My response to ‘DailyKos’ smear

Israel/Palestine
on 253 Comments

DailyKos has acted to ban commenters from linking to Mondoweiss, charging me with anti-Semitism. It is a disgraceful smear and hides DailyKos’s real anxiety: it cannot deal with the issue of Palestinian human rights, any more than the Democratic Party can, and so Israel supporters are striking at me.

Their point of attack is my repeated insistence on talking about the large Jewish presence in the American establishment and the importance of Jewish money in the political process. Such an attack was inevitable, and in that sense I welcome it. For while these are delicate issues, they are important ones. I have often expressed my own discomfort with them, and yet I advance them in the discourse because as a journalist I recognize that they meet an ancient test of what is newsworthy: these issues are new, true, and important.  Were they merely new and true, I would ignore these issues. But their importance has put them in my road, and I can’t shy away from discussing them, and DK’s smear gives me an opportunity to revisit my thinking.

Why is the Jewish prominence in the American establishment an important issue? For a few reasons. 1, it is a development I witnessed myself and celebrate as a Jew. When I was growing up, we were excluded from the turrets of the American system by anti-Semitism. Today that is not the case. Jews should recognize this new reality, celebrate it, and yes, allow it to affect our consciousness of our unfolding historical position in western society. 2, It deeply affects Middle East policy, which is the true source of my difference with Daily Kos; I believe you cannot talk about the Israel lobby without addressing the Jewish presence in the establishment. And following directly from that, 3, the Jewish presence is not neutral– no, sadly (and because of the Holocaust), my community has been indoctrinated with Zionism.; as J Street’s Steven Krubiner said the other night, Jewish identity education includes Loving Israel. Well, I think Zionism is a form of anachronistic nationalism that has served to oppress the Palestinians and helped lead my own country into war, and in seeking to uproot Zionism inside Jewish life, I have repeatedly pointed out that the ideological basis of Zionism is the idea that we are unsafe in the west, a claim that is patently absurd in the face of our achievement in the United States and our prominence in the establishment– which everyone knows about and accepts, but DailyKos finds it anti-Semitic even to mention.   

Let me go back to 2 for a moment, the most important matter, the effect on Middle East policy. I do not think that any analysis of the American government’s “special relationship” with Israel can be very sharp if it fails to deal with the simple fact of Jewish donorship. It is the Jewish press that reported that Obama lost $10 million in donations during his May 19 “1967 lines” speech. It is neocon John Podhoretz who says that a “wildly disproportionate” part of the Democratic donor base is Jewish, and Podhoretz who said that Obama fears that he will lose half the money from Jews he got his first time running for the presidency. These fears drive policy, and they have for decades. Jimmy Carter was a one-term president in some measure because he alienated Jews by opposing settlements. The next one-termer, George H.W. Bush, tried to stop the illegal Israeli settlement project in 1991 and paid “dearly” for it in the 1992 campaign (as Donald Neff writes in Fallen Pillars). Bush himself has said that this stance hurt him in that election. Bill Clinton got 60 percent of his money from Jews, according to the New York Times, a real sign of Jewish arrival into the establishment, and he created what David Frum called the most “philosemitic” presidency in history (words that I think DK throws at me) and he reversed Bush’s opposition to the settlement policy. Both Clinton’s Supreme Court appointments were Jewish, and his Camp David negotiation team was headed by “Israel’s lawyer,” as he was called, Dennis Ross, and don’t you know it, a lousy offer was made to the Palestinians and the Palestinians were blamed for the collapse of the talks. The lesson of Bush 1’s loss was not lost on Bush 2, who installed neocons throughout his administration and did nothing to stop the disastrous colonization project. And then Barack Obama threw his friend Rashid Khalidi under the bus in the 2008 campaign, but Dennis Ross is still with us. Ater a stint as head of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute in Jerusalem, the man whom Abraham Foxman has called an “advocate” for Israel is heading Middle East policy under Obama, and if you think that is not a signal to the Jewish community, you’re thick. It is the Wall Street Journal that said that Obama’s mild demurrals about the occupation have caused “Jewish donors” to “warn” him. And it is Seymour Hersh who has said that “Jewish money” is behind the campaign to push the United States into a confrontation with Iran over nukes.

We can debate the importance of the Israel lobby and the Jewish presence inside the establishment all day long. And many people who come to this site disagree with me, and they’re free to speak out (unlike at DailyKos). But myself I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the Jewish presence in the establishment– as givers, as political actors, as talking heads– is a huge factor in America losing its way in the Middle East, and so I feel an obligation as an American journalist to address these questions.

As I said, these facts make me uncomfortable as a Jew who is aware of the painful history of anti-Semitism, but still they are important facts whose exploration is my charge; and I believe that they are important in Jewish self-recognition. And let me be clear: I have never argued that Jews should be pushed out of the establishment, or deprived of our status as the richest group by religion in the U.S. (per Pew). No, I think that elites are part of how societies work and we happen to be one, and Americans accept this. (Though yes, I have always pressed for a greater awareness that could lead to greater diversity.) We’re here and that’s great. Where the Jewish presence in the establishment is lamentable is the Jewish love affair with Zionism that has made my influential community reactionary on one of the most pressing issues of our time. It is that love affair that I am doing all I can to end, for the sake of America, for the sake of the Jews, and also, by the way, for the sake of the people who are invisible to DailyKos– the Palestinians. 

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

253 Responses

  1. EmmaZunz
    July 28, 2011, 10:13 am

    Great post.

    • James
      July 28, 2011, 10:52 am

      i 2nd your comment… great post phil…i would sweat the dailykos thing… keep on doing what you do.. thanks – james

    • MRW
      July 28, 2011, 12:36 pm

      I 3rd your comment.

      Phil, what I like about you when your back is against the wall, when these gonifs hurl these accusations as they are wont to do whenever their handlers are worried about an upcoming national or international event and they run around battening down the hatches, is that you don’t back down. You get noble.

      [And, oh, BTW? If DailyKos wants to do a Stormfront comparison (with real consequences, real teeth), it can start with Breivik/Geller/Pipes/Horowitz/Gaffney/Glick/Phillips/et al.]

    • Dan Crowther
      July 28, 2011, 1:18 pm

      You can spell integrity P-H-I-L.

      • Shunra
        August 1, 2011, 9:37 pm

        Dan, you’ve got it exactly right.

        (I was traveling this weekend, and missed the DK travesty.)

  2. Seham
    July 28, 2011, 10:27 am

    This is a great post Phil, but, I wonder if you are wasting your time and efforts with the charlatans at DailyKos who represent everything about the Democratic party establishment that automatically makes them anti-justice when it comes to Palestine. They have had a long history of anti-semitism against Palestinians and whatever funding they get or seek out in the future will be on the basis of their horrible position on Palestine.

    • annie
      July 28, 2011, 10:42 am

      i don’t think he’s wasting his time. this is an important post regardless of the timing. we need an american conversation and daily kos has helped start it in the same way the anti boycott law brought more attention to israel’s non democracy than all the msm reports on bds combined.

      i love this post phil. you rock!

      • Seham
        July 28, 2011, 10:45 am

        Annie, I said “I wonder” not “it is” :)

        I hear you and I guess you can’t be Jewish and have accusations of anti-semitism hurled at you without responding but DK is popular with the PEP crowd for a reason and it’s just to absolutely transparent that it’s sickening so I just WONDER what the point is in responding. Anyone that supports justice for the Palestinians has always known that DK is no friend of the Palestinians.

      • Chu
        July 28, 2011, 11:02 am

        Yeah, for real. It’s like reading Ethan Bronner in the NYTimes.
        What’s the point? I think some people see him as a bellwether for progress, but the progress is at a snail’s pace.

        Added, the critic on DK is named Met’s102 “a conservative Masorti Jew and proud of it”. A 27 year old from Brooklyn who most popular article is “Weiner Should Resist Leadership Calls and Not Resign”.
        I think it’s fair to ask that we know this writer’s last name and bio before he makes these accusations . Otherwise he is being a troll, hiding under his bridge in billyburg.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 11:04 am

        i can’t answer for phil but i can speak for myself. i wrote my own response and i think it is going up soon. a while ago a friend sent me a collection of dkos diaries about this site i had previously been unaware of. i can’t remember how many there have been but it’s quite a lot. at least 5 i would imagine. so i’ve been aware of the campaign over there to ban mondoweiss for a long time.

        at first, before those diaries (which have all occurred since i’ve been banned) i was regularly attacked for supporting this site, and others posters have been attacked too. iow i have long been aware they considered this site a threat.

        well, it is a threat to those who want to silence any discussion of zionist power within the establishment. unless that discussion centers around christian fundies, it’s those jewish fundies who make the topic bigoted.

        anyway, i wrote my own response and i imagine phil just wanted to address it head on, his way. it makes sense to me. other than that i saw some dkos readers (heathlander i believe) twittering about it and addressing those tweets to @MW. so be it. hopefully it will stimulate a conversation. something funny i noticed on that thread when i read it the other day..i will have to go find it. be right back.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 11:15 am

        here it is

        We are not banning the sites. We are banning the citation of those sites as evidence of anything other than their hatefulness. The distinction is important.

        !!!! iow, they can talk about mondoweiss on dkos, as long as they are addressing the perceived ‘hatefulness’. don’t hasbarists ever get tired of using the ‘hate’ rhetoric? it appears to be a constant component of their diet.

      • American
        July 28, 2011, 11:22 am

        DK is no friend to anyone.
        First time I visited there I though I had mistakenly wandered into a reunion of incest descendents.

      • American
        July 28, 2011, 11:35 am

        DK has also banned several other sources…the newspapers Press TV, the National— -and a few others I can’t remember off hand.
        I think their membership and readership is greatly exaggerated–I registered there once a year ago and stay a few weeks and called it quits, too juvenile and Stepford for me.
        But I still to this day keep getting emails and etc from them.
        I think they keep and claim every one who ever visited there even for a short while even though like myself a lot never stayed or went back to their site.

      • MRW
        July 28, 2011, 12:39 pm

        Dailykos is like a bottle of coke: full from the neck down, and empty from the neck up.

      • Sumud
        July 28, 2011, 6:22 pm

        DK has also banned several other sources…the newspapers Press TV, the National–

        WTF? I can possibly understand PressTV after their shitty job of covering the elections in Iran in 2009 but The National!? Why on earth would they ban The National? I read it regularly when I lived in the UAE and it’s a fairly staid (but quality) publication.

  3. Seham
    July 28, 2011, 10:31 am

    Also, is suing DK for libel not an option? Because I just glanced at the post you link from their site and that looks like libel to me. Well libel and a lot of jealousy.

  4. Chu
    July 28, 2011, 10:36 am

    I think of all the blogs in the world as one massive sailing race, all pushing forward to gain the leading head winds that enables freedom of information. It’s what propels their movement. Daily Kos is appears to be a big boat that is slow and heavy, in need of repair, as their sails are losing wind.

    It’s important to stay light and quick. While these competitors are censoring important information – in their mental doldrums, you’re blazing past them. If they are going to rely on censorship as a primary tool, their days are numbered. And if their crowd accepts this type of censorship, what value is the entire crew of DK? They’re a boat that has lost it’s way. No one will watch them in the race because they’re left in the wake of other trail blazers. Keep on stealing their wind.

    • Cliff
      July 28, 2011, 11:48 am

      Exactly. They can only censor and insult. Abuse of power.

      Notice how they lied about the comment policy here? Phil is not pro-censorship. We have open registration here too. None of the Kos trolls mentioned that we tolerate racist religious zionists like MN or that Phil has regularly banned people who hinted at holocaust denial.

      Anyways, antisemitism isn’t the issue. It’s arguments they can’t grapple w/ intellectually, so they smear and lie instead. The childishness in there posts are out in the open for ppl to see.

  5. Shmuel
    July 28, 2011, 10:37 am

    Very well explained, Phil.

    On this:

    As J Street’s Steven Krubiner said the other night, part of Jewish identity is to love Israel

    See this: Jewish Unity and the State of Israel, by Rabbi Dan Ehrenkrantz

  6. PissedOffAmerican
    July 28, 2011, 10:54 am

    Cowards.

    I watched Steve Clemons try to walk the tightrope for years, seeking to offer honest criticism of Israeli policies and actions, and the Democrat’s complicity, yet still retain the keys to the kingdom. He fell off that tightrope.

    In today’s political environment, doors slam shut when truth comes knocking.

    Phil, they cannot silence you with truths or moral argument. They are using the only weapon left to them, ad hominem. Filthy demonization with a time worn accusation that is becoming toothless and even inane in its constant misapplication.

    Just be careful, man. Watch your back.

    • ToivoS
      July 28, 2011, 1:12 pm

      Your obsession with Clemons is bizarre. What does he have to do with Phil being kicked off DK?

      • PissedOffAmerican
        July 29, 2011, 12:55 am

        “Your obsession with Clemons is bizarre. What does he have to do with Phil being kicked off DK?”

        ts not Clemons that I meant to draw attention to. It is the tightrope that must be walked to be an “insider” that can actually get “inside”, yet still offer criticism of Israel.

        I only mentioned Clemons because I watched him walk this tightrope, and fall off. He is an EXAMPLE of my point.

        So buzz off, go screw yourself, and all that, OK?

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        July 29, 2011, 3:48 am

        >> So buzz off, go screw yourself, and all that, OK?

        Easy, man. -N49.

  7. chayma100
    July 28, 2011, 11:01 am

    Phil

    Was it because of your own editorials, or because of the comments? I have a feeling it’s the latter more than the former.

    By the way this:-

    I have never argued that Jews should be pushed out of the establishment, or deprived of our status as the richest group by religion in the U.S.

    Actually, it’s the Hindu Indians who are the richest religious minority.

    • tree
      July 28, 2011, 12:07 pm

      Was it because of your own editorials, or because of the comments? I have a feeling it’s the latter more than the former.

      I think you are totally wrong on this. See what annie posted as the rules at DKOS.

      We are not banning the sites. We are banning the citation of those sites as evidence of anything other than their hatefulness. The distinction is important.

      They are banning any information coming from this site. Its censorship of things they don’t want to hear. Its a backhanded acknowledgement that this site is winning the battle for more information on what is really going on in Israel/Palestine. DKOS is trying to stem the tide, and they can’t do it with MORE information, they have to do it with smears and censorship. Its the old, worn out, “don’t listen to them, they’re anti-semites” ploy. In the end it won’t work.

      And to Phil, wonderful post.

      • Cliff
        July 28, 2011, 12:16 pm

        Exactly.

        They not only are afraid of the reporting here, but they predictably jump the shark (1000s of times over) and lump MondoWeiss, Phil, and Adam with StormFront. Some of the proponents of the ban are even calling MondoWeiss, “MondoFront.”

        It’s hysterical.

      • tree
        July 28, 2011, 12:33 pm

        The more I read their explanation of their “ban”, the more it reads like a diktat from the Supreme Soviet. The party has decreed that Mondoweiss is a “hate site” and no one is allowed to refer to it in any other terms. Apparently you can still link to Mondoweiss, but ONLY if you do so to ‘prove’ its ‘hatefulness’. Let us now begin the ritual denunciation of Phil Weiss! Comrade?

    • American
      July 28, 2011, 12:10 pm

      OT…but interesting.
      I didn’t look up religion but the US CensusBureau says American Asians are the richest by ethnic classification.

      Also a look at the Forbes US’s top 10 billionaires and the richest man in the world is Mexican. The US added fewer or I should say no new billionaires in 2011 and Latin American, India and Asia has surpassed us except for Gates and Buffet.

      link to therichest.org

      Gates
      Buffet
      Ellison of Oracle
      Walton
      Sheldson of casinos
      Then 5 more of the Walton heirs.

      link to walletpop.com

      The 10 Richest People in the World
      (Click on name to see full profile.)

      No. 1: Carlos Slim Helú & family
      $74 billion | Telecom | Mexico

      No. 2: Bill Gates
      $56 billion | Microsoft | U.S.

      No. 3: Warren Buffett
      $50 billion | Berkshire Hathaway| U.S.

      No. 4: Bernard Arnault
      $41 billion | LVMH | France

      No. 5: Larry Ellison
      $39.5 billion | Oracle | U.S.

      No. 6: Lakshmi Mittal
      $31.1 billion | Steel | India

      No. 7: Amancio Ortega
      $31 billion | Zara | Spain

      No. 8: Eike Batista
      $30 billion | Mining, Oil | Brazil

      No. 9: Mukesh Ambani
      $27 billion | Petrochemicals | India

      No. 10: Christy Walton & family
      $26.5 billion | Wal-Mart | U.S.

      • chayma100
        August 7, 2011, 2:58 pm

        Carlos Slim is Muslim.

        Europes richest man (Reenat Akhmetov, a Ukrainian) is also a Muslim.

        I meant to say above that the richest minority group in the USA by religion are the Hindu Indians (collecltively)

        The Forbes Rich list, is something separate.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        August 7, 2011, 9:46 pm

        Carlos Slim is from a Christian Lebanese family. He is not a Muslim.

        Reenat Akhmetov is the richest man in the Ukraine, not the richest man in Europe. There’s a bit of a difference there. He has but $16 million.

        Your information on the wealth of American Hindus is equally questionable. The Forbes list is based on available records. What is your information based on?

      • sycamore
        August 7, 2011, 9:55 pm

        Not to get involved in this useless bs, but you’re wrong about Akhmetov. He’s worth 16 billion, the 39th most wealthy person on earth, and recently bought the msot expensive home on the planet. Carry on trying to prove that one group of people is at the heart of everything wrong with the country. It always works, unfortunately.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        August 8, 2011, 12:00 am

        That was obvious a typo on my part since I have little experience dealing with billions, let alone millions.

        The problem is not who are the richest but what they do with their money in the political realm and wealthy individual Jews, known for their philanthropy, tend to donate more money to political campaigns far more than any other ethnic group. For example, in 1996, 1998 and 2000, the last time they did it, Mother Jones published a list it called the MoJo 400, which contained the names of the top 400 donors to both political parties.

        By strange happenstance, seven of the top 10, 12 of the top 20 and at least 125 of the top 250, the point where I stopped counting, were Jewish. Three quarters of their contributions went to the Democrats and the balance to the Republicans.

        By equally strange happenstance, after I mentioned that interesting piece of information in an article published in Left Curve, “The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions” link to leftcurve.org which was later included in “The Politics of Anti-Semitism,” published by CounterPunch, Mother Jones not only removed the list from its website but never attempted to make such a list again. Pure coincidence, of course.

      • sycamore
        August 8, 2011, 12:29 pm

        There are some problems with your argument that are pretty obvious to anyone not invested in your beliefs. Chief among them that you can’t look at a list of names and pick out the Jewish ones, or that they even identify as Jews. The same would be true for any race or ethnicity. The first mistake is assuming you know the ethnicity, the next is the assumption that you know how and why it guides political behavior. Your leftcurve link also has some problems. I remember the Bush period well, as do many people and I still find this interpretation odd. Bush 1 was an incredibly unpopular President by the time of the election, and his approval rating, was one of the lowest in history. His action was designed to cause the downfall of Yitzahk Shamir, and he was successful. I would also add that Oslo was undertaken outside of the purview of the Clinton administration and in secret. There might be a reason for that as well.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        August 8, 2011, 3:10 pm

        First, the methodology I used to determine which donors were Jewish was fairly standard, the one used by campaign consultants who direct certain mailing to specific constituencies. When I wasn’t sure I Googled the name and found supporting evidence.

        My assumption that the major Jewish donors give to varying degrees with a pro-Israel agenda in mind is not only reserved to me but one that is shared by politicians of both political parties as the noted Jewish senator from Ohio, Howard Metzenbaum pointed outed in 1991 when he was addressing the national meeting of the Jewish Community Relations Councils.

        “There’s only one thing members of Congress I think is important to American Jews-Israel,” Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D,OH) told five hundred delegates to the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council in Miami in February, 1991 (Forward, February 22).He turned out to be right. By the time the NJCRC finished discussing items relating to Israel there was no time for anything else.

        Re GHW Bush, he had lost the popularity that he had gained during the first Gulf War when The Lobby and close supporters of his in the Republican party and in the media, such as William Safire and George Will, turned against him after he twice denied Israel its request for $10 million in loan guarantees.

        After his speech to the American people on 9/12/91, giving them the usually hidden details about how much each Israel man, woman, and child, was getting in aid from the US and how he was “one little guy” up against “a thousand lobbyists” on Capitol Hill, Tom Dine, then the head of AIPAC declared that Sept. 12, 1991, would be a day that :would live in infamy,” and he and the Israel Lobby set about undermining his presidency, making sure that all the blame for America’s economic problems were laid at his doorstep, and with the Lobby’s media stable doing what they had to do to get the message out, Bush never had a chance.

        Bush’s actions were not designed to cause the downfall of Shamir as they were to make sure that Israel did not sabotage his efforts to secure an overall peace settlement to stabilize the Middle East which was launched in Madrid and which was undermined in Oslo with Arafat’s collaboration.

        If you think that the Clinton administration was unaware of the negotiations at Oslo which, admittedly, is the popular fiction, I have not one but a half dozen bridges to sell you.

      • sycamore
        August 8, 2011, 4:15 pm

        Again, lots of problems with your reasoning process, which affect your methodology in ways you don’t seem to be able to understand. In the first place, a pro-Israel agenda means what exactly? In the early nineties, large numbers of Israelis were opposed to the Oslo accords.

        “Re GHW Bush, he had lost the popularity that he had gained during the first Gulf War when The Lobby and close supporters of his in the Republican party and in the media, such as William Safire and George Will, turned against him after he twice denied Israel its request for $10 million in loan guarantees.”

        According to whom? Some line from one book? The economy was in the tank, he was the laughing stock of the nation. He was incredibly unpopular for reasons having to do with the moribund economy and his appearing completely unaware of the country’s malaise–the supermarket scanner, we are not in a recession. Repeating your line about losing the Jewish vote, doesn’t bring it closer to being true.

        Take your “Jewish” goggles off, or I’ll put my “white people [including Jews] are responsible for everything bad in the world” ones on. You’ll find that my arguments in that regard are unassailable.

        I’ve now read at least two well researched accounts of the inception of the Oslo process in Oslo. The Clinton admin was eventually told about it, but not until it was in the pipe. And again, it was hugely unpopular with American Jews.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        August 8, 2011, 10:30 pm

        Lots of problems with your answers. Over the years there have been many estimates as to the percentage of money donated to the Democratic Party by Jews and the general consensus has been 60% and certainly when it comes to individual giving the Mother Jones 400 list would confirm that. Certainly when there is a discussion of whether or not Obama will pull in the large Jewish donors who were key to his campaign in 2008 they are not talking about a perception of money but a money trail that can easily be accessed although donations from Jews are not segregated as such but are broken down into categories such as communications, finance, real estate, etc. in which they happen to be pre-dominant.

        Re Oslo, many Israelis opposed the accords as they did the Camp David treaty with Egypt a position they shared with the American Jewish establishment and their hardline Zionist constituency who, to put it mildly, were not excited about either, but not necessarily for the same reasons.

        Those believing in Eretz Israel or Greater Israel did not like the idea of Israel giving up any land that it had captured and one might argue that Begin’s invasion of Lebanon in 1978 was a test of Sadat’s commitment to take Egypt out of the Arab so-called “rejection front.

        He had been strong-armed by Carter into making a deal with Sadat and he was determined to make the most of it. If Sadat had made any move to intervene, he would break the treaty and, if not, he would use it as a green light to fill the West Bank with Jewish settlements. Which is, of course, what happened, over Carter and later Reagan’s objections.

        The American Jewish establishment AKA The Lobby, was not thrilled with either because, whether or not they will admit it, the major Jewish organizations and not just AIPAC, draw their power and their funding from Israel’s continued belligerency and perceived threats to its existence, and should, God forbid, an Israeli government make an arrangement with the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese that would bring an end to hostilities in that part of the world–not that that is likely to happen–the power of the Lobby would evaporate virtually overnight. That is why the Jewish establishment, as opposed to the majority of Amerian Jews, may be seen as the ultimate obstacle to both peace and justice in the Middle East and that is the problem with their stranglehold over the US Congress. If you do not accept that they have a stranglehold over Congress then you are living in another world. And if you think my pointing out the role of the Jewish establishment in shaping American Middle East policy, as well as its wildly disproportional funding of our election campaigns, is evidence of my wearing what you describe as Jewish goggles, in other words being “antisemitic,” I will then ask what are you doing commenting on this blog, one of the key focuses of which is what Jews are doing both in Israel and the US?

        I’m not about to waste my time arguing with you about Bush I or whether Clinton (which means CIA and US intelligence) did or didn’t know about Oslo in advance, as if such negotiations could be kept secret.

        What’s your agenda?

      • sycamore
        August 8, 2011, 11:14 pm

        “What’s your agenda?”
        You don’t know how stupid and useless you appear when you ask such questions. Impute whatever agenda you like, you’re still simply restating your evidence-free assertions, now adding purity tests to hide the fact that your ideas are visceral, not cognitive.

      • annie
        August 9, 2011, 12:13 am

        what’s his agenda? isn’t it obvious jeffrey. he’s coming into a thread over 10 days old byway of ‘chayma100′ (whose posted in total 9 comments on this blog in the past) for god knows what reason (use your imagination). btw, this is an important thread because it will be read by many (“My response to the ‘Daily Kos’ smear”). you must know there’s a target on your back jeffrey and it’s used to smear phil. so i’m sure there is nothing better they would like than to find ‘evidence’ of how shitty we are and apparently there wasn’t enough ‘evidence’ available in this thread so they’re back-littering trying to drag out the drama they started. my advice to you would be to not enable them (iow quit chomping) although i must say their dependence on ad hominem crutches is rather amusing.

        You don’t know how stupid and useless you appear

        no, i don’t either sycamore. you reek of agenda. thanks for stopping by from a post that began on the 28th of last month to add some poison.

      • annie
        August 9, 2011, 12:19 am

        ps syc , speaking of “evidence-free assertions”

        Repeating your line about losing the Jewish vote, doesn’t bring it closer to being true.

        jeffrey didn’t address jewish votes. he addressed the funding. bush 1 gave israel hell n back and he paid for it. he was wildly popular after gulf one but he called for reeling in israel. it was the end of the money flow and the beginning of massive media alignment against him.

        ciao.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        August 9, 2011, 12:21 am

        Apparently, I seem to have “got your balls in an uproar,” as we used to say when I was a kid , but it was you who introduced the subject of agenda with your own not so clever innuendo. I introduced my evidence. You refused to accept it while providing nothing of your own to counter it, so let’s leave it at that.

      • sycamore
        August 9, 2011, 12:54 am

        No, actually. I said what I said, and meant it, this is a visceral reaction, not an intellectual one. There is no evidence for the 60% figure, it’s simply been recycled for years. There’s no evidence for your claim that Bush was brought down specifically by the loan guarantee issue. It may have been one factor, obviously a very minor one. THere’s no evidence for your tangential point about Clinton knowing about Oslo in its primary stages; writing the word CIA, isn’t an argument. Not that that actually matters.

        In short, you’ve provided no evidence for your assertion. Nor did I actually introduce the idea of agenda. I described what you are doing, expressing a feeling that you can’t substantiate with evidence. Many people do this, on the left, and right. Way too many.

        It was indeed you who accused me of having an agenda. In the comments section of an article about Dailykos branding a discourse as outre, its surprisingly ironic. Just to be clear, I think what Dailykos did was unacceptable. That doesn’t mean that either you or Weiss have made convincing arguments. Anyone should be understandably angry when being accused of having an “agenda” when pointing out the weaknesses in another person’s argument. It is a dishonest tactic.

  8. tokyobk
    July 28, 2011, 11:03 am

    America and Israel have been allies and the leadership of both have often perceived their interests as aligned. Whether they are or not, or effective, or moral are valid questions but a little different than Israel lobbyists using super Zionist cunning to crassly manipulate big, dumb. powerful, but good-hearted and naive America, which is how it is sometimes spun and sometimes by people who feel this is the historic Jewish relationship.

    That said, charges against you for being “anti-semitic” are absurd. Pathetic, really.

    • lysias
      July 28, 2011, 12:07 pm

      There is no treaty of alliance between Israel and the U.S.

  9. chayma100
    July 28, 2011, 11:23 am

    This ban ain’t right.

    Can’t we start some sort of campaign to get Daily Kos to lift it? People may think it’s not important, but Daily Kos is important. People there should be able to link to it.

    I also think the comments should be more discerning. Those who have nothing useful to contribute other than to vent hate, should not be allowed to get through.

  10. American
    July 28, 2011, 11:25 am

    Well said Phil.
    And I wouldn’t worry about DK, as a dem party pusher and PEP crowd they are far,far behind the curve.

  11. Cliff
    July 28, 2011, 11:43 am

    Really pathetic. If you read the Kos thread, it’s essentially a few people campaigning for the ban actively. There is no explanation. They just straw man phil’s arguments.

    There are also some people who are just feeding the fire, calling the site ‘mondosewer’ and other childish names.

    We’ve seen this before. Every other word in their sentence is anti-Semite or jewhater or hate filled. It’s the same vocabulary that petulant zionists here like 3e may use.

    These guys are upset that the blog is making progress. If Mondoweiss wasn’t, then it wouldn’t be in the crosshairs as it is now.

    Regularly members of the American, European and israeli Jewish community use and politicize Jewish identity.

    We have a variety if quotes and articles that illustrate how candid these figures are. It is really deeply dishonest on the part of these daily Kos zionists to pretend it’s still taboo to talk about anythng related to Jewish identity that might be unsavory or not for goyim ears.

    After all the one thing that all those quotes from Jewish figures have in common is, they weren’t directed toward a non Jewish audience.

    The discourse is changing. The antisemitsm card is getting more and more cynical.

    I don’t think it matters too much. If the Kos bans this site, it’s just going to get even more one dimensional over there. People will suffocate unless they are zionists.

    • Seham
      July 28, 2011, 12:06 pm

      “These guys are upset that the blog is making progress. If Mondoweiss wasn’t, then it wouldn’t be in the crosshairs as it is now.”

      EXACTLY.

  12. eee
    July 28, 2011, 11:58 am

    Your argument Phil does not make sense. You are not against Jews being part of the establishment. So why do you count how many there are in the establishment? What does it matter?

    You are against most Jews’ love affair with Israel. Fair enough. But the weak point in your argument is that you never explain why “counting heads” will help in any way to change Jewish views of Israel? Why is it at all relevant to the discussion? Yes, if Jews in influential positions have on average the views of the Jewish community which are pro-Israel, then more Jews in US government means a more pro-Israel policy. So what? How is harping on this point going to change the views of American Jews?

    Another way of looking at this. You categorically deny the following reading of what you say: There should be less Jews in the US establishment or in government positions that implement foreign policy. But if that is not what you are saying, then why is the number of Jews relevant at all and why do you keep mentioning it?

    • Cliff
      July 28, 2011, 12:07 pm

      Do you support the ban of linking Mondoweiss on DailyKos, eee?

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 12:18 pm

        “Do you support the ban of linking Mondoweiss on DailyKos, eee?”

        I’ll tell you at the end of the discussion based on the answers I get to my questions. At this point I find Phil’s argument very weak and would like explanations before I make up my mind.

      • Cliff
        July 28, 2011, 12:27 pm

        eee, you shouldn’t support it regardless.

        you post here regularly, and while the tilt is toward anti-Zionists, you are not banned for the sources you cite (if you cite any).

        that goes for every single other Zionist on this blog. Richard Witty has 10,000+ posts on this blog (even though he cites no sources).

        and Phil can be wrong, but that does NOT mean he is antisemitic.

        that should be the issue. you have to make a case for the argument that this site is wholly antisemitic, and should not be read/cited.

        that is the DailyKos proposal. they are lumping Phil and Adam with StormFront, a Nazi website.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 12:34 pm

        Cliff,

        Why don’t you just answer the questions I raised regarding Phil’s argument?

      • Cliff
        July 28, 2011, 1:12 pm

        Because I have an exam tomoro! Lol

      • pineywoodslim
        July 28, 2011, 3:11 pm

        Your questions were posed to Phil, not to any commenters. Nor do I see how any commenter could answer on Phil’s behalf.

        Cliff posed a question directly to you.

    • American
      July 28, 2011, 12:33 pm

      You really don’t get it eee.
      At least you don’t get the average American perspective.
      No one cares how many Jews there are in our government, no one wants to’ keep Jews out’ because they are Jews…..UNLESS…..they are the kind of Jews, or gentiles, or Cubans for that matter, whose loyalty is to a foreign country and who use their official positions to make America act against the interest of it’s own people or other people. As the zionist have done. And it is indisputable that we have some Jewish politicans and government employees and Jewish political players who work constantly to do just that.

      As for that segment of Jewish citizens of the US who say Israel is their most important consideration in American politics and elections and their financial participation and US vote has an Israel string attached, the kindest thing I can say about them is they are completely deluded and brainwashed to believe this isn’t a conflict and source of resentment for others who rightly believe that one’s loyalty should be to the country whose benefits and protection they enjoy.

    • annie
      July 28, 2011, 12:42 pm

      eee, i’ve got a post up i’d like you to read called Daily Kos, anti-semitism, & the zombie peace process. in it i link to one of phil’s articles. specifically it was cherry picked and a segment was used by a member of team shalom as an example of this “counting heads” sans any link to the post itself for it’s full context.

      had anyone read the full context, if the slanderer had even linked to the article, it is clear phil was not using these examples as a way of complaint at all. he gave them as examples of how the american jewish community has arrived in the establishment. now david brooks can say the same thing on the pages of the new york times bragging about the success of jews, but this success cannot be used in an argument against the idea of an oppressed minority? or a minority whose voice cannot be heard? this is about opening that conversation not closing it down. i think it is better if you cite these examples and let’s talk about them in the context in which they are written, especially let’s contrast them with advocates of israel who do the same thing as phil mentions today. why is it that people like Podhoretz can highlight this influence in support of his empowering this voice, but phil can’t or if he does it is called ‘counting’ and it’s anti semitic?

      grabbing portions of text sans their context is simply not a compelling argument unless one is on a witch hunt.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 2:36 pm

        Annie,

        I read your new post and still I do not understand Phil’s or your argument.

        Let me put it as bluntly as possible. Why is Phil highlighting Jewish power? How does the argument continue? Jews in the US have power therefore…. what? Can you please complete the last sentence?

        Before deciding if what Phil is saying is antisemitic I want to be sure I understand what he says, so I want to understand the full argument.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 3:56 pm

        . Why is Phil highlighting Jewish power? How does the argument continue? Jews in the US have power therefore…. what?

        well, straight from the horses mouth eee

        2, It deeply affects Middle East policy, which is the true source of my difference with Daily Kos; I believe you cannot talk about the Israel lobby without addressing the Jewish presence in the establishment. And following directly from that, 3, the Jewish presence is not neutral– no, sadly (and because of the Holocaust), my community has been indoctrinated with Zionism

        also, in the example i gave in my post, from the article Liberals like to deceive themselves about Jewish power, phil talks about jewish power because Bernard Avishai has made a claim One cannot just assume that the Congress will care what Jews want.. so phil responds like this

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

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

        a meme some jews like to keep around is ‘jews are an oppressed minority’ or alternately as phil claims ‘outsiders’. i agree they have been at periods throughout history but to make that claim nowadays in the US is absurd. so in that instance phil makes the point (paraphrasing, imho, again i cannot speak for phil) ‘hey, let’s look at this, america has embraced the jewish community, we are not outsiders we are definitely insiders. so let’s not operate as if we are not being listened to because we are..and here’s how we are (and then he lists people, jews, who very much have a voice) and then he says if you want to have a true analysis of our foreign policies then it’s realistic to incorporate why we have that special friend and it isn’t just “American superpower interests as understood by “hardliners.”….or “blame for the settlements on big bad American hardliners.”

        we need to examine how much pressure is applied from the lobbies and how much they influence our policies as opposed to both what’s best for the country and what’s the will of the american public vs the will of lobbiest. so, to answer your question wrt THAT particular posts my answer would be:

        Jews in the US have power therefore lets not pretend that they don’t. let’s not pretend like the illegal settlement growth is strictly a result of big business or because they are good for strengthening our superpower status because if we do that our analysis of foreign policy will be limited and our action ineffective..

        that’s my answer.

        no different than examining the power of the drug lobby when assessing health care reform (and when i say the drug lobby i include the way the lobby incorporates doctors and researchers and many people of the health profession who may not be directly identified as lobbiests, i mean people impacted by those lobbiests in one way or another). it’s a lobby with long arms just like other lobbies with long arms and sometimes lobbies don’t have the best interests of all the people involved (like say..me). also there are jews in power who are not part of any lobby, they are acting on their own behalf or their own interests and their identity within their community might quite naturally reflect the interests of the community. that’s normal. but eee, this intractable problem in i/p has been going on for decades. it needs resolution and it needs it now. we cannot properly assess our positioning there without taking into full account what is moving our policies. and pretending member of the jewsih community embedded within the establishment do not have a vital role in shaping our policy is a fools game. the way this is silenced and curtailed in the american discourse is not serving us, it is not leading us to a resolution it is perpetuating a failed policy.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 4:15 pm

        Annie,

        You write:
        “Jews in the US have power therefore lets not pretend that they don’t. let’s not pretend like the illegal settlement growth is strictly a result of big business or because they are good for strengthening our superpower status because if we do that our analysis of foreign policy will be limited and our action ineffective..”

        Ok, I see you kicked the can down the road. Let’s take this one step further. I accept all your assumptions for the sake of discussion. So what according to you should the effective actions be? Clearly the Jews in government in the US believe they are working for the best interests of the US. You believe some don’t (I think). Therefore, what needs to be done? Phil said it is not limiting Jews in government. So what is an effective action?

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 4:27 pm

        eee, can you do me a favor please. i am making a real effort here to answer your questions to the best of my abilities, in addition i am assuming you are asking in good faith, because you really want to know and are interested in furthering this conversation. so would you please not say things like i am ‘kicking this down the road’. i used the same text phil used and quoted him because i think the answer was right there in front of you and you just did not see it. ok? can you do that please. i am going to try answering you again in good faith and if you insinuate i am acting otherwise or evading you i am not going to carry on with you any further. deal?

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 4:37 pm

        Annie,

        I was not insinuating that you answered in bad faith. I was making a point about the argument, not about you but I can see how I could have been misunderstood. Yes, we have a deal.

      • Ellen
        July 28, 2011, 5:51 pm

        eee, you are trolling….

        making assumptions, taking it “a step further” and asking irrelevant and wrong questions.

        It is not about “effective action.” Nor doing something.

        The Number or whatever in government is a non issue. And I think that is Phil’s ultimate message.

        It is what it is.

        Our government needs to stop holding a Zionist enterprise that is undermining the US and slowly, but surely, destroying Israel.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 6:25 pm

        great, the effective action would be , as ellen articulated

        Our government needs to stop holding a Zionist enterprise that is undermining the US and slowly, but surely, destroying Israel.

        this is about empowering other rational voices. it is about not using people like dennis ross who has been doing this for decades with the same wrong results. it’s listening to the other voices, trying something new. we’ve got a big coutry here, there’s no sense locking our foreign policy into a redundant zionists loopdyloop going no where. the answer is exposure. don’t repeat failed policies. just do not do it. new ideas, not hardcore zionist ideas. it’s a failure.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 7:54 pm

        Annie,

        You and Ellen are again articulating what you want to happen, but not how to get there and why pointing out that Jews have power helps.
        How do you empower other rational voices that are not Zionist? How do you stop someone like Dennis Ross and many others like him with similar beliefs from pursuing public careers?

        You keep telling me where you want to go. I get that. But you don’t tell me how the fact that Phil highlights Jewish power and money helps you get there. Everyone agrees Jews are over represented in American elites. Everyone agrees that most Jews are Zionists. So how are you going to get less Zionist Jews in influential positions? Or how are you going to make Jews less Zionist and how is pointing out their power helping in that?

      • Chaos4700
        July 28, 2011, 8:06 pm

        How do you empower other rational voices that are not Zionist?

        Okay, show me a voice that’s rational AND Zionist and then we can talk about empowerment.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 8:33 pm

        you don’t tell me how the fact that Phil highlights Jewish power and money helps you get there.

        exposure eee. you’re not listening.

        How do you stop someone like Dennis Ross and many others like him with similar beliefs from pursuing public careers?

        i have no control over what ross wants to pursue. you keep throwing strawmen at me. i keep telling you i would empower other voices and you do not seem to hear me. i did not say jews were over represented, that’s your framing and i’m not addressing it. i want my voice to be heard, i’m not trying to silence you.

        So how are you going to get less Zionist Jews in influential positions?

        you mean how am i going to empower non zionist thinking? thinking i agree with? why by exposing what i see as thru truth that’s how. there’s a whole world of people and thought out there besides the myopic likud brand of thinking. why are you fixated on what i want to suppress vs what i want to promote?

        how are you going to make Jews less Zionist and how is pointing out their power helping in that?

        i can’t speak for phil. only for myself. my focus isn’t on the zionist jews, it is on the american public. i’m not talking to a miniscule percent of the people, i’m talking to everyone who will listen. imho being a non zionist is a natural state of being. it requires brainwashing to support ethnic cleansing which is exactly why dannyboy is pushing lying cartoons. read nathan in my post:Daily Kos, anti-semitism, & the zombie peace process.

        progressives who are educated about what Israel does to Palestinians will not support their positions and tactics and will instinctively support equal rights for Palestinians,

        all you have to do is expose people to the truth and trust most people are good with common sense and will follow. know this will not last forever and we have the power to change things. visualize what i want to empower.

        So how are you going to get less Zionist Jews in influential positions?

        empower non zionists whether they are jewish or not makes no difference to me. empower a non zionist narrative by exposing the apartheid nature of the zionist state.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 28, 2011, 8:41 pm

        “…the fact that Phil highlights Jewish power and money…”

        No, again, he is highlighting Zionist power and money.

        And, for one thing, because sunlight disinfects. When the extent to
        which the Zionist project has corrupted the political system becomes more known, fair minded Americans, both Jewish and non-Jewish, will begin to question how the system is being manipulated for the evil ends of a foreign power and why our system is being parasitized by you people.

        The point isn’t to get “Jews less Zionist” but to get Americans, both Jews and non-Jews, less Zionist. American Jews is one part of that equation.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 9:15 pm

        Annie,

        “you don’t tell me how the fact that Phil highlights Jewish power and money helps you get there.

        exposure eee. you’re not listening.”

        I am listening but having problems following your logic. What do you mean by exposure? Exposure to who? And why does “exposing the apartheid nature of the zionist state” give you a different exposure from highlighting Jewish power and money?

        I am “fixated” on what you want to suppress and not want to promote because I cannot see the “promote” aspect of highlighting Jewish power and money. How are you promoting another point of view by highlighting Jewish power and money? It looks more like that you are trying to suppress Jewish voices that are different from yours..

      • Chaos4700
        July 28, 2011, 10:11 pm

        You know, it’s funny that you you have the gall to accuse us of “suppressing Jewish voices” when it is Daily Kos who is censoring what people are saying (or typing, as it were).

        Really, eee. Must you beat yourself over the head with your own blatant false rhetoric?

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 10:18 pm

        I am listening but having problems following your logic.

        bummer. actually i don’t believe you eee, i’m not explaining it again, phil’s 09 post i linked to was very clear, and he’s clear in this post too.

        What do you mean by exposure?

        here’s some exposure, and here’s more. the apartheid is everywhere, all you have to do it look.

    • Chu
      July 28, 2011, 1:19 pm

      I think he believes that exposing the pro-zionists in the US will help to bring a more successful chance of peace to the current Middle East peace process sham; A peace that is often thwarted by zionist power in the US. Many Jews in America feel the same way, Phil and Adam are part of the growing minority.

      It’s clear Israel desires all of Jerusalem, there is no doubt about that. Zionists in the US help to achieve this goal. Israel leverages or manipulates the US superpower through the american zionist establishment (Chuck Schumer, Eric Cantor, Pat Robertson, now Glen Beck, etc).It’s a ponzi scheme gone wild, but it is going to take a few more bloggers and committed professionals to expose the pyramid of corruption.

      “counting heads”

      I don’t think he argues for less ‘Jewish’ representation, just a more reasonable one with respect to Israel. It’s time for change in Israel. They know it, but don’t have the thrust in society to make amends for their wrongs during the last 60 years of Israel. Israel’s reconciliation with their neighbors will help them survive. They need to find common ground with other states but must negotiate and prepare to make concessions to allow for the a successful Palestinian society. They don’t really have an option any longer. They can’t expel them to Jordan. Everyone knows Israel’s problem except for themselves and the US. Colonialism was last centuries issue, even if they wish to frame it as terrorism.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 2:38 pm

        Chu,

        Very few people in the US government who are Zionists are ashamed of this. What is there to expose? The members of Congress openly proclaim it. So that is not the reason.

      • Chu
        July 28, 2011, 3:36 pm

        They may be proud, well, I wouldn’t say proud. They more likely know when to say I support Israel. I don’t hear politicians say how pro-Israel they are until electioneering time comes ’round. Remember Biden’s ‘I’m a Zionist’? He practically repeated it through pursed lips. Sure they beat their chest at the AIPAC soiree, but the news doesn’t show the AIPAC conference, or even mention it. Only though C-Span can you see this and most people are salivating to watch The View or some other dumb program that puts them at ease.

        What’s to expose is that the peace process is a sham. Israel wants and Israel slowly takes under the slow push to kill any chance of Palestinian society. The settlements, Cast Lead, they all equate to eradicate the problem of the indigenous. You know it well, and so do I.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 4:47 pm

        “What’s to expose is that the peace process is a sham. Israel wants and Israel slowly takes under the slow push to kill any chance of Palestinian society. The settlements, Cast Lead, they all equate to eradicate the problem of the indigenous. You know it well, and so do I.”

        No, I don’t know this well at all. Only negotiations will bring a peaceful solution. That, I know for a fact. I also know that you don’t like the fact that the Palestinians are the weaker side in the negotiations. But that can’t be helped. The facts on ground are what they are.

        As for your first contention, you are wrong also. Israel is often part of debates and candidates do state their support for Israel during election campaigns.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 4:50 pm

        I know for a fact.

        silly rhetorical tools

      • Chaos4700
        July 28, 2011, 8:09 pm

        Only negotiations will bring a peaceful solution.

        Which is, of course, why Israel refuses to adhere to even basic considerations, like stopping breaking international law. You Israelis know full well that as long as you make negotiation impossible, you make peace impossible, and while there isn’t peace you have free reign to bulldoze as many homes and kill as many people as you like to increase your “living space.”

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        July 28, 2011, 9:40 pm

        In truth, the support for Israel expoused by most non-Jewish members of Congress is mostly unknown by their constituents at home and is singularly directed at either Jewish donors or voters or both, depending on their districts.

        For most there is no mention of Israel when you go to their website and a site visitor needs to do a site search in order to find the politicians’ position on the Israel-Palestine conflict which should seem strange given the lavish attention they devote to it in Washington…which, however, is not reported to the folks back home but does get into the Jewish press and AIPAC’s Near East Report.

        In districts where there are a substantial number of Jews, those who are get special mailings. In largely liberal cities like San Francisco where there is a substantial Jewish minority, there is rarely if ever a mention of Israel in the general mailings that go to all the voters.

        Those identified as Jews in SF learn of Pelosi’s undying love for Israel and that she is still carrying around the dog tags of three Israeli soldiers, Shalit and the two who were captured by Hezbollah in 2006 and ultimately died. Imagine if folks dedicated to Palestine in SF widely publicized that fact, but they don’t because they follow the line of Chomsky, Ajl, Zunes, Green, and Bennis, that Israel is an asset and the problem is in Washington and not with their member of Congress.

        Both the International Action Center/ANSWER and Socialist Action, two political dinosaurs from the 60s still dominate the movement. Their leaders longer of tooth, wider in girth, and diminished in hair, pretend that they oppose both political parties but give Pelosi and local Democrats a free pass.

        In fact, two years ago this September both groups, including the local chapter of US Labor Against the War, did their very best to sabotage a picket of a $100 a plate breakfast for Pelosi that was being hosted by the SF Labor Council that had been organized by local trade unionists whose anti-zionism, unlike that of IAC/ANSWER and SA did not stop at the door of the local branch of the Democratic Party.

        An excellent article about these political frauds by Alexander Cockburn can be found here. It is well worth reading to understand what we are up against:
        link to counterpunch.org

    • richb
      July 28, 2011, 3:53 pm

      Your argument Phil does not make sense. You are not against Jews being part of the establishment. So why do you count how many there are in the establishment? What does it matter?

      Phil counts Jews. I count evangelicals. I do the latter because I see my community behaving badly and because I care about it acting morally I “count” them. Presumably, since Phil has frequently expressed a desire to redeem the Jewish community he is doing the same.

      But my question to you and the censors on DailyKos is why do you care what Phil’s hobby horse is? The latter uses “Jew counting” as prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism. When I saw that on DK it was truly a WTF moment. I was trying to get the DailyKos folks to see that their obsession with the left gave them a blind spot to the threat from the right wing as exemplified by Breivik’s violent Christian Zionism. See this comment thread before Breivik’s attacks:

      link to dailykos.com

      Little did I know how prescient I was:

      It was bad enough that Harold Camping was predicting the Apocalypse when you have idiots like Beck who are trying to make it happen.

      If you compare what I said a mere month ago you will note some differences of opinions with what I am saying now. I came from a right wing background and all the crap on DK is straight out the right wing playbook, again as shown by Breivik. Now I understand why they got so offended when early on I innocently said “you sure sound like Republicans”. The problem here, however, is bigger than your normal political debate. The mischaracterization of the anti-Zionist left as anti-Semitic keeps people from seeing real threats.

      The anti-Zionist left, whose grandparents fought the Nazis, were the victims in Norway and the perpetrator was a Zionist. A close reading of Breivik shows, however, he wasn’t a friend of Jews just a friend of “loyal”, conservative, Jews. A member of the Weisenthal Center was on Keith Olbermann and said he was giving the Norwegians advice but they didn’t see this coming. Well, duh. The fact that Breivik was a Zionist and his victims were anti-Zionists made his “sources” not hate sites and sites like this the opposite. Where you stand on the Zionism question is not a good predictor (either way) of whether you are going to be violent. Being a right winger is.

      So, eee, does “counting Jews” make you an anti-Semite? Note that most rational people will look at this “argument”, see that we have been lied to, and move on like I have.

      • Donald
        July 28, 2011, 4:37 pm

        That’s a very good post, Richb. There’s still some of the old anti-semitism around, but I think quite a few people still can’t (or won’t) wrap their heads around the fact that there’s a new type of rightwing hater, the kind who hates Muslims and supports and allies itself with the Israeli right. And this new type is far closer to the mainstream and more dangerous.

        The applause Congress gave to Netanyahu was in some sense an expression of mainstream Islamophobia, the more genteel “nonviolent” kind. They’d never shoot up a camp of Norwegian kids, but they’d give Netanyahu all the weapons he wants and all the support he needs to maintain his apartheid policies.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 4:43 pm

        “Phil counts Jews. I count evangelicals. I do the latter because I see my community behaving badly and because I care about it acting morally I “count” them. Presumably, since Phil has frequently expressed a desire to redeem the Jewish community he is doing the same.”

        How does knowing exactly how many Jews or evangelicals there are at the Foreign Office make them act more morally? How are the two related at all?

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 4:55 pm

        How does knowing exactly how many Jews or evangelicals there are at the Foreign Office make them act more morally?

        this ‘counting jews’ thing is rightwing accusatory rhetoric. now you are ramping it up pretending phil’s goal is to find out exactly how many Jews… there are at the Foreign Office. you may or may not have noticed phil doesn’t actually ‘count’ jews.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 4:57 pm

        Annie,

        Ok, for what purpose does Phil “ball park” Jews? How does this make them more moral?

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 5:03 pm

        eee, i’m not linking to it again for you. from ‘Liberals like to deceive themselves about Jewish power’

        Avishai’s claims that American hardliners want the settlement program to continue, and “One cannot just assume that the Congress will care what Jews want” are absurd. Over and over, American presidents have said they oppose the colonization program; over and over these instincts have been nullified politically because of the Jewish presence in the power structure. The Senate is dominated by Democrats, and 1/5 of them are Jews, even though Jews are just 2 percent of the population. The Washington Post has said that over half the money given to the Democratic Party comes from Jews. …………. As I have frequently said, the biggest money game in town on the Republican side is Sheldon Adelson, a Zionist Jew, who got engaged in 2000 with the specific aim of nullifying the “peace process.” Today is Obama frustrated by “hardliners”? No: he’s frustrated by the likes of Chuck Schumer, who refuses to go to J Street.

        iow, he ballparked The Senate is dominated by Democrats, and 1/5 of them are Jews to make the point “One cannot just assume that the Congress will care what Jews want” are absurd. what’s immoral about that? what do you mean by ‘more moral’? your framing is weird eee. there’s nothing immoral about making the point congress obviously ‘cares’ about jews. hello. what was it like the last time you beat your wife? did you feel moral about it?

      • richb
        July 28, 2011, 5:06 pm

        How does knowing exactly how many Jews or evangelicals there are at the Foreign Office make them act more morally?

        This just shows that this is foreign-born Hasbara. The phrase is “State Department”. As for the insider influence of evangelicals withing the government I recommend the book, “Tempting Faith” by David Kuo who worked in the faith-based office of President Bush.

      • Donald
        July 28, 2011, 5:11 pm

        “How does knowing exactly how many Jews or evangelicals there are at the Foreign Office make them act more morally? How are the two related at all?”

        This is dumb. The argument is that evangelicals (if they are Christian Zionists) and American Jews (if they are Zionists) are likely to push for certain policies because of their belief system. If that’s the case, we should know about it. When someone runs for President, if they hold strong beliefs on certain issues because of their religion, the news media will report it and everybody accepts this as legitimate. When a devout Catholic or evangelical runs for office everyone wants to know what his or her position is on abortion. Are you really going to tell me you don’t understand this?

        Now if a particular individual in the government who helps set policy happens to be Jewish or an evangelical but has no strong views on Israel that stem from being Jewish or evangelical, then their religious beliefs are irrelevant. But if they do have strong views then yes, we’d like to know this and we’d like to know what the reasons are.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 5:16 pm

        Annie,

        I was referring to what RichB wrote:
        “Phil counts Jews. I count evangelicals. I do the latter because I see my community behaving badly and because I care about it acting morally I “count” them. Presumably, since Phil has frequently expressed a desire to redeem the Jewish community he is doing the same.”

        And my question still stands to him. How does counting Jews make them act less badly or more morally?

        For you (Annie) my question is: How does “ball parking” Jews help get to effective action and what is that action?

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 5:32 pm

        For you (Annie) my question is: How does “ball parking” Jews help get to effective action and what is that action?

        quit moving the goal posts and answer me for a change:

        he ballparked The Senate is dominated by Democrats, and 1/5 of them are Jews to make the point “One cannot just assume that the Congress will care what Jews want” are absurd. what’s immoral about that? what do you mean by ‘more moral’?

      • richb
        July 28, 2011, 5:41 pm

        Because sunlight is the best disinfectant. Both Jews and evangelicals claim that their religious heritage calls them to a higher standard of morality. By not calling either Jews or evangelicals to account it lets them hide in the darkness. What I’ve seen is a tendency within the evangelical community to circle the wagons when their leaders are criticized. What I have found here is when I was honest about the foibles of my community that some of the cynicism by outsiders is mitigated and true community outside of our subculture is reached. I see Phil doing exactly the same within his community.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 5:49 pm

        Annie,

        Nothing is immoral about the statement. What may be immoral is the actions that this statement urges. What is the effective action this statement helps? You still have not outlined it.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 5:58 pm

        Because sunlight is the best disinfectant.

        yes it is richb. thank you so much for your contributions. the idea that exposing information is dangerous and that people should be silent and shut up or evade looking at the ptb or just be afraid to voice your opinion, that goes a long way towards keeping the status quo. there is a darkness around discussing i/p, all the time. and look what happens when we are open, we are called bigots.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 6:01 pm

        How does this make them more moral?…….Nothing is immoral about the statement.

        who is dragging morals into this conversation? What is the effective action this statement helps? You still have not outlined it.

        What may be immoral is the actions that this statement urges.

        What is the effective action this statement helps? You still have not outlined it.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 6:07 pm

        Annie,

        I do not understand your questions. Richb introduced moral into the discussion, not me. He said counting Jews and evangelicals made them more moral. I am asking why?

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 6:13 pm

        Richb,

        Calling Jews into account is different than saying there are many Jews in power or that their money influences politics. How is what Phil is doing going to make Jews less Zionists? Walk me through this: There are many Jews in power therefore I should support Israel less? It just does not follow.

      • richb
        July 28, 2011, 9:09 pm

        Within progressive circles speaking truth to power easy. What’s hard is what Phil is doing: eschewing power for truth. Will Phil make Jews less Zionist? I don’t know but morality does not reduce to Machiavellian realpolitik. There are many Jews and many evangelicals in power. That should mean that both of them could be a power for good. The fact that they are not speaks more about you as an apologist for the status quo than it does about Phil and me.

        If Phil was African American and I was Hispanic noting the relative lack of power of those communities would absolve those communities for the lack of progress we are seeing. As I said both of us are eschewing power for the benefit of the oppressed which is in the best tradition of both Christianity and Judaism, not to mention all the rest of the World religions or secular philosophies. Within both of our Sacred Scriptures God mentions this thousands of times. Hopefully, I am not presumptuous in quoting a NT Scripture to him:

        Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. — Galatians 6:9

  13. Joseph Glatzer
    July 28, 2011, 12:10 pm

    This is a great article Phil, and I am really sorry that you are getting smeared in this way. You are a person of truth and conscience and you do not deserve to be smeared as a hate monger. Before I read Mondoweiss, I never heard anyone else speak the truth about these issues of Jewish power in the American establishment. This is the pink elephant everyone wants to ignore because it’s uncomfortable to deal with, due to the history of anti semitism. But you are brave enough to talk about it and for that you’re my hero

    • annie
      July 28, 2011, 12:29 pm

      you’re my hero

      mine too.

    • eee
      July 28, 2011, 12:32 pm

      Joseph,

      Take the argument one step further. Let’s assume there are powerful Jews in the American establishment. What follows from that? Phil is not arguing to remove them as far as I can understand. So what is he arguing for? What are we supposed to do now that we have this information? What is the next step?

      • lysias
        July 28, 2011, 12:48 pm

        Isn’t knowledge of a truth valuable in and of itself? Why does anything have to follow?

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 2:40 pm

        “Isn’t knowledge of a truth valuable in and of itself? Why does anything have to follow?”

        Phil is interested in the truth as a method to change the views of the Jews in the US and perhaps other things. So yes, something has to follow, some conclusion or deduction that helps his cause. I am interested in understanding what it is.

      • lysias
        July 28, 2011, 4:39 pm

        So you deny that knowledge of a truth is valuable in and of itself?

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 5:06 pm

        “So you deny that knowledge of a truth is valuable in and of itself?”

        Yes. It depends on the truth and the person. If the truth is that one of your kids will die young, the knowledge could be very detrimental to some people. And I can give you many other examples.

      • Ellen
        July 28, 2011, 6:07 pm

        eee your questioning and logic is nonsensical.

        Why make assumptions and hypotheticals and debate what does not exist.

        This is nuts. You prose is more readable that Witty’s, (albeit filled with phony rhetorical twists) but it is still the same meaningless gibberish.

      • MRW
        July 28, 2011, 1:29 pm

        eee,

        You don’t understand the American psyche. So rather than stand there with your hands on your hips demanding answers to questions that no one has the time or inclination to answer, read some American history.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 2:42 pm

        MRW,

        What a cop out. And really is there something as the American psyche? There are red states and blue states, democrats and republicans, southerners and northerners, libertarians and anarchists and I could go on. All in the US. Care to answer the question?

      • MRW
        July 28, 2011, 3:32 pm

        eee,

        You are as ignorant, arrogant, and parochial about the the US as Americans are ignorant, arrogant, and parochial about China and the Chinese.

        It boils down to education (and the capacity to understand) on both counts.

        [Parochial in the sense that one's view of oneself as cosmopolitan, scientifically advanced, and militaristically superior is the effect of telling oneself so. It is not based on reality.]

      • American
        July 28, 2011, 4:06 pm

        eee

        It appears to me, although I can’t swear to it since I can’t read minds,
        that Phil points out what he does because:

        He thinks zionism among the Jewish groups is detrimental to Jews/Israel as a whole in the US and elsewhere.
        He thinks the Zionist in the US government misuse their positions and influence for zionism and Israel.
        He thinks that Israeli criminality and the Occupation reflects on badly on Jewish identity and principles.
        He may or may not think that what Jews have attained in the US could be lost or damaged if this Zionist-US on steriods continues to some final last straw for the majority.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 4:18 pm

        MRW,

        As usual, you move to ad hominem attacks when you have no good answer. Oh well.

      • MRW
        July 28, 2011, 4:31 pm

        What Americans don’t know or won’t accept about the Chinese:

        China ‘to overtake US on science’ in two years
        link to bbc.co.uk

        China Overtaking U.S. by 2016? Believe It. IMF says ‘Age of America’ will end in less than five years; investors should prepare now
        link to investorplace.com

        Stealth Chinese submarine shocks US navy in 2007: pulls up right alongside them
        The uninvited guest: Chinese submarine pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise [USS Kitty Hawk with 4500 personnel onboard], leaving military chiefs red-faced

        link to dailymail.co.uk
        From this same article In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.

        Chinese Anti-ship (aircraft) ballistic missile (hereinafter referred to ASBM) can defeat U.S. military strategic situation
        See: U.S. Department of Defense, “2009 White Paper on China’s military power”
        And
        link to english.chosun.com

        China has carrier-killer missile, U.S. admiral says “China’s military is deploying a new anti-ship ballistic missile that can sink U.S. aircraft carriers, a weapon that specialists say gives Beijing new power-projection capabilities that will affect U.S. support for its Pacific allies.”
        link to washingtontimes.com

        Fast Train, Big Dam, China’s Engineering Feats
        Their public infratructure engineering capability is unknown here.
        link to allvoices.com

        The Chinese team won first place, as it has in every International Mathematical Olympiad event since the late 1980s. (America second, Israel 23rd)
        link to haaretz.com

      • MRW
        July 28, 2011, 4:41 pm

        Eee,

        It’s not ad hominem. It’s factual. How can I discuss anything with someone who has to ask And really is there something as the American psyche and for whom these are the characteristics of the US offered for discussion: There are red states and blue states, democrats and republicans, southerners and northerners, libertarians and anarchists and I could go on. ?

        What’s the point.

      • MRW
        July 28, 2011, 5:07 pm

        Eee,

        You asked : Phil is not arguing to remove them as far as I can understand. So what is he arguing for? So yes, something has to follow, some conclusion or deduction that helps his cause.

        No. He wants something to end because it hurts us as Americans (violates our American psyche) and it will ultimately hurt American Jews (which will happen, also, as Americans wake up to the loss of their presumed greatness, and look around for someone to blame):

        Where the Jewish presence in the establishment is lamentable is [in] the Jewish love affair with Zionism that has made my influential community reactionary on one of the most pressing issues of our time.

        And

        I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the Jewish presence in the establishment– as givers, as political actors, as talking heads– is a huge factor in America losing its way in the Middle East, and so I feel an obligation as an American journalist to address these questions.

        All the congressional oxygen, when it isn’t doing this deficit charade, goes to Israel. If the congress spent as much time in the last three years getting jobs back as they did writing laws for Israel, preparing for September UN, screaming Islamofascism, traveling to and fro Israel, or welcoming Netanyahu, our economy could have been in better shape now. (It’s a matter of the tone and emphasis.) The fact that our economy is not and that it can possibly get worse is going to blamed somewhere. Breivik didn’t your cause any good. Even Herman Cain is back-pedaling.

        It’s a confluence of many factors that will reach a tipping point. And we’re getting there.

      • Ellen
        July 28, 2011, 6:11 pm

        ohh, red states and blue states. That is a marketing strategy used by political parties, branding and the lazy news media. How about all those “purple” states.

        Stop asking stupid questions based on imaginary assumptions and read for yourself. Find your own answers. That might help real understanding.

        If that is what you are seeking?

    • Cliff
      July 28, 2011, 12:32 pm

      Agreed.

      This is the most important commentary on the entire conflict. And that’s because of Phil, Adam and their vision for the discourse.

  14. lysias
    July 28, 2011, 12:43 pm

    It would be interesting to know what Daily Kos’s sources of funding are.

    • annie
      July 28, 2011, 12:45 pm

      there’s lots of advertising at that site, lots. you do not see it if you are a paying member (i think) but it’s everywhere if you are not. just visit the front page.

    • Amar
      July 28, 2011, 2:50 pm

      So would I. Also HuffPo at times acts weird. Does DK give platforms to Dershowitz and Bernard Henri-Levy like HP occasionally do?

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 3:00 pm

        try googling “dkos Bernard Henri-Levy” or “dkos Dershowitz” for discussions. i just did, both came up.

  15. Haytham
    July 28, 2011, 12:44 pm

    How do you know you’re winning The War of Ideas in The Middle East?

    When The Other Side puts together de facto committees called “Team Shalom”** [h/t annie] whose only intended purpose is to restrict debate about Israel.

    Can’t you smell the desperation over there at DKos? They are quite literally freaking out, running around with their hair on fire, practically screaming about “delegitimization,” “anti-Semitim,” etc., and they are howling that this is “not about free speech.”

    Well, they’re not a government organization–so of course the 1st amendment doesn’t apply–but they are missing the point (on purpose). They are trying to ban speech based solely on content. That is the very essence of limiting freedom of expression. People who are not trying hide something or shade the debate in some way do not fear the “marketplace of ideas.” Quite the opposite! They would be unafraid to have all points of view aired and debated because they would be confident that their stance is principled, moral, legal and fair. Team Shalom doesn’t consider care about any of those things.

    Does Team Shalom [I can't even type that without laughing. Hilarious!] approve of the limitation of speech in any other context or on any other subject? I doubt it.

    **What a name. This reminds me of when politicians want to do something like, say, remove bans on logging in certain protected areas. One of the first things they do is come up with a great name for their bill, like “Wildlife and Nature Preservation Act of 2011.”

    • annie
      July 28, 2011, 12:57 pm

      the funniest thing about their name to me is that they way they conduct themselves in the threads is the antithesis of peaceful. ie

      By yelling loudly enough about anti-semitism, by making advocates of Palestinians who do not condone any form of racism always having to defend themselves against charges of anti-semitism, they obscure the racism of the Israeli government, the Israeli laws and the Israeli occupation.

      All they have are these tactics, since the tide is turning against them.

      • Haytham
        July 28, 2011, 1:11 pm

        I think Team Shalom and all the other PsEP in the blogosphere/internet news realm have to just finally admit that when they accuse someone of anti-Semitism, all they’re really saying is “you just hurt my feelings!”

        Mondofront!

        Mondosewer!

        They’re literally like 8 year olds on a playground. I would be embarrassed to post some of the things that they do.

    • Chu
      July 28, 2011, 1:38 pm

      one guys on the thread makes some sense:

      by citizen53 on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 05:59:08 PM PDT

      The stand is taken in the remarks… (1+ / 0-)
      that expose the information for what it is.

      I believe in more expression, not less. Some of the best information on issues actually comes from sites that do not meet the seal of good housekeeping at Daily Kos, where conformity is king.

      How can anyone really learn and decide about controversial issues when just one side is presented, and that is too often the case here.

      If something is beyond the pale, say so, and let the consumer decide.

      That said, I understand the numbers game here, and also the small imprint in the larger scheme of things.

      Many of these people, besides citizen53, seem to wish to perpetuate the status-quo on Israel and use straw-man arguments to not look at the facts of Israel’s history. They are hurting themselves and their ‘integrity’.

  16. iamuglow
    July 28, 2011, 12:44 pm

    Wow. They can’t dispute the information so they ban any reference to your site? Amazing.

    For a brief period I perused DK…I can remember threads about Palestine being filled with constant threats to report other people for anti-Semitism. The limits they put on what you could debate was mind numbing. What kind of people would want to be a part of a site like that?

    I hope this banning only makes more of their readers aware of Mondoweiss. I know I keep mentioning it to everyone I meet.

  17. MRW
    July 28, 2011, 12:44 pm

    Re: Dailykos:

    What can you expect from a pig but a grunt.

  18. Richard Witty
    July 28, 2011, 1:00 pm

    I don’t believe that references should be banned from anywhere.

    I do believe that Phil has stepped over the edge of appropriate discourse, by repetition and by poor writing frankly.

    The “sensitivity to the history of anti-semitism” is NOT apparent in the majority of your posts on the subject, and ring of “anyone that disagrees with me should just shut up”.

    Your posse does not help, as the then rah-rah exagerations of your actual words, then multiply only the negative anti-semitic nuance exponentially. They don’t describe inquiry, respect, nuance, multiple awarenesses.

    They describe an effort to eliminate a “military” obstacle, a campaign, partisan.

    You have MANY options as to how to form your views and goals, many that need not express offense, but express sensitivity.

    You are NOT urging sensitivity to Palestinians’ experience here, but only a political and now grossly partisan approach.

    And, you are not exactly sincere in the depth of your study, your Jewish engagement. Of course you are a Jew, a participant.

    The only thing that I’m clear about your views is that you are critical. I don’t have a clue what you are for.

    After these many years on this topic, that should have emerged by now, for you to take the next responsible step to honestly argue for that respectfully and sensitively.

    Then at least people can disagree, rather than smear in response to being smeared, in response to being smeared, in response to being smeared.

    • James North
      July 28, 2011, 1:08 pm

      Richard Witty said, ‘Please read this sentence of mine again

      I do believe that Phil has stepped over the edge of appropriate discourse, by repetition and by poor writing frankly.

      ‘I prove once again that I have absolutely no insight. The words “repetitive” and “poor writing” do apply to someone at Mondoweiss, but it isn’t Phil.’

      • Fredblogs
        July 28, 2011, 2:16 pm

        Could whoever it was who complained about me using quotes paraphrasing in that “Protocols of the Elders of Zion is real now” thread (using quotes without saying “*name of author of article* said”, and thus without pretending that the guy actually said it) please get on James North’s case about his constant lying about what Richard Witty said? Yo, James, if you want to indicate that you are parodying or paraphrasing you could use “in other words ‘yada yada yada'”. Or if you are just posting randomly when he hasn’t even posted, try “as Richard Witty _might_ say ‘yada yada yada'”.

        When you say “Richard Witty said ‘yada yada yada'” you aren’t being cute, you are simply lying about what someone else said. That is wrong. If you want to score points off someone try being honest about what they said instead of lying.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 2:31 pm

        freddy, being a newbie i thought i would explain to you the context of these “quotes” of witty’s. after years of witty placing quotes around lies he could not source, repeatedly we (as a community) started giving him a little taste of his own medicine. so, you’re right, it’s not ok to place (double) quotes around paraphrasing or make believe snarks but we have a special caveat wrt this rule for our most prolific blogger. hopefully this will eventually break him of the habit of creating ‘facts on the ground’ that come from his imagination.

        btw, we like to politely remind people about using quotes for paraphrasing, and i recall reminding you in the past. thanks for not doing it but i’m afraid advising others wrt to witty won’t get you anywhere. after you’ve been here a few years (godforbid) then let’s chat about it.

        ciao

      • Fredblogs
        July 28, 2011, 3:19 pm

        It’s not the quotes I object to, it’s the “Witty said”. If you just have quotes, with no attribution, that is an indicator that what you are reading is probably paraphrase or snark. If you actually say “*whoever* _said_”, that’s an indicator that it isn’t paraphrase or snark.

        As to Witty being the most prolific. I think that given the ratio of Israel-bashers and outright anti-Semites (some of you know who you are, others are in denial) on this site to Israel-supporters, that Witty couldn’t come close to balancing you all out if he posted 10 times as often as he does. In other words, there are so few Israel supporters on this site, don’t begrudge one of the few supporters the way he posts frequent (and incredibly mild) posts supporting Israel.

        Also, since IIRC he is a personal friend of Phil Weiss, he is one of the few pro-Israel people who don’t get banned after a while.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 28, 2011, 3:32 pm

        Fredblogs said, ‘I don’t understand what James North is doing, so he should be made to stop. Oh, and anyone who criticises Israel hates Jews.’

      • American
        July 28, 2011, 3:46 pm

        Fred,

        I have been here a while, not near as long as some others, but I don’t recall seeing any of the zionist and Israel critics ever misquote someone unless it was in obvious and unmistakable ‘jest’….and most commenters here always use some creditable source and link to it in their comments when they are posting anything critical of Israel…the Israel apologist and the zionist here don’t back up their statements with a real objective and creditable source most of the time.
        Therein lies the frustration of those of us on the’ other side’ and the occasional barbs.

      • Cliff
        July 28, 2011, 4:06 pm

        There are no anti-Semites here Fred. And the quotes is an inside-joke, that you didn’t care to inquire about.

        Witty has frequently invented quotes, so North paraphrases him jokingly.

        Now, for any sane person taking stock of Mondoweiss, I suggest you take a look at Fredblogs’s comment history. In it you’ll find gems like:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        he Palestinians choose to be at war with the Jews. They won’t make peace no matter what. That makes it very hard for the Israelis to restrain the colonizers among them. I disagree with it myself, but let me ask you. Assume for the sake of argument that the following are true:

        1) A majority of Palestinians want to kill or expel every Jew in Israel.
        2) No matter what the Israelis do, #1 will always be true. That it would still be true even if Israel said “screw it” and retreated to greater Tel Aviv area and gave the rest of Israel and the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians.

        “What caused suicide bombing?”
        Electrical current through plastic explosives usually. Seriously though, the reason for the bombing is that they hate Israelis. The reason they make it a suicide bombing is for the perqs. The 72 virgins in heaven, the endless wealth they get to enjoy up there. It’s a polygamous culture with sex outside of marriage forbidden. Most suicide bombings are just an attempt to get laid, made by someone who thinks there is a heavenly afterlife waiting for him to get laid in.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        When Israel pulled out of Gaza, the Arabs elected Hamas
        and fired 10,000 missiles and mortars at Israel.

        The Arabs that are murdering Jews are doing it because they hate Jews. If Israel stopped doing whatever things you characterize as “treating them like cattle”, they would still be trying to murder the Jews.

        If I were a rabid, psychotic Zionist like Fred, then everyone under the Sun who wasn’t as much of a nut-job as me would seem antisemitic.

        I’m so glad you’ve decided to post at Mondoweiss. Zionists like you are side-show attractions. When a person who has not been so thoroughly brainwashed, comes across commentary like yours – they will wonder, ‘wtf is going on with this guy?’

        You’d have to be a Zionist to accept the disgusting, gross generalizations, lies, distortions and racism in Fredblogs’s arguments.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 4:15 pm

        you know cliff, it often occurs to me the objection from team shalom and other self defined ‘liberal zionists’ about this site is not the verbiage on the far left, it is how the ultra zionists so fully expose zionism raw racism. it’s pretty hard to listen to this stuff you’ve copied and not be repulsed by it and i doubt i am alone. this is why the constant thread highjacks at dkos, because banter and ad hominems is hella better than articulating their view and making it sound acceptable. the zionist narrative is on rocky footing from the get go.

      • Donald
        July 28, 2011, 4:21 pm

        James’s summaries of Witty’s remarks are satirical–they always come right after one of Witty’s posts. Annie just explained the reasons for the quotes and the “Richard says” and any person of normal intelligence could read James and the Richard quote above it and see that it is satirical. (As a good satirist , James thinks his pseudo-Witty remarks also explain something about the real logic behind Richard’s remarks.)

        Richard’s posts are “mild”, but that means very little when you’ve read enough of them and spot the double standards on human rights and who he thinks deserves criticism and who does not. His posts are often close to gibberish and yet he can write quite clearly at times. My own theory/observation on that is that he is able to write clearly when the facts really do support his position or when he thinks they do. When trying to explain away Israeli brutality his writing turns into mush. Orwell explained this many years ago.

        And yes, this site is dominated by one side of the debate. It is often that way at political web blogs–Phil is a very tough critic of Israel and the lobby and so his blog naturally attracts people who agree with this, along with a few unsavory types who get banned (I assume, since they vanish) when they post some vile bit of anti-semitism (Holocaust denial, for instance). That’s not surprising either. I visit other blogs on this subject and there are some pretty unsavory types who defend Israel–often racist, often arrogant, very quick to change the subject from Israeli crimes. I know of a few pro-Israel types who’ve been banned here also (usually with good reason AFAIK, with one exception where I was surprised by the banning.) It’s impossible to defend Israel’s behavior without falling into rationalizations for atrocities, but people don’t get banned for that.

        I would prefer a slightly more civil tone so that reasonable liberal Zionists would feel more comfortable coming here to have their arguments refuted. But it’s not my business to determine how the blog comments are run or how other people express themselves. I’m polite to some liberal Zionists, but often rude to Richard, for reasons explained above.

      • Cliff
        July 28, 2011, 4:31 pm

        Good thing we have comment history.

        I’ve decided to just quote Witty’s approval of ethnic cleansing, and Fred’s racism in, well, every one of his posts.

        It’s better than allowing these unstable, self-centered dolts, the time of day.

      • Richard Witty
        July 28, 2011, 5:41 pm

        There is no scope for a liberal zionist to criticize Israel on this site, as no criticism offered reaches the level of condemnation demanded, even about questions that people genuinely do not know enough to judge.

        And, distrust the sources and interpretations that are presented here as “proof”.

        Donald,
        You should just not give yourself permission to be rude to anyone by any rationalization. I don’t.

      • Ellen
        July 28, 2011, 6:25 pm

        Richard, dishonesty, racism, self centered narcissism is more than rude. And fluffy expression (that is often hard to understand) is lazy writing and that is simply rude.

        But perhaps it is a tactic to hide the hate speech hiding in fluff words, hate speech that shoots out of the fuzz now and then, clear and sharp as a knife.

      • Pixel
        July 29, 2011, 12:15 am

        “(Holocaust denial, for instance)”

        “Holocaust denial” is a hasbara phrase that was intentionally and instantly created to shut down and eliminate any and all intellectual curiosity/debate on this historical topic.

        That it’s illegal … illegal! in many European countries (with continuing efforts to make it illegal in Canada and other places) to question even the smallest “given” about it should be a huge red flag.

        In free societies no topic is off-limits. Freedom loving people may not agree with any part of this undertaking or others’ “results” from it but they respect others’ rights to pursue it.

        I have never met a Holocaust “denier” – ever – only those who aspire to become Holocaust factualists. They decide to explore the research themselves.

        The first to question the issues were Jews/Israelis who began on-site archaeology at the concentration camps simply to gather more info. about fact they assumed. They were not trying to corroborate existing info – it was all taken for granted, 100%.

        There was never any question in their minds about anything until they began their research and didn’t find what they assumed they would find.

        That intellectual curiosity is honored at this site is testament to it’s high ethical standards and great respect for it’s posters, followers, and those who comment, alike.

        While I don’t agree with it, I certainly respect your right to use the term “Holocaust denial.” I see it as an opportunity for site readers to reflect on the phrase, why it’s used, why it’s repeated, and whether it’s accurate.

        Some may decide to thoroughly research the topic so they can come to an informed decision of their own.

      • Mooser
        July 29, 2011, 11:12 am

        “You should just not give yourself permission to be rude to anyone by any rationalization. I don’t.”

        Clicking on Richard Witty’s name over his comments will give you access to his entire comment archive. I particularly recommend Richard’s comments when Phil posted from and on his Gaza trip.
        Anyone can read them and judge of Richard’s “politeness”.

      • Max Ajl
        July 29, 2011, 11:16 am

        Fredblogs writes “I think that given the ratio of Israel-bashers and outright anti-Semites (some of you know who you are, others are in denial) on this site to Israel-supporters…blablabla.”

        This confused me. Israel-supporters weaponize Jewish suffering and Jewish identity in defense of murder. They plaster Jewish religious symbols on military planes, claim that there is something intrinsic to Jews such that they produce antisemitism, and then (incorrectly) defend Israel’s major service to empire, regional destabilization, mass mayhem and murder, as in defense of the Jewish state. So who again are the antisemites? Ratios tend to be between two non-overlapping groups. In this case there seems to be a little too much overlap for your comment to be coherent.

        However, Cliff, just because he’s a Zionist doesn’t mean he’s wrong. Like stopped clocks even Zionists are capable of being right for about 2 seconds of the day. There are of course antisemites both reading and commenting here. They are in fact the larger problem than the Zionists in a sense, because the Zionists are identifiable as the enemy, but there is a weird embrace here occasionally of both agent provocateurs as well as people a little too eager to place the blame for general imperial mayhem on the yahood. The danger of that approach is not to Jews, but that it enables the Israel-defenders to stay in denial mode, and gives them an excuse. Part of our work should be not giving them that excuse.

      • aemathisphd
        July 31, 2011, 1:55 am

        >“Holocaust denial” is a hasbara phrase that was intentionally and instantly created to shut down and eliminate any and all intellectual curiosity/debate on this historical topic.

        Instantly, eh? The term was coined in 1984, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Given that the Holocaust ended in 1945, you’d still say “instantly”?

        And you think there’s no intellectual curiosity or debate on this topic? Get thee to a Wikipedia and look up “Historikerstreit.” Then come back and tell us all there’s been no debate.

        >That it’s illegal … illegal! in many European countries (with continuing efforts to make it illegal in Canada and other places) to question even the smallest “given” about it should be a huge red flag.

        First of all, the attempt to make something illegal doesn’t confer on it truth. Were that the case, then we’d have to assume that the fact that it’s illegal in Poland and Lithuania to deny Stalinist atrocities would mean they really didn’t happen.

        Right? Wouldn’t it?

        Second, you’re stretching to say that “even the smallest ‘given'” can’t be questioned. Can you give even a single example of “small givens” being questioned and punished?

        >I have never met a Holocaust “denier” – ever – only those who aspire to become Holocaust factualists. They decide to explore the research themselves.

        No, they desire to “disprove” the established facts — facts that have been proved ad nauseum.

        >There was never any question in their minds about anything until they began their research and didn’t find what they assumed they would find.

        Really? Who were these people you mention?

        Rachel Auberach went to Treblinka in ’44. Jan Sehn was at Auschwitz in ’46. They found extensive evidence of mass murder. Forensic studies have been done twice more at Auschwitz, and also at Belzec. They found mass graves, cyanide-laden gas chamber ruins, etc.

        So who am I missing? Let me guess: David Cole?

      • Mooser
        July 29, 2011, 11:06 am

        You beat me to it, Mr. North. Took me some time to pick my jaw up off the floor.

    • Haytham
      July 28, 2011, 1:17 pm

      Witty said

      I do believe that Phil has stepped over the edge of appropriate discourse, by repetition and by poor writing frankly.

      How dare you? Witty you have some set of balls. You’re either the world’s biggest asshole, or you’re just one of those idiots that have no idea how you come off (like the character Larry David “plays” on “Curb Your Enthusiasm”).

      Witty, I replied to your post (in which you linked to your blog) the other day. I wouldn’t throw stones if I were you, based on where you live.

      If anyone wants to read my argument for banning Witty, it is posted under annie’s article about dkos.

      • tree
        July 28, 2011, 1:32 pm

        I do believe that Phil has stepped over the edge of appropriate discourse, by repetition and by poor writing frankly.

        Haytham, my theory is that most of Witty’s posting is subconscious self criticism that he projects onto Phil and others. If you read all his criticism’s as disguised self-criticism then his posts start to make sense. After all… “repetition”… “poor writing”… Whose posts fit that description to a T?

      • Shmuel
        July 28, 2011, 1:38 pm

        my theory is that most of Witty’s posting is subconscious self criticism that he projects onto Phil and others

        I think it’s just a staggering lack of self-awareness. I must say however, that this particular remark seems to break all of his previous records.

      • pineywoodslim
        July 28, 2011, 3:02 pm

        I don’t think there’s any lack of self-awareness at all. I believe that Witty is fully cognizant of Israel’s crimes and recognizes those crimes for what they are–morally reprehensible.

        The most positive characterization of Witty is that deep down he struggles with the crimes of Zionism but can’t bring himself to fully condemn them because of his Jewish identity.

        The most negative characterization of Witty is that he could care less about Israeli crimes and expansionism and any moral reprehension, that the state of Israel trumps any and all other moral considerations. In other words, he’s just a pedestrian Likudnik (or democrat or republican for that matter).

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        July 29, 2011, 2:16 am

        Witty is a sayan for Israel and he knows exactly what he is doing. He sees his job, apparently his day job since he seems to be able to post at all hours, as keeping the anti-zionists on this site, frustrated and in stark disbelief over his utterly transparent disingenuousness, ever more frustrated and determined to whittle him down until he ‘fesses up.

        But he is like one of those ashtrays that people used to see in hotels when smoking was not only allowed but encouraged, that when you push it over, it bounces back up again. If Phil didn’t know Witty, I would have my doubts that he actually exists since his answers routinely approximate the beginners level of one of the earliest computer chess programs. I guess, to use another sports analogy, teeing off on Witty, is like batting practice.

      • Don
        July 29, 2011, 8:42 am

        I think you hit this little nail on head, Shmuel.

        Definitely breaks his record…and that is no easy trick.

      • Haytham
        July 29, 2011, 6:22 pm

        Jeffrey Blankfort July 29, 2011 at 2:16 am
        Witty is a sayan for Israel and he knows exactly what he is doing.

        This is probably the most accurate sentence about Richard Witty that has ever been posted on this site.

        I guess, to use another sports analogy, teeing off on Witty, is like batting practice.

        I see it more as whack-a-mole. Or like killing Freddie or Jason in one of those horror movies where the villain keeps coming back. Or like herpes.

      • American
        July 28, 2011, 2:12 pm

        witty says Phil’s writing is poor?
        OMG!…..that takes the cake.
        But don’t ban witty, this stuff is priceless.

      • pineywoodslim
        July 28, 2011, 3:30 pm

        Maybe it’s just some of Witty’s famous self-deprecating humor.

    • MRW
      July 28, 2011, 1:31 pm

      I do believe that Phil has stepped over the edge of appropriate discourse, by repetition and by poor writing frankly.

      “Tell me more about mah eyes.” Bat. Bat. Bat.

      Witty, good writing is good thinking. You are in no position to judge either of them.

      BTW, “by poor writing frankly” makes no grammatical sense.

    • Chu
      July 28, 2011, 1:47 pm

      Aw, Poor Richard. you’re often laughed at because you perpetuate
      dishonest statements. Don’t worry though, there are many more like yourself on other blogs. Like a parasite that attaches itself to the comments section, to suck the conversation of life and meaing,
      this behavior exists elsewhere in the blogging world. You may want to
      diversify your audience and go somewhere else to influence others.

      I think most people here, sadly, have figured out you are not in favor of peaceful negotiations, but wish to continue the status-quo, as long as Israel has the boot on Palestinians’ necks.

      • justicewillprevail
        July 28, 2011, 3:04 pm

        Witty has never demonstrated anything which would qualify him to judge what ‘good writing’ is. Quite the opposite. For someone who struggles to write a coherent sentence, it takes some front to even challenge someone else’s writing. Good writing generally flows from clear and consistent thinking – there is ample evidence in Phil’s posts of that, whereas with Richard’s confusion and incoherence reign, evidenced by the quality of his writing. Why he insists on reams of flaccid verbiage is anybody’s guess. But he’s the last person who should raise the subject of writing quality.

    • American
      July 28, 2011, 2:19 pm

      “The “sensitivity to the history of anti-semitism””

      witty,witty, witty….no one is going to be all that sensitive to the history of anti semitism of near on a century past while you are killing semities in Palestine today. Most people operate in the present.

      • Richard Witty
        July 28, 2011, 5:42 pm

        Is the repetition of condemnation of me anything less than confirmation of what I said about the loyal rah-rah of the posse here?

      • justicewillprevail
        July 28, 2011, 6:51 pm

        No, it is evidence of the poor quality of your writing, and the weariness of people with your propensity for making unjustified and uncorroborated statements from your lofty perch. whilst ignoring the many detailed counter arguments to your unsubstantiated and vague comments, as if you never actually read the torrent of evidence posted here of Israel’s addiction to violence and dispossession against a poor indigenous population. Your self-absorption is tiresome.

      • Chaos4700
        July 28, 2011, 8:14 pm

        You know, Witty, if a flat earther is condemned as a fool by the entirety of the greater, more informed and less narrow-minded populace around him, it doesn’t make the world actually flat if he becomes convinced that they’re just practicing “group think.”

      • American
        July 28, 2011, 8:52 pm

        I am not condemning you witty.
        Most of my comments to you, which aren’t often, are from my head exploding because I cannot fathom how your (and other zionist) minds work and how you can fail to see and understand what 90% of the world sees in I/P and zionism.
        Mostly what I want to do when reading some of your statements is yell “..Walk toward the light witty!”

      • Mooser
        July 29, 2011, 11:25 am

        “Is the repetition of condemnation of me anything less than confirmation of what I said about the loyal rah-rah of the posse here?”

        Especially when viewed in the light of your successful writing career.

      • Mooser
        July 29, 2011, 12:50 pm

        “Is the repetition of condemnation of me anything less than confirmation of what I said about the loyal rah-rah of the posse here?”

        Yeah we all call each other up and decide what we are going to say about you.

    • libra
      July 28, 2011, 5:37 pm

      RW: “I do believe that Phil has stepped over the edge of appropriate discourse, by repetition and by poor writing frankly.”

      And only the other day Richard you were begging Phil to leave a comment on your own blog. Thank goodness he was too busy to “honor” you in a such a manner. Perhaps your blog could have survived Phil’s notoriety but the damage to its literary reputation would have proved fatal. Let’s face it, the merest whisper of “repetition and poor writing” is toxic in the blogging community. At least you had the good sense not to compound your error by defending your boyhood friend here.

      • Mooser
        July 29, 2011, 11:29 am

        “And only the other day Richard you were begging Phil to leave a comment on your own blog.”

        Bulls-eye! You are entitled to a stuffed animal, cigar or coco-nut, winners choice.

  19. DICKERSON3870
    July 28, 2011, 1:24 pm

    What the hell is this “Daily Kos” thingy. I’ve never even heard of it, but the name certainly sounds very neo-fascist. I’ll bet they all wear Doc Martens.

    • DICKERSON3870
      July 28, 2011, 1:33 pm

      P.S. The Norway Shooter’s Zionist Streak
      Anders Breivik’s embrace of Israel is the latest sign of a shift among reactionaries in Europe—with fascism and Zionism going hand in hand, fueled by Islamophobia, says Michelle Goldberg.
      LINK – link to thedailybeast.com

      • Bumblebye
        July 28, 2011, 3:11 pm

        Sure, and young Seamus over there
        link to guardian.co.uk
        manages to call him both pro-Israel and anti-semitic!

      • DICKERSON3870
        July 28, 2011, 4:43 pm

        One can be both pro-Israel and anti-Semitic. Of course, I’m not referring to Abe Foxman’s “New anti-Semitism”, but rather the “Old School” variety of anti-Semitism.

        FROM TONY KARON, 07/26/11:

        (excerpt)…Instead of trying to exterminate Europe’s Jews, Breivik suggests Hitler ought to have enforced Zionism: “He could have easily worked out an agreement with the UK and France to liberate the ancient Jewish Christian lands with the purpose of giving the Jews back their ancestral lands,” Breivik writes. “The UK and France would perhaps even contribute to such a campaign in an effort to support European reconciliation. The deportation of the Jews from Germany* wouldn’t be popular but eventually, the Jewish people would regard Hitler as a hero because he returned the Holy land to them.”…

        SOURCE – link to globalspin.blogs.time.com

        * P.S. This sounds very similar to “Pastor” John Hagee’s notion that G_d sent Hitler “the hunter” to herd Europe’s Jews into Palestine. I wonder how many people in Norway watch the John Hagee Ministries® broadcasts.

      • DICKERSON3870
        July 30, 2011, 4:23 am

        P.P.S. ALSO SEE: The New Anti-Semitism ~ By Uri Avnery, Counterpunch, 07/30/11

        (excerpt) The Nazi Propaganda Minister, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, calls his boss, Adolf Hitler, by hell-phone.
        “Mein Führer,” he exclaims excitedly. “News from the world. It seems we were on the right track, after all. Anti-Semitism is conquering Europe!”
        “Good!” the Führer says, “That will be the end of the Jews!”
        “Hmmm…well…not exactly, mein Führer. It looks as though we chose the wrong Semites. Our heirs, the new Nazis, are going to annihilate the Arabs and all the other Muslims in Europe.” Then, with a chuckle, “After all, there are many more Muslims than Jews to exterminate.”
        “But what about the Jews?” Hitler insists.
        “You won’t believe this: the new Nazis love Israel, the Jewish State – and Israel loves them!”…

        ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to counterpunch.org

  20. Methuselah Now
    July 28, 2011, 1:38 pm

    Hi,

    “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” 

    +

    “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” 

    Keep fighting the good fight Phil……

    Yours kindly,

    MN

  21. tellmeall
    July 28, 2011, 1:57 pm

    hi to Phil & Folks: The Daily Kos thing is censorship at it’s most devastating.

    Daily Kos is pulling a Rupert Murdoch style omitting of any proPalestinian reporting, perhaps their funding requires it, but it will never excuse the lapse in knowable knowledge.

    As only peripherally aware of DK, though I may even have a lapsed acct. from years ago, when they were banning the likes of Cindy Sheehan(pologize if she was only threatened, not that important to verify is it?)

    Free speech vs censorship? I like this motto I read in the Christian Science Monitor (paraphrasing here, ‘Let the information err on the side of generating light – not heat.’

    This is crude censorship & exploitation, maybe their ratings are down.

  22. American
    July 28, 2011, 2:06 pm

    Evidently this guy, Meteor Blades is some kind of monitor at DK and instituted the banning of Mondo:

    Users should not link to or excerpt from… (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:Mets102, Corwin Weber
    …the site unless they are critiquing something written there.
    (While there may be perfectly reasonable material posted there, perhaps even the majority of it, the anti-semitic nature of some of the material contaminates anything good. And it’s not just a run-of-the-mill user posting anti-semitic material on the site.)
    by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 01:30:21 PM PDT

    I looked up this guy’s identity- Timothy Lange—sort of a weirdo.
    Was in prison as a teenager for some crime, doesn’t say what, and then in prison again for 18 months for dodging the draft. Looking at some of his comments on that site I’d say he has some kind of authoritarian complex….takes himself and DK way too seriously…and probably found his perfect perch in an echo chamber like DK where he can get back at authority by pronouncing judgement on others himself and being the judge instead of the one sentenced.

    Who finances DK by the way?

  23. Jeffrey Blankfort
    July 28, 2011, 2:26 pm

    I haven’t read all the posts, but the action of the Daily Kos is just further proof of the value of Mondoweiss and further proof that the problem is not just with AIPAC, the ADL, the American Jewish Committee, or The Israel Project, but extends far deeper into the liberal Jewish community than many would like to think.

    That DK makes no effort to dispute any of the facts presented in its examples is also revealing. What it says is that even mentioning Jewish power in any terms that are other than praise is in itself “antisemitic” and to be not only condemned but censored.

    What is great, is that rather than ignoring the DW twits (in the old sense) Phil used the opportunity to further expound on the problem and did so brilliantly.

    At this point, DK’s Mets102 may be thinking he should never have raised the issue.

  24. Fredblogs
    July 28, 2011, 2:27 pm

    I think the “Jews run the media and control the government” strays close to the line (if not over it).

    What I am really concerned about as an indicator of Antisemitism is your first article about the Dominique Straus-Khan (sp?) case. It had nothing to do with the Middle East, nothing to do with Israel. The first article didn’t even have the fig-leaf of “he is a supporter of Israel”, as though you couldn’t use that to justify an article about virtually any Jewish politician who was caught allegedly committing some crime unrelated to Israel.

    There are multiple ways to make anti-*group X* propaganda. That DSK article was the “Willy Horton” type. Everything in the post/ad/pamphlet is true (that he was accused of rape, though not necessarily true that he is guilty), but you hold up an aberration as though it was typical.

    Still, they shouldn’t have banned linking here. Better that people be exposed to your ideas than have no idea they exist.

    • American
      July 28, 2011, 3:28 pm

      “What I am really concerned about as an indicator of Antisemitism is your first article about the Dominique Straus-Khan (sp?) case. It had nothing to do with the Middle East, nothing to do with Israel.”

      As I remember it , Phil’s article on Straus-Khan was just using Khan’s….”I get up every morning thinking about I can help Israel”..as an example.

      The head of the IMF shouldn’t get up every morning thinking how he can help Israel in his job at the IMF. Just as Schumer and Ackerman shouldn’t go into the US congress every morning thinking what they can do for Israel.

      Nothing anti semitic about it.

      • tree
        July 28, 2011, 4:26 pm

        Exactly. Rather than having “nothing to do with Israel” it was specific to Strauss-Kahn’s self-profession of strict loyalty to what he considered “good for Israel”. He is not an Israeli official, but rather an international one. If he can’t put aside his parochial loyalties, he shouldn’t be in the job he was in.

        And Fred, you really don’t understand the meaning of a “Willy Horton” piece if you truly think that’s what Phil’s post was.

        Everything in the post/ad/pamphlet is true (that he was accused of rape, though not necessarily true that he is guilty), but you hold up an aberration as though it was typical.

        The Willy Horton ad was not smearing Willy Horton, it was smearing then Gov. Dukakis. On the other hand, most of Phil’s post on S-K was a quote from Haaretz (so I guess they are anti-semitic, too?). Phil simply brought attention to S-K’s statement about the importance of Israel to him.

        Please cite the point where Phil mentioned the rape charges against Strauss-Kahn and implied that a Jew accused of rape is “typical”. Here’s a link if you need a refresher:

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • lysias
        July 28, 2011, 4:45 pm

        Bad enough for the head of the IMF to think ”I get up every morning thinking about I can help Israel”. It would have been even worse if the President of France had thought that.

        At least it doesn’t look as if he’ll get to be President now.

    • Cliff
      July 28, 2011, 4:17 pm

      Nope, it wasn’t antisemitic.

      And who do you think agrees with you Fred? You’re an irrational, hateful, petulant Zionist. The only other people who will arrive at the conclusion that MondoWeiss is antisemitic, or that “the Palestinians want to kill the Jews” or that Palestinian suicide bombers simply want to “get laid” or that Israel was innocently walking around in 1948, when it was ‘ambushed by an Arab horde, bent on it’s destruction’ – are OTHER Zionists like you.

      You’re not convincing anybody. You’re preaching to your cult.

      Rational people, will refer to the documentary record and cite Benny Morris (before he went far-right; but even then, he’s indispensable) or Akiva Eldar or Simon Filpa for example.

      What have YOU done so far? You pick a poll, where a fraction of Palestinians support the Itamar attacks and conclude that all Palestinians enjoy killing babies. If we play this disgusting ‘point-scoring’ game, lets match your cynicism and hate, by citing one poll – that of Israeli Jewish societies approval for the Gaza massacre in 2008. Much more meaningful, since 300 children were incinerated by IDF murderers.

      Oh and then, you go on to list a string of suicide bombing, once again – implying that Palestinians are literally blowing up every 5 seconds, even though it’s been years since the last suicide bombing. WHICH BEGAN, in 1994.

      The Palestinians have endured way more abuse from Israelis than vice versa. There is no comparison. And the statistics of this conflict back that up, when one checks the VAST majority of NGO documentation. Not to mention, these are all mainstream NGOs.

      What do you have again? Oh that’s right, spin/blanket generalizations/racism/antisemitism-card, which you have trivialized into oblivion.

      Keep posting here. You do a service to anti-Zionism, with your unashamed ignorance.

  25. Fredblogs
    July 28, 2011, 2:30 pm

    Oh and +2 for the “as a Jew” theory.

    • Mooser
      July 29, 2011, 12:54 pm

      “Oh and +2 for the “as a Jew” theory.”

      You would rather people say :’As a Jew, I support ethnic cleasing, Jewish supremacy, and the principle of might-makes-right’?

      I bet you would. You are for anything which might tend to alienate Jews from the world, thus leaving them prey to Zionist pimping.

  26. pineywoodslim
    July 28, 2011, 2:51 pm

    The good news is that, at least for anyone who occasionally has read DailyKos over the years, is that the blog seems to be on a well-deserved downward trajectory.

    Its mission statement–“to elect more and better democrats”–has always given the lie to its self-proclaimed identity as progressive, but railing at the neocons during the Bush years allowed DK to maintain that fiction. Hey, beating up on Bush was easy–the proverbial stealing candy from a baby.

    With a rightwing democratic president dismantling social security, and the rest of the tattered safety net, DK still has a policy of banning anyone who advocates voting for any party other than the democratic party.

    Puts the site in a bit of a conundrum since the most rec’d diaries there in the past few months–and the most passionate comments–show outright hostility and disgust with Obama.

    Don’t see how DK can continue to exist in its present form with its entire rationale imploding.

    If Markos had a lick of business sense, he should have seen this coming and sold the blog in November, 2008.

    Good riddance. Though, like annie I recognize the number of talented writers on the site.

    • Ellen
      July 28, 2011, 6:34 pm

      Daily Kos never seemed relevant, even when it started. Yes, I would imagine it is on a death spiral.

  27. Justice Please
    July 28, 2011, 3:05 pm

    “It is that love affair that I am doing all I can to end, for the sake of America, for the sake of the Jews, and also, by the way, for the sake of the people who are invisible to DailyKos– the Palestinians. ”

    And please never stop that, Phil.

  28. eee
    July 28, 2011, 3:58 pm

    This is why someone may think that what Phil writes is antisemitic.
    Let’s assume that Phil is right about his assumptions:
    1) Jews in the US are powerful
    2) This power is partially responsible for the fact that the Palestinians do not have a state

    What follows from the above? What is the remedy to the solution? What is Phil suggesting as a solution for 1 and 2? It seems that the only reasonable answers are:
    a) Limit the power of Jews in in the US
    b) Change the mind of Jews regarding Zionism

    Option (a) is antisemitic and Phil says he does not support it. He in fact states he welcomes Jewish power. So what is left is option (b). However this raises the question why does Jewish power need to be highlighted and “Jewish heads counted”. How does this help change Jewish minds? It doesn’t. In fact most Jews find it offensive. So what exactly is the purpose of this antic?

    • Cliff
      July 28, 2011, 4:21 pm

      Your only conclusion is that it’s offensive to Jews to hear an opinion of them they dislike.

      You have not attacked the evidence Phil provides. You deal with this issue, very superficially.

      It’s just like your approach to the conflict itself. You chastise Palestinians for being non-violent. And for being violent.

      You’ve characterized all of Palestinian society as being murderous.

      I mean, the SAME people crying about antisemitism, are also racists. You ARE a racist, eee. A radical nationalist.

      When someone of true character, who is Jewish, accuses Phil of genuine antisemitism, then anti-Zionists will take it seriously.

      Until then, this is a smear campaign.

      Why can’t you elaborate? You literally wrote 1 paragraph. You wrote 4 bullet-points. That’s it? Your argument is pathetic. Not only pathetic, but you establish your own parameters, then ask us to argue within them. You rig the game (poison the well).

      This is not simply a matter of Jewish identity, it’s people with horrible critical thinking skills and a supremacy complex – Zionists.

    • Woody Tanaka
      July 28, 2011, 4:29 pm

      I don’t know whether you’re being disingenuous or merely dense, but you omitted Phil’s key “assumption”, namely:

      3, the Jewish presence is not neutral– no, sadly (and because of the Holocaust), my community has been indoctrinated with Zionism.; as J Street’s Steven Krubiner said the other night, Jewish identity education includes Loving Israel.

      Include that in the mix — correct that falacy in your “logic” — and it is easy to see that the charge of antisemitism is complete bullshit.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 5:11 pm

        “the Jewish presence is not neutral”

        Very well, let’s accept that assumption also.
        There are still only two viable options I can see:
        a) Limit the power of Jews in in the US
        b) Change the mind of Jews regarding Zionism

        Phil rejects (a). So the question remains, how does “counting Jews” help with (b)? I just don’t see how the assumption you highlighted helps at all.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 5:14 pm

        you’re strawmaning eee. the options are not a and b. think harder.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 5:18 pm

        Annie,

        I accept that I am fallible and my imagination is limited. Maybe I am missing more options. What are they? Why can’t you just spell them out?

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 5:24 pm

        let me ask you something eee. hypothetically speaking. let’s imagine we have one person of jewish faith in congress and an abundance of arab and muslim representatives including many in the state department and presidents staff including many directly impacting decisions in the middle east. now, let’s say you wanted a more balanced approach and i said to you we have 2 options here:

        a) Limit the power of muslims in the US
        b) Change the mind of muslims regarding palestine

        can you think of any other way you might change the policies of israel palestine aside from either of these options? anything at all? this is just ONE possible example. what about your own voice?

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 5:27 pm

        Annie,

        Sincerely, I see no option that is not against the US constitution.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 28, 2011, 5:28 pm

        “There are still only two viable options I can see”

        And that, as they say, is the crux of your error.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 5:29 pm

        well gee eee, it just might occur to you to empower voices that resonated with you.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 5:36 pm

        Annie,

        I am not sure I understand your answer. Why are you so sheepish about spelling out the other alternatives?

        Same for you, Woody.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 5:52 pm

        i’m not sheepish. you’re acting like a child eee. you go on some repetitive kick that there are only two alternatives and than harp on them. i merely provided one obvious alternate to your gibberish. i’m not here to pacify you. when all you have is a hammer all you see is nails. grow up.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 6:01 pm

        Annie,

        What alternative did you offer? You wrote the following cryptic message:
        “it just might occur to you to empower voices that resonated with you”

        What does that mean? Start your own political party? Start your own lobby? And again how does empowering voices that resonate with you get helped by Phil highlighting Jewish power and money?

      • Ellen
        July 28, 2011, 6:37 pm

        There are still only two viable options I can see:
        a) Limit the power of Jews in in the US..

        Why do you keep saying that?

    • tree
      July 28, 2011, 5:02 pm

      Let’s travel back in time and change the characters in the assumption:

      1) Whites in the US are powerful
      2) This power is partially responsible for the fact that blacks were severely discriminated against in the US, particularly in the South, de jure, but also in the North,de facto.

      What’s the solution? Well, according to eee, whites must have been banned from power or the system couldn’t change. But they weren’t.

      In order to change things in the US whites were morally required to accept that they controlled and/or benefited from the discriminatory system and that they had to change their attitudes and beliefs in order to change the system for the better. Some met the challenge better than others, but the system did change for the better, even though some whites might have found that revelation to be “offensive” to whites.

      That is what MRW meant, as I understand it, about your lack of understanding of the American psyche, eee.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 5:23 pm

        Tree,

        You are making a normative assertion about what must be, but not about how to make it happen when you say: “In order to change things in the US whites were morally required to accept that they controlled and/or benefited from the discriminatory system and that they had to change their attitudes and beliefs in order to change the system for the better.”

        How were the whites made to change their mind? What made them change their mind? And the more important question: How will the Jews in the US be made to change their mind and why is “counting heads” helpful for that?

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 5:34 pm

        do something besides shoot off questions. and i reject your “counting heads” framing. it’s bullshit rightwing speak.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 5:39 pm

        Annie,

        Sorry, call it “ball parking” or highlighting Jewish power in the US.
        What is wrong with asking relevant questions? I would be happy to answer your questions also.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 5:44 pm

        don’t play games with me. i’m rejecting your “counting heads” framing eee. it’s gone on long enough. i directed you numerous times to that 09 post, i blockquoted the context and told you repeatedly what it meant , why and how and still you asked the same thing with the same rightwing framing. you can’t hear. you keep repeating yourself and your question. go use the archive and check my responses to this. the answers have already been provided for you. you just pick right up and asked your same question again without ever addressing the answers.

        you’re spamming this thread

      • tree
        July 28, 2011, 5:57 pm

        Some Jews are in denial about their position of power within the system and that is what Phil is addressing – not “counting heads”, but acknowledging that Jews are a part of the US power structure as much or more than any other ethnic or religious group. Without an acknowledgement of that power, there is a denial of responsibility, and without an acknowledgement of responsibility there will be no change.

        How were the whites made to change their minds? Moral suasion and legal enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. More information about the parameters of oppression and more acceptance of “the other” as a full human being. A self-evaluation of white identity, what it meant, and what white individuals wanted it to mean. Nothing that American Jews aren’t also capable of accomplishing if they so desire. Phil’s doing it, as are lots of other American Jews. But the conversation and evaluation can’t occur when the subject is considered taboo.

        And P.S. most of the “counting heads” that I see comes from Israeli or Jewish news outlets. Its another one of those silly rules, where ‘we can talk about it all the time’ but if you’re gentile then you can’t mention it without being called an anti-semite.

      • eee
        July 28, 2011, 5:57 pm

        Annie,

        This is what Phil wrote in this comment:
        “Their point of attack is my repeated insistence on talking about the large Jewish presence in the American establishment and the importance of Jewish money in the political process.”

        Ok, let’s call these actions by Phil, “Philing”, not head counting or ball parking. How does Philing help bring about change? What are the actions that follow from Philing? How does Philing change the views of Zionist Jews?

      • MRW
        July 29, 2011, 12:00 am

        STFU, eee, you’re getting to be a bore. Either that or you’re 17 with a directive from your hasbara course to take up everyone’s time.

        If you can’t keep up intellectually with tree, taxi, annie, Ellen, Woody, Cliff, and Justice, stay out of their kitchen. You’re like an annoying kid who won’t get off the swing and keeps screaming for a push.

        If you have a problem understanding English syntax, go learn it.

      • Pixel
        July 29, 2011, 12:49 am

        Watch “Freedom Riders,” a PBS documentary.

        link to video.pbs.org

      • eee
        July 29, 2011, 11:17 am

        MRW,

        As usual, the ad hominem attacks when no answer is forthcoming. First you and others tried to argue that it is Zionist power that Phil is highlighting. His direct quote proves it isn’t. Then you are just stuck when confronted by the fact that what Phil does has no value whatsoever in helping solve the problem. Highlighting Jewish power is a useless exercise that is not constructive. I understand very well why some people would view it as antisemitic. I don’t think Phil is antisemitic, just misguided and flailing in an attempt to find a solution to an issue he cares deeply about. I think if he wants to change the views of Jews about Zionism, he is using the wrong strategy and it will only backfire.

  29. nmi
    July 28, 2011, 3:59 pm

    This is why it is SO important for Mondoweiss to distinguish itself from so many sites that forbid an open exchange of ideas. Adam and Phil should stop censoring posts that happen to be mildly outside their own political viewpoint. Indeed, even if someone were to link to a TRULY “anti-semitic” site, so what? As so many have correctly said, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

    I’d also point out that the Mondoweiss policy of severely restricting anti-Israel posts seems to have had little or no effect on detractors including Daily Kos, who are bound to label you anti-Semitic anyway, since that remains the only arrow in their quiver.

    Today, there is a huge amount of well-articulated repulsion to the very idea of Israel from many intelligent Jews and non-Jews. It is a disservice to silence these voices and ultimately plays into the hands of the Israeli lobby’s efforts to restrict the boundaries of “acceptable discourse.”

    • Cliff
      July 28, 2011, 4:26 pm

      The best thing about Phil, and I’ve come to understand it now due to the Kos issue – is that he does not censor Richard Witty or any of the other Zionists here.

      Just look at Fredblogs comment history.

      The people accusing us of antisemitism are far-Right, racists. Jewishness doesn’t even define them. They are plain crazy people – irrespective of ethno-religious identity or affiliation or solidarity.

      They would be as repugnant if you met them in a non-political setting.

      Furthermore, who has accused Phil that isn’t a rabid Zionist? None. That is the common denominator. They are all Zionist, and they all express their very own racism and hateful comments about Palestinians.

      Fred. Richard. eee. et al.

      Look through their comment history and you see for yourself. Their arguments against Mondoweiss are thin and redundant. They don’t say anything, they filibuster, as if the ACCUSATION ITSELF were sufficient evidence.

      eee, above, says that simply because ‘Jews’ (vague, who, what, where?) find Phil offensive, he is ipso factor an antisemite.

      None of this should be taken seriously and it really strengthens the case for BDS. We are dealing with people who are mentally unstable, narcissists.

      • nmi
        July 28, 2011, 6:15 pm

        “The best thing about Phil, and I’ve come to understand it now due to the Kos issue – is that he does not censor Richard Witty or any of the other Zionists here.”

        Yes, I agree–first because censorship is to be avoided where possible, but also because I firmly believe the pro-Israel crowd are their own worst enemies and generally do more through their fanaticism and lunacy to discredit Israel than any anti-Zionist.

        My objection is to the limiting of anti-Israel discussion on Mondoweiss. If someone happens to hold the evidently heretical opinion that Jews are NOT entitled to their own state simply because they were historical victims of discrimination, that person ought to be permitted to voice their opinion.

        It’s been interesting for me to see over time how opinions once considered utterly beyond the pale gradually enter mainstream discussions—for example, the idea of one state rather than two. If we speak of one state we ought to be honest–it is most likely NOT going to have a Jewish leadership. It’s going to have an Arab leadership. If this can still be called Israel, then that is an Israel I can support. If “Israel” requires a Jewish leadership, then no–it should be brought down because it can only be maintained through the vile tactics that have been the order of the day for 60+ years.

  30. Richard Witty
    July 28, 2011, 5:45 pm

    Part of the structure of this game is that Phil does not get into the mosh very often, or very sincerely when he does.

    He does not present himself as a peer desiring to dialog on the issues that he conveys that desires dialog.

    He doesn’t invite reputable liberal Zionists to dialog with him, or maybe he does and they refuse.

    I’m certain that the post at Daily Kos was a smear. It was repetitive, incomplete.

    But, if Phil refrained from smearing others (rather than dialoging), then he might have a strong case for complaint.

    He has smeared so many here, and so oddly, that its not surprising that many are more than critical of the site.

    • annie
      July 28, 2011, 5:49 pm

      witty, can you please direct me to a blogger you admire that regularly invites reputable liberal zionists to dialogue with them. and could you please learn how to spell dialogue. it isn’t that difficult.

      • Chaos4700
        July 28, 2011, 7:07 pm

        Why, Witty himself, of course! Have you checked out his blog yet, annie? I’m sure he’s plugged it enough times, there’s just enough room between him labeling us “fascists,” labeling the Palestinians “terrorists” and threatening Phil with calling his mother.

    • Cliff
      July 28, 2011, 5:57 pm

      It’s really horrible, that you lie so brazenly about Phil.

      You of all people.

      Now you call the post about the Daily Kos a smear? How the hell is it a smear? They are the ones trying to censor this website.

      Seriously, you are a snake, Witty.

    • James North
      July 28, 2011, 6:28 pm

      Shmuel’s recent comment to Richard was so eloquent and persuasive that it is worth repeating

      Shmuel July 19, 2011 at 6:11 am [edit]
      Richard,
      Again, you frame everything in the terms most comfortable for you – which is very nice, because not only are you not a Palestininian; you’re not even an Israeli.
      Why does “the goal” have to be stated in positive terms, when the reality (Palestinian reality) is so negative? The correct order is stop oppression (without creating new oppression, of course), and build something positive. The former is non-negotiable, the latter impossible to achieve without negotiation and co-operation. You want to skip the first part, or worse, make it contingent upon the successful outcome of the second part.
      To go back to our favourite examples, the struggles against Jim Crow and Apartheid were first and foremost about ending oppression – a sine qua non for building an egalitarian, multiracial society. You can’t work on what the new, non-discriminatory society (or societies) will look like before you have established the principle that there will be no discrimination, and seriously worked toward eliminating it. The oppressor loves talk about visions for the future – he can’t get enough of it – because it means he can preserve his privilege in the present.
      The most effective way of attaining the primary goal of ending oppression is to highlight the fact that the issue is one of human rights and international law, not contingent upon negotiation or compromise or peace or love or relationships. Establishing the non-negotiability of the principle of equality is also the most effective way of ensuring an eventual, viable resolution to the conflict.
      In practical terms, BDS would appear to be an effective strategy, in terms of its guiding, non-violent principles, ability to raise awareness of the situation in I/P as a problem of rights and international law, and possibility of bringing significant – especially moral – pressure to bear on Israel to abide by its obligations according to international law. Furthermore, as a Palestinian initiative, supported by the vast majority of Palestinian society, it reaffirms the principle of self-determination.
      You then create a false dichotomy. The fight against oppression (including BDS) does not “follow hateful statements and terrorist mass murderous actions.” That is something you have been trying to attribute to it, without any basis in fact – because you are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that one side (your side) bears far more responsibility than the other, and not because it is “insensitive” or “inhumane” or requires anyone to “suicide their sensitivity” (a rather odd and violent expression).
      You close with another false and slanderous assertion – that the Palestinian struggle against oppression somehow entails “hate”, which must then be “justified”. Your pompous, Ten Commandment-style sermon on mutual declarations of “I shall not hate” is just another way of saying “why can’t we all just get along”. Masters and slaves don’t just get along, although the master sometimes likes to pretend that they do. Work on changing the relationship, establish equality, and then talk about getting along.

      • Richard Witty
        July 28, 2011, 10:02 pm

        Its still self-talk, and misrepresentative of my stated views.

        I also refer to law, but not the application of politically oriented international law that Shmuel and you emphasize (when you bother to state anything besides harassment).

        Title and
        Sovereignty

        The combination addresses all of the assertions of the BDS movement, but in a form that can actually be enacted.

        The significance of a positive proposal (I don’t mean hearts and flowers and smiles positive, but positively stated goal rather than absence stated goal. An example would be “the establishment of a single state with full equal rights realized for all” rather than “the absence of what we perceive as an injustice to us, you’re justice be damned”.)

        I don’t have a clue why you are not concerned about pendulum swing, why you don’t DEMAND that the Palestinian solidarity movement utterly renounce national exclusive aspirations ever.

        You resent being asked to clarify that that is not a goal of at least many that endorse BDS.

        But, it is an entirely relevant question to the assertion that you desire justice and not revenge.

        Then we can reach the question of form of justice.

        Almost everyone here is writing from the privileged states, US, Europe. We have the room to support real justice for all confidently, rather than just the anger at a perceived oppressor. (It may be true, or it may in fact have material elements of conflict as the primary relationship, NOT oppression.)

        I listened to a tape by a Palestinian associated with the Abraham fund a couple days ago, in which he did honor the conundrum of feeling of Palestinians feeling surrounded and subordinated by Israel, but in the context of Israel feeling surrounded and potentially subordinated (assimilated/dissolved) by the greater Arab world, which feels surrounded and subordinated by the Western world.

        It gave me some sense that he individually actually applied principles of humanism, and extended it to me and mine.

        You don’t. You convey the feeling of threat and willing harrassment.

      • James North
        July 28, 2011, 10:47 pm

        Richard Witty said, ‘Look at my latest odd locution

        I also refer to law, but not the application of politically oriented international law that Shmuel and you emphasize

        ‘Ooops. I forgot that people who actually know international law in depth are visitors to Mondoweiss. Did I just call the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “politically oriented?” I hope noone (sic) notices.’

      • Richard Witty
        July 28, 2011, 10:58 pm

        More shadowing of me North?

        Harrassment in the name of free speech?

      • Chaos4700
        July 28, 2011, 11:11 pm

        Witty, HE QUOTED YOU. You basically implied that international law is anti-Semitic!

        It’s not harassment if you’re going to commit libel AGAINST THE WHOLE WORLD and then someone calls you on it!

        This is more of you ending up with a spotlight on you, and squirming when people actually expose what a fraud you are.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 11:35 pm

        ok witty i’m game. find me the quote and i will attempt to reconcile this mess we’ve got on our hands

        rather than “the absence of what we perceive as an injustice to us, you’re justice be damned”

        oh looky looky, here it is!

      • Shmuel
        July 29, 2011, 4:05 am

        The combination addresses all of the assertions of the BDS movement, but in a form that can actually be enacted.

        No it doesn’t. It addresses only the first goal – ending the occupation. You propose the declaration of sovereignty and sorting out of titles, by a new (presumably international) “colour-blind” judicial body, based on a legal system that does not yet exist (both Israeli civil and military law are deeply compromised), rather than applying the “politicized” Geneva Conventions, and abiding by rulings of the ICJ.

        On the subject of equality within Israel (2nd BDS goal), you have said nothing beyond “one man one vote”, which is in fact the current situation. You have ignored the reality of systemic, “charter” discrimination (to use Yiftachel’s term), repeatedly and incorrectly asserting that this is the normal situation in all nation states and that Israel is “Jewish and democratic like France is French and democratic”.

        Regarding the ROR (3rd BDS goal), you have put forward the ridiculous and inhumane idea that only those actually born before 1948 in what is now Israel be granted the right to return. Not only is such a position inconsistent with the legal and moral principle of “unity of the family”, but you hypocritically continue to support the Israeli Law of Return (which is based on religion and blood rather than any proven, direct presence in the country), and show considerable concern for the potential future of Israeli settlers in the OPT, without distinction. You flourish the principle of sovereignty, but recognise the individual rights of some Palestinian refugees, in such a way as to guarantee that any actual return will be minimal, and will involve the (further) tearing apart of Palestinian families. As far as the settlers are concerned, you are both extremely sensitive (chiding any who fail to show similar “sensitivity”, and refusing to impose any real limitations or cut-off points – as you do for Palestinian refugees, without giving it a second thought), and extremely insensitive – offering them the possibility of remaining where they are under what you know to be unacceptable conditions. You thus propose the de facto forced removal of at least 550,000 people (a number you like to cite, but know will only grow, whereas you are only too happy to constantly reduce the number of Palestinian refugees) – something you manipulatively and incorrectly refer to as “ethnic cleansing” when raised by someone else.

        In short, you have a theoretical proposal that you like to call humane and realistic, for the realisation, some time in the future, of one of the goals of BDS. The means you suggest be applied to this end are persuasion and the (primarily) Israeli democratic process. Of course, you personally, spend most of your time here, at MW, trying to persuade predominantly non-Israeli opponents of the occupation, rather than its Israeli exponents, based on the twisted logic that if you neutralise “dissent”, Israeli voters will somehow follow their natural inclination and vote to end the occupation.

        Unlike Palestinian solidarity, you have no interest in addressing the current, ongoing violation of Palestinian rights. On the contrary, you are critical of every attempt to highlight these violations and to seek immediate, if only partial change – from the Goldstone Report, to the flotillas, to BDS, to Sheikh Jarrah, and more. Your sensitivity to the potential suffering of settlers is particularly touching in the context of your positions vis-à-vis the real, day-to-day suffering of Palestinians in the WB, E. Jerusalem and Gaza.

        It is utterly pointless to discuss any of these things with you, because your perceptions of reality, your own positions and those of others, are completely distorted, and you are perfectly willing to sacrifice all meaning and content to a kind of fetishised form. I only hope that others may have gained something from my responses to you, and that they have not been a complete waste of time. I disagree with North and Weiss that you are representative of many liberal Zionists. I have far more respect than that for liberal Zionists.

      • Richard Witty
        July 29, 2011, 7:31 am

        “On the subject of equality within Israel (2nd BDS goal), you have said nothing beyond “one man one vote”, which is in fact the current situation. You have ignored the reality of systemic, “charter” discrimination (to use Yiftachel’s term), repeatedly and incorrectly asserting that this is the normal situation in all nation states and that Israel is “Jewish and democratic like France is French and democratic”. ”

        EXACTLY the opposite. I have consistently advocated for full principle and application of equal rights for Palestinian residents within Israel (residents is a larger set than citizens).

        On right of return, I advocate for at least right of return for at least those that were individually not permitted to return in 1948-49. You know well of my doubt about the more maximalist/opportunist flavors of right of return that extend beyond residents of the borders of Israel (when defined) to include all Palestinians to return to anywhere in former Palestine (even when just a mandate jurisdiction, historical Palestine includes the east bank – not all of Jordan as the recent idiot wind Ayalon video presented).

        And, I have also consistently advocated for funds for ANY takings of land in any setting (even over multiple transactions, in which the individuals cannot be held culpable), and even for funds provided for those that did not have title or any other legal basis for permanent residency on a particular tract of land, to help them become self-reliant.

        I think you are exagerating when you say ‘international law is clear’. Its nowhere near clear on a situation which extends over multiple generations, nor across national boundaries.

      • James North
        July 29, 2011, 8:37 am

        Shmuel: Your summary of Richard’s views is powerful, as always. I particularly liked this section

        In short, you have a theoretical proposal that you like to call humane and realistic, for the realisation, some time in the future, of one of the goals of BDS. The means you suggest be applied to this end are persuasion and the (primarily) Israeli democratic process. Of course, you personally, spend most of your time here, at MW, trying to persuade predominantly non-Israeli opponents of the occupation, rather than its Israeli exponents, based on the twisted logic that if you neutralise “dissent”, Israeli voters will somehow follow their natural inclination and vote to end the occupation.

        You know more liberal Zionists than I do, so you have persuaded me that Richard is not typical of them.

      • Mooser
        July 29, 2011, 11:43 am

        Where does Shmuel find his patience? Could he loan me a little?

    • justicewillprevail
      July 28, 2011, 7:05 pm

      You’re so desperate to put yourself on a par with Phil that it is quite pathetic. You’re nowhere near. You whine, and smear him (he has smeared so many here? WTF?) and act like he should conform to your demands. If you want dialogue try putting up some coherent arguments and be prepared to take on board points others make. After 10,000 posts we are still waiting.

    • MRW
      July 29, 2011, 12:05 am

      Part of the structure of this game is that Phil does not get into the mosh very often, or very sincerely when he does.

      He’s busy writing and being a husband. He reads the comments. I’ll bet there are teeth marks in his baseboards.

      You, on the other hand, makes declarative statements out of your assumptions.

    • Mooser
      July 29, 2011, 11:34 am

      “Part of the structure of this game is that Phil does not get into the mosh very often, or very sincerely when he does.”

      Yeah, I see what you mean. He only supports it and writes most of the posts. He’s hardly involved at all.

      • annie
        July 29, 2011, 11:51 am

        but like uh why oh why can’t phil spend all his time answering my many questions in the comment section? i’m totally not getting it dude. it’s like, if i can be here why can’t he? no fair! phil’s a wimp, hiding behind those main posts, like totally.

    • Mooser
      July 29, 2011, 11:37 am

      “But, if Phil refrained from smearing others”
      “He has smeared so many here, and so oddly”

      Would you like to supply us with some specific instances? No, I didn’t think you would.

  31. Dr Gonzo
    July 28, 2011, 6:40 pm

    The Daily Kos mods just worship Democatic party orthodoxy. Only in a country as insanely right wing as America could they even be called a left-wing group.

    Where I live (Ireland) even the current ruling center-right party Fine Gael stands up to Israel and every one of the left wing parties; Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein, Labor, Green Party, all support BDS. It’s the same across Europe. So Daily Kos can continue sucking up for attention from the Democratic Party establishment but outside the US (ie the real world) real leftists know where to stand on the topic of colonialism.

  32. Chaos4700
    July 28, 2011, 7:05 pm

    Well, this is why the Progressive Left is pretty much dead as a political force. As soon as our media and discussion sources gain a certain amount of popularity, they start prostituting themselves to the corporate world and in order to rake in the money, they have to clamp down on open debate. There are very few media outlets that have stayed afloat and resisted selling out.

    Daily Kos? Not one of them.

  33. lobewyper
    July 28, 2011, 7:33 pm

    eee,

    You ask, if Jews have disproportionate power over US foreign policy (especially, in the mideast), and if this power frequently fails to serve US interests, what can/should we do about it? And, will whatever we do not limit the current power of Jews (and their gentile supports)?

    The short answer: Yes, the goal is to dramatically reduce the power of those Jews and non-Jews who support the injustice of the Israeli occupations/annexations of Palestinian (and Syrian) lands and the blockade of Gaza. How to do this?

    1) Demand that the American people are told the whole truth by their media. Whenever someone paints a swastika on a synagoge, it is front-page news. No one hears about the Palestinians who are arrested without due process and tortured by the IDF, or indefinitely detained.

    2) Demand that Al Jazeera English become universally available on US television.

    3) Start a letter writing campaign targetting government officials to demand justice and respect for international law, which states among other things that territory cannot be acquired by warfare.

    4) We must also stop preaching merely to the choir, and reach out to the unconverted by reasoned appeals to justice, fairness, and the rule of law.

    • eee
      July 28, 2011, 8:06 pm

      lobewyper,

      If the goal is to curb the power of “those Jews and non-Jews who support the injustice of the Israeli occupations/annexations of Palestinian (and Syrian) lands and the blockade of Gaza” why does Phil highlight the power of Jews, and not the power of Zionists? How does Phil’s strategy to highlight Jewish power and money help your goal unless the assumption is that most Jews are Zionists? And I agree that they are. Isn’t then basically your call to eliminate the power of Jews in general because most of them are Zionists? Don’t you see why that may be viewed as antisemitic?

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 8:41 pm

        eee, you keep asking the same questions but when people address your questions you ignore them and ask other people. you’re spamming this thread.

      • MRW
        July 29, 2011, 12:07 am

        “you’re spamming this thread.”

        Thanks, annie, that’s what he’s doing. And it’s deliberate.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 28, 2011, 8:47 pm

        “why does Phil highlight the power of Jews, and not the power of Zionists?”

        He clearly explains this point. All you have to do is read it.
        The myth of Jewish powerlessness. exclusion from the reins of power, and insecurity in the west are tenets of Zionist propaganda, which indirectly leads to the evil that you people inflict on the Palestinian and the American people. Destroying those myths requires a showing that they are not true, that in the USA, Jews are not only not powerless, but powerful but due to their Zionism have an inordinate and harmful effect on the US policy in the ME.

      • lobewyper
        July 29, 2011, 10:29 am

        eee,

        I think you have misinterpreted Phil when you say that he highlights the power of Jews, instead of the power of Zionists. Phil said:

        “I have never argued that Jews should be pushed out of the establishment, or deprived of our status as the richest group by religion in the U.S. (per Pew). No, I think that elites are part of how societies work and we happen to be one, and Americans accept this. (Though yes, I have always pressed for a greater awareness that could lead to greater diversity.) We’re here and that’s great. Where the Jewish presence in the establishment is lamentable is the Jewish love affair with Zionism that has made my influential community reactionary on one of the most pressing issues of our time.”

        You say, “most Jews are Zionists.” Sure they are, and what most of them know of the true history of the conflict (as vs. what they have been told by the Israeli and US media) you could fit into a teaspoon. My experience with most of my Jewish friends is that any criticism of Israeli policies is by definition anti-Semitic.

        My call is to inform Jews and non-Jews of the very aggressive and colonialist form of Zionism that has held sway over Israeli and US politics since 1967. By so doing, the power of militantly Zionist Jews and their gentile supporters will effectively be countered and normalcy restored to our foreign policy. If my position makes me an “anti-Semite” in your eyes, so be it.

      • eee
        July 29, 2011, 11:33 am

        lobewyper,

        No, your position does not make you an antisemite in my eyes. Just criticizing Israel is not being antisemitic. Furthermore, you are attempting to persuade people and change things democratically. That is of course legitimate and the way things should be done.

        I don’t think I have misinterpreted Phil. He writes in the comment above:
        “Their point of attack is my repeated insistence on talking about the large Jewish presence in the American establishment and the importance of Jewish money in the political process.”

        He clearly acknowledges that his problem is with Jews in power (his own community) and that he wants to change the views of Jews.

        You say: “My call is to inform Jews and non-Jews of the very aggressive and colonialist form of Zionism that has held sway over Israeli and US politics since 1967″. Which is completely legitimate. However, you do not answer the question why highlighting Jewish power as Phil does, helps this cause. I think it doesn’t. I also think it does not help convince Jews that Zionism is bad. In fact, I can’t get a straight answer from anybody on this thread as to what exactly is achieved with these kinds of statements.

      • Mooser
        July 29, 2011, 12:59 pm

        ” However, you do not answer the question why highlighting Jewish power as Phil does, helps this cause. I think it doesn’t. I also think it does not help convince Jews that Zionism is bad.”

        Off Coss! Everything that is wrong with Israel and US-Israel relations is the fault of the Gentiles! Why couldn’t I see that obvious fact. Why, I bet those sneaky Gentiles set up the whole Zionism thing to embarrass us! That’s the approach Mondoweiss should take! It’s a win-win!

      • eee
        July 29, 2011, 2:14 pm

        So it is the fault of the Jews? Wait, I thought it was the fault of the Zionists? Or maybe it is only the fault of the small number of Jews in influential positions? So of course the answer is to remove those Jews. Is that what you were leading to Mooser?

  34. hughsansom
    July 28, 2011, 8:14 pm

    For what it’s worth, the post on DailyKos is certainly actionable. My guess is that Philip Weiss has better things to do with his time than sue a petty bigot at DailyKos, but the language of the DailyKos screed is directed, specific, and malicious. The charge of anti-Semitism is a career-destroying one. It can be made legitimately. It can also be used by the likes of Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes, and others to viciously suppress opinions they will not tolerate being aired (with consequences like those we’ve now seen in Norway).

  35. lobewyper
    July 29, 2011, 12:33 pm

    eee,

    Here are my thoughts:

    1) Zionism exists in various forms. The unifying thread is establishing and maintaining a Jewish homeland. This is not per se objectionable to me, although I know there are other viewpoints about this.

    What has happened in the Mideast is that Israel chose to expand beyond the 1967 borders because it could, with the US’s tacit permission and massive aid. Such expansion has been common in world history and often has been rationalized on “security” grounds. The result has been the form of militant Zionism that has controlled Israeli policy for many years. (I am by no means implying all Zionists support militant Zionism.) The problem is, this expansion/annexation is clearly illegal by international law that existed well prior to 1967. Militant Zionism is to me most undesirable.

    As I understand Phil, he wants to educate Jews (especially those who contribute significantly to the continued erosion of Palestinian rights and territory) in order to weaken the influence of the Israeli government upon the US government. It is his position that the support of American Jews of militant Zionism is an essential part of righting the ship, and I agree. Because he is Jewish, his views command respect in the Jewish community that a gentile’s cannot. Therefore, Phil and others like him are indispensible.

    • eee
      July 29, 2011, 2:18 pm

      lobewyper,

      “As I understand Phil, he wants to educate Jews (especially those who contribute significantly to the continued erosion of Palestinian rights and territory) in order to weaken the influence of the Israeli government upon the US government.”

      This reading of Phil is wrong based on his new post in which he says that changing Jewish society from within is impossible.
      But even if what you say is true, how does highlighting the power and money of Jews help this goal? Do Jews need to educated about their influence? I don’t think so. So why mention this at all?

      • lobewyper
        July 29, 2011, 3:17 pm

        eee,

        As I and manay others have tried to suggest, Jews need to be educated about their influence UPON THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT. They need to understand the illegality and brutality of the Occupation, and that it has been Israeli greed for the land and resources of others that has thus far prevented the resolution of this conflict, and NOT Palestinian intransigence…

  36. sycamore
    July 29, 2011, 3:02 pm

    I have some problems with your arguments:

    “Jimmy Carter was a one-term president in some measure because he alienated Jews by opposing settlements.”

    Unsubstaniated. Many people will tell you why Carter was a one termer. I assume it had much more to do with economic issues than any other.

    “The next one-termer, George H.W. Bush, tried to stop the illegal Israeli settlement project in 1991 and paid “dearly” for it in the 1992 campaign (as Donald Neff writes in Fallen Pillars). Bush himself has said that this stance hurt him in that election. ”

    He didn’t try to stop settlements. He punished Shamir for crossing him, and his goal was to cost him the election. And he did.

    Your focus on the right wing press’s claims that Obama lost Jewish votes with his 1967 remark, obscures the reality. Did he lose that support? I’m under the impression that no one knows that yet.

    We can debate the importance of the Israel lobby and the Jewish presence inside the establishment all day long. What explains support for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States? For Plan Colombia? For the Drug War? Is there also an inordinate number of Gulf Arab-Americans in government? Too many Colombians? Why do the Teabaggers get so much support? Is it because there are too many white people in office and in those offices.

    By the way, I’ve spent all of two seconds on Daily Kos in the past ten years. It sucks, period.

    Is there an Israeli Lobby? Yes, of course. Wherever you find an inordinate amount of interests accumulated in one direction, you will find a lobby right behind it. Is that lobby inordinately Jewish? I have no idea. Certainly, you’ve made some arguments that show a superficial representation of Jews. I have a feeling it goes deeper than that, and that military contractors, and other investors are also inordinately represented.

    I could sarcastically comment that the inordinate number of white people in the government is what’s at the heart of everything wrong with our country. Is that true? Well, there are a lot of white people in our government, they possess the wealth, and our country sucks. Will our country’s economic direction change when there are less white people with money and in a position of power? I think I’d be laughed out of the room for asking these questions. Certainly, many people who espouse some of this rhetoric wouldn’t support my theory.

  37. lobewyper
    July 29, 2011, 3:54 pm

    eee wrote:

    “…how does highlighting the power and money of Jews help this goal? Do Jews need to educated about their influence? I don’t think so. So why mention this at all?”

    It helps because most Americans (including Jews) probably have no idea how influential the money of Jews and gentiles that is targetted at this country’s elected representatives is in abetting Israeli abuses of international law and human rights. Is it not in a real sense undemocratic that political influence is essentially for sale in this country? All Americans need to know that Congress is in Israel’s pocket and that Israeli and US interests are not identical and often, opposed.

  38. lareineblanche
    July 29, 2011, 8:36 pm

    Very honest and heartfelt, Phil. You never cease to impress me.
    You know that the DailyKos is above all an organ devoted to defending the Democratic party line, and that the person who wrote the offending article (“Mets102″) will probably not bother to read your post, let alone comment on it. The difference is that you take these issues seriously (Palestine, human rights, justice, political power), and your accuser does not, but uses them as a lever to score some points.
    Good you didn’t fall into the trap.

    • Amar
      July 30, 2011, 1:14 am

      I’m pretty sure Mets102 read Phils response. It was copy/pasted by someone in Mets post at DK. I’ll bet he’s highly uncomfortable with it as well. :D

  39. Duscany
    August 1, 2011, 10:32 pm

    ” Jews in the US have power therefore…. what? Can you please complete the last sentence?”

    Because Jews in the US have so much power the Zionists among them are able to use that power to reward Israel for what the whole world considers bad behavior. The result is to hurt the United States and make us as much a pariah among nations as Israel already is.

    This neither helps Israel (in the long run) and it certainly doesn’t help the United States. Residents of the United States ought to put America first, not the citizens of a foreign power.

  40. sycamore
    August 1, 2011, 10:56 pm

    These are seriously impoverished ideas. What happens when you try to decode a crystal by just looking at one fascinating facet. Use Israel to explain neo liberalism, support for authoritarian states throughout the world and the drug war, and you’ll make a believer out of me. Otherwise, you need to step back and take a look at the bigger picture.

  41. Kathleen
    August 2, 2011, 12:45 pm

    You go Phil! We are right behind you.

    “Jimmy Carter was a one-term president in some measure because he alienated Jews by opposing settlements. The next one-termer, George H.W. Bush, tried to stop the illegal Israeli settlement project in 1991 and paid “dearly” for it in the 1992 campaign (as Donald Neff writes in Fallen Pillars). Bush himself has said that this stance hurt him in that election.”

    Important points that few are aware of.

    “Bill Clinton got 60 percent of his money from Jews, according to the New York Times, a real sign of Jewish arrival into the establishment, and he created what David Frum called the most “philosemitic” presidency in history (words that I think DK throws at me) and he reversed Bush’s opposition to the settlement policy. Both Clinton’s Supreme Court appointments were Jewish, and his Camp David negotiation team was headed by “Israel’s lawyer,” as he was called, Dennis Ross, and don’t you know it, a lousy offer was made to the Palestinians and the Palestinians were blamed for the collapse of the talks.”

    Blame the Palestinians, blame Arafat repeated over and over again in our MSM.

  42. Kathleen
    August 2, 2011, 12:47 pm

    “As I said, these facts make me uncomfortable as a Jew who is aware of the painful history of anti-Semitism, but still they are important facts whose exploration is my charge; and I believe that they are important in Jewish self-recognition. And let me be clear: I have never argued that Jews should be pushed out of the establishment, or deprived of our status as the richest group by religion in the U.S. (per Pew).”

    There was some female professor at Ohio State who had written a book about this issue in the last ten years. Think she ran into some problems.

  43. Kathleen
    August 2, 2011, 12:50 pm

    What is the process used by Daily Kos to censor Mondoweiss links? Do the participants votes to censor or was this an executive decision? The I lobby on the sites have often complained about participants who bring the issue up either to get the person banned or the subject to be shut down.

    Wondering what the process for this censorship was?

  44. Kathleen
    August 2, 2011, 12:52 pm

    “But myself I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the Jewish presence in the establishment– as givers, as political actors, as talking heads– is a huge factor in America losing its way in the Middle East, and so I feel an obligation as an American journalist to address these questions.”

    Been a serious problem for decades. Phil keep it up. Mondoweiss is a gem shining out of the muck.

  45. Kathleen
    August 3, 2011, 9:50 am

    “Where the Jewish presence in the establishment is lamentable is the Jewish love affair with Zionism that has made my influential community reactionary on one of the most pressing issues of our time. It is that love affair that I am doing all I can to end, for the sake of America, for the sake of the Jews, and also, by the way, for the sake of the people who are invisible to DailyKos– the Palestinians. ”

    Phil I mulled over this statement last evening. While I do not understand this almost desperate need to identify with and feel protective of a tribe of sorts…why is it not acceptable to just feel a deep sense of compassion for humanity whether Palestinian, Jews, etc etc. Why does it have to be a love for Jews that motivates you and not just a love for humanity and justice?