support a single democratic state. To endorse that is to go further than the neo-conservatives as far as ideologically based imposition on others.
It describes are naiver than naive.
“Neither Zionists nor Palestinians polled support a single democratic state.”
What poll suggests Palestinians are opposed to it Witty? I know asking you for links and evidence is a waste of time, polls are subject to how a question is phrased. For example, if the Palestinians were asked “would they preferred a single democratic state or to remain occupied and oppressed”, the answer would be a resounding yes.
“To endorse that is to go further than the neo-conservatives as far as ideologically based imposition on others.”
Coming from someone who’s on the same page as the neo-conservatives, that’s almost comical.
Shingo, it doesn’t matter which poll it was. Palestinian votes don’t count unless they support what Israel wants.
Its the content that is important. You can question the implications, but if the assertions are true, then the single democratic state notion is an idealistic external activism, and not a creative means to realize the will of the people.
Not democracy, something else.
And, as it does advocate the dissolution of a currently important ally of the US, the questions of disloyalty would naturally be raised.
It was a blunder on Winograd’s part, a really dumb move.
It was a blunder on Winograd’s part, a really dumb move.
I find it amazing that you find the suggestion of a democratic society to be a “blunder.”
” a currently important ally of the US”
Gosh, yes! Without all those Israeli troops supporting the U.S. in Korea, Vietnam, and Grenada, the U.S. would have been doomed.
If there were no Israel, Chinese and Russian troops would be swaggering around Washington in weeks.
It is advocacy for regime change, revolution, in a current American ally.
And why shouldn’t there be revolutions and regime changes in American allies, if that makes the lives of the people in those allies better?
One of the factors that has damaged the reputation of the U.S. over the last sixty years is the way the U.S. claimed as allies, and supported, abominable regimes simply because the slime balls in power claimed they were against Communism.
Well put, RoHa! Everybody knows you can’t get to Washington without going through Tel Aviv, first!
Fine for someone to take a radical stand in an election even, if he/she has no expectation of getting elected at all.
If, say like Hamas, they actually do get elected, they have to govern, not propagate.
Right, Richard, and the single democratic state generally–every time, didn’t it originate as an idealistic activism in every current single democratic state? You use the adjective “external” as if
nobody in any of the land controlled by Israel desires a single state. As if the only push for it comes from outside said land.
Get you head out of the zionist sand, and face the real world.
How come whenever you talk about Palestinian government, Witty, you take on a tone as if you were talking about vermin?
If you bothered to read my long cut & paste comment above in this thread, Richard, you will note Winograd stated:
“In the meantime, I would like Jewish Journal readers to know that I will support a peace agreement, be it two states or one state, which both sides—Israelis and Palestinians—acknowledge will respect equality, dignity, and human rights for all.”
So, I fail to see she has taken an “idiotic” position. Please explain, lest readers here take you for the idiot. Thanks.
Richard-
Instead of lamenting the “the dissolution” of a currently important ally [so you say] of the US, why not celebrate the potential “further democratization and transformation” of the same? And why is an “external” solution so bad, when leaving Israel to its druthers has produced nothing for the Palestinians for so many decades? Two Semitic peoples, united in democracy with universal human rights, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River: what’s not to like?
The single state would not be more democratic but less so if it results in 51% ruling over 49%, and I don’t mean like democrats “rule over” republicans.
If the people think of themselves as one people, then one government makes sense. If the people think of themselves as distinct peoples, then even majority rule results in a suppression.
If you want to work for the peoples to think of themselves as one people, with corresponding party representation among Israeli political institutions and Palestinian political institutions, do that work, make it happen. Actually organize a real social movement.
The cookie cutter from outside is the problem, the imposition. The reason that there is nationalism is that it is more democratic than imposition, hence the breakup of the Balkans/Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, secession of East Timor.
Partition does make sense in that case. The features that I would advocate for are full democratic civil rights for minorities in each nation, each state, not the dissolution of what constructs self-governance.
Wouldn’t single state result in a state 45% Palestinian, and the balance
Jewish? Perhaps in time the Palestinians would reach 51%. In the USA,
you’ve heard of it, right?–newborn babies are now over 50% nonwhite; with a projection that in a couple of decades at most, the country will
be majority nonwhite. Yet all the people are encouraged by the government
to think of themselves as one people, the American people–while simultaneously pushing diversity. David Duke doesn’t like this state
of affairs–but he’s an official fringe guy, not politically acceptable, so
why Is Israel not a fringe state, why is its POV not equally unacceptable?
“external solution”
Unlike Zionism, which is a genuine indigenous Middle East product, huh?
Does he really think we’re stupid enough to fall for his nonsense, or is he imagining he is talking over our heads to a credulous Zionist audience?
What do you prefer in the present is the only question for a progressive. And, if you are a progressive with integrity, how do make your preferred goal occur by the consent of the governed, rather than the imposition on the governed.
WItty,
YOU are questioning someone else’s integrity? Frankly, I’m bored by your posts. No new ideas, same old repeated lies.
I shall start ignoring you again, like I ignore the trolls.
By the way, singing Israel’s praises will not help Israel. Remember, when Israel fails as a legitimate state, and it will, that it was people like your who are responsible for the failure. Lulling it into false complacency by singing a lullaby at every turn and corner is hurting your precious state and taking your further and further into your delusional world.
Well put Saleema,
The degeneration in Witty’s diratribes is becommign increasnigly apparent isn’t it? The more he writed, the more extreme he reveals himself to be, the greater teh fraud and the more brazen a liar.
The sad part about it, is that he really believes he’s at the centre of the discussion, and not where he really is – at the extremities.
I am supportive of criticism, and in fundamental opposition to careless, innaccurate and malevolent propaganda.
I actively support the three goals of the academic BDS movement, and assertively oppose the means.
If your focus is on the anger, then you will ignore my statement of support for goals. If your focus is on the goals, then you will experiment in allying.
I can state unequivocally that I will not walk in a march where I am aware that there is a banner or slogan of “Zionism is racism”.
I will join a march that seeks the removal of the occupation of the West Bank, and supports the establishment of a Palestinian state on 67 borders, or consensually modified.
You want a mass movement, or a revolutionary impositional one?
You labeled BDS as “fascism,” Witty.
And you are a racist. We’ve seen how you flip-flop to “let’s forget the past” when talking about Israeli crimes to “retribution is justified on the whole population” when talking about Palestinian crimes.
I’ve described arbitrary academic and cultural BDS as fascism.
And you know well that I have advocated for retribution on civilians for anything.
You are imagining only or something worse.
Correct that, as fascistic.
Hoping that you would invest some sensitivity into the prospective affects of actions.
Finally. Something we actually agree upon. :)
Gee, Witty, some readers and commenters here actively support Truman’s letter-authorized Israel, and assertively oppose Israel’s means. Precisely because the Zionist ends do not justify the Zionist means.
Witty translated: How do you coherce the Palestinians to willingly submit to their
dispossession? That’s his version of being progressive with integrity.
Pingback: Entertainment around town | eastwestbakery.com
That was intended as:
And you know well that I have NEVER advocated for retribution on civilians for anything.
You are imagining only or something worse.
Paging Doctor Freud.
So the Israeli government taking possession of Palestinian land and doling it out to Israeli business interests is not fascism, but grass roots efforts to boycott the mechanisms that make that activity possible is fascism.
Where did you get your professional degree, again?
Pingback: O.C. Democrats win statewide recognition | Insurance Salvage Cars
Pingback: What should Israel's Relationship to America Be? - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum
Pingback: ca credit repair