Game changer: Hillary says Israeli restrictions on women remind her of Rosa Parks and Iran

hillary
Hillary Clinton at the Saban Forum in Washington yesterday

The other day, I linked Ruth Marcus’s column at the Washington Post saying that women’s rights are under siege in Israel and, characteristically, pointed out that the Washington Post said not a word about the treatment of Palestinians. I missed the news. The Marcus column is huge. It is a sign of the further delamination of the American Jewish community. Women’s rights are central to American Jewish values; and this issue is providing a landbridge for American Jews to defect from the orthodoxies of the Israel lobby. 

Why do you think Hillary Clinton feels so comfortable talking about the assault on democracy inside Israel? Here is Ynet’s report on Hillary’s comments to the Saban Forum, an Israel lobby organization. Bill Kristol better read this and write another press release!

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced deep concern on Saturday over a wave of anti-democratic legislation in Israel and in particular a bill proposing to limit donations to human rights organizations. Clinton also criticized the growing exclusion of women from Israel’s public life. 

In a closed session at the Saban Forum attended both by Israeli and American decision-makers Clinton addressed the issue of discrimination against Israeli women. She expressed concern for Israel’s social climate in the wake of limitations on female public singing and gender segregation on public transport….

Clinton, a longtime advocate for women’s rights, noted she was shocked at the fact that some Jerusalem buses have assigned separate seating areas for women. “It’s reminiscent of Rosa Parks,” she said, referring to the black American woman who refused to give up her seat to white passengers in the 1950s.

Referring to the decision of some IDF soldiers to leave an event where female soldiers were singing, she said it reminded her of the situation in Iran. 

Anyone who cares about Palestinians will remember that a couple of weeks ago Palestinians sought to board buses bound for Jerusalem from the West Bank and were arrested. They are Rosa Parks. But that doesn’t mean that Rosa is not also alive in Israel. Wow. Things are changing fast!

About Philip Weiss

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

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

  1. lobewyper says:

    OMG! The wheels are really starting to come off the Israeli bandwagon. The Israeli government is coming under fire from OUR OWN GOVERNMENT!!! (All this talk of attacking Iran has apparently worried the present administration.) I especially appreciated Hillary’s defense of Israeli NGO’s.

    • eGuard says:

      Doesn´t it also mean that Obama allows this wedge, showing that he tries to keep open this option versus losing campaign funding?

    • eee says:

      In 1956 Eisenhower forced Ben-Gurion to leave the Sinai. In 1991 Bush stopped the loan guarantees. There was the Pollard incident. There have been many scuffles between Israel and the US. That you take what Clinton said in a closed meeting to mean anything significant is strange. You just can’t keep an even keel. The relations between Israel and the US are very, very deep and in fact getting better all the time.

      • Chaos4700 says:

        So you don’t think the awful treatment of women in Israel is a wedge issue, eee? You think you can just carry on and American women (American Jewish women especially) won’t care?

        • Antidote says:

          Let’s have a little reality check. I’d like to see Hillary compare gender segregation on NY buses to Rosa Parks before I’d call this a ‘game changer’.

          NYT 2011:

          The women riding in the back included several full-time mothers and an accountant who commutes into Manhattan each day. One woman who would identify herself only by her initials, M. M., said other buses that cater to the Hasidic community sometimes separate men and women by having one sex sit on the left and the other on the right. She said women could not sit in the front and men sit in the back because “they’re not allowed to see the women.” But she acknowledged that the B110 bus was not just for members of the Hasidic community and other Orthodox Jews.

          “Everyone takes the bus; it’s not a strict thing,” she said. “Usually it’s full of people from the community. But it’s not always.”

          A male photographer found it difficult to visit the back of the bus, filled with Hasidic riders loaded down with packages and the scent of freshly baked bread before the Jewish holiday Shemini Atzeret. The bus driver told him that only women were allowed there.

          While no male passengers sitting at the front of the bus explicitly told a female reporter to move, several riders said women did not belong there. One father who sat in the front with his son and daughter and declined to give his name said men and women “need to be separated.” He looked down at his daughter dressed in a bright red raincoat, with her blue eyes frozen in amazement, and said: “She’s small. When she’s big, she will sit in the back.”

          Even if the buses allow women to sit in the front, it may take longer for male riders to feel comfortable. As Asaf Amitay, a 35-year-old regular rider on the bus, rode home to Borough Park, he made it clear that he did not believe that women should be seated in the front.

          “I don’t like it,” he said. “The women is in the back. The men are in the front.”

          link to nytimes.com

        • Shingo says:

          Go easy on eee Chaos. We’ve already established that eee is salivating over the takeover of Israel by the religious. It jobs

          Eee is Jewish Taliban at heart.

        • Hostage says:

          Let’s have a little reality check. I’d like to see Hillary compare gender segregation on NY buses to Rosa Parks before I’d call this a ‘game changer’.

          Why? After it was reported in New York the authorities demanded that the practice be ended or the franchise would be terminated, e.g.

          Following our report last week on sex segregation aboard the B110 bus line in Brooklyn, the company operating the route has agreed to take action to end the practice, Assemblymember Dov Hikind (D – Borough Park) told the New York World.

          “They told me they are changing the policy verbally yesterday,” Hikind said, referring to the B110′s operator, Private Transportation Corporation. “When you get on that bus, you will sit wherever you want just like any other public transportation.”

          The company wrote the DOT that it was in full compliance with the terms of its franchise and “does not support, promote or condone any conduct involving the segregation of its passengers to various areas of the bus based upon gender.” It agreed, however, to take steps to “confirm our policy of non-discriminatory conduct” with its drivers and staff, and to post signs in B110 buses that prohibit discriminatory conduct.

          link to thenewyorkworld.com

          In Israel where women have been beaten for refusing to move to the rear of the bus, the Supreme Court still condones the practice by adopting the legal fiction that women voluntarily comply with this shit (to avoid a good beating), e.g.
          *Woman beaten on J’lem bus for refusing to move to rear seat link to haaretz.com
          *High Court: Gender segregation legal on Israeli buses – but only with passenger consent link to haaretz.com

        • Antidote says:

          hostage – the info you cite is incomplete and does not address the point I was making: Clinton can get away with criticizing Israeli but not US Haredim – or: neither Clinton nor any other American can criticize American Jews for whatever reason without risking defamation as being anti-semitic. Only criticism of Israelis/Zionists is now officially allowed within certain limits.

          So what if the private bus company in Brooklyn made some ‘verbal’ promises to end the practice due to public pressure. Did they follow through? Update:

          October 28, 2011

          *Gender Segregation Continues On Brooklyn Bus Line*

          “Despite promises made to the city by Private Transportation Corporation’s hasidic owner, the Brooklyn B-110 bus line is still segregated by gender. No signs forbidding such forced segregation were posted, and the bus driver did not intercede to stop hasidic passengers from coercing a non-hasidic woman to move to the back of the bus.

          That woman is a non-Jewish Wall Street Journal reporter who INEXPLICABLY did not tell the driver that she was being harassed by hasidim. (Perhaps this is yet another example of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp’s corrosive effect on the WSJ’s reporting.)

          But she did ask the driver if there is a rule that women must sit in back, and the driver answered that he didn’t know – and this is after more than week of intense media coverage blasting the forced gender segregation, condemnation from NYC’s mayor, and a public promise issued by the hasidic-owned Private Transportation Corporation to tell its drivers and passengers that gender segregation is illegal.

          Whatever.

          It is abundantly clear that my contention that the PTC’s promise to the city that it would not discriminate by race, sexual preference, or gender was worthless, because that promise did not involve PTC drivers stopping hasidic passengers from coercing gender segregation and harassing those who refuse to comply.

          And you’d think the city would send inspectors to see if PTC is complying with the law – but it hasn’t done so, and probably never will.

          The lesson here is that hasidic bloc votes trump the law almost every time.

          Perhaps when New York City’s media do real investigative reports on that, this and other haredi violations of law will be brought to an end.”

          link to failedmessiah.typepad.com

          A different and more recent report on the situation:

          “on November 4, The Forward in collaboration with The New York World, reported the case of a commuter bus service run by Monroe Bus, a private firm that received $1.6 million government funding between 2009 and 2010 to operate commuter bus service between Brooklyn and Kiryas Joel Jewish community. In the journey from Boro Park to Kiryas Jeol, the female reporter was asked to move, but when she refused no one tried to enforce the rule. In the journey from Kiryas Joel back to Brooklyn, a few days later, no one asked her to move, but the reporter noted that the buses had curtains separating the male and female passenger seats.

          Observers have noted that in recent times, segregation of sexes in public places in Ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities is increasing. There is controversy over the legal implications of such practice. Some say that the trend in the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community contravenes New York’s Civil rights laws. Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told The Forward:

          “That practice is unlawful…You can’t require separate sections for men and women any more than you can based on race or national origin.”

          Theodore Shaw, Columbia Law School professor and former director-counsel and president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational fund agreed with Lieberman:

          “Even if they don’t enforce it strictly, if you get onto the bus and have to deal with the question of whether or not you get to sit with men or women… I think it raises some questions…If they were challenged [in court], I doubt they could prevail. I think they would have to stop the practice.”

          The Forward reported that Cole Durham, director of the International Center for Law and Religious Studies at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, disagreed with Lieberman and Shaw. He argued that there are circumstances in which “reasonable accommodation” should be made for religious beliefs. Durham argued:

          “If there’s reasonable seating elsewhere that’s not aimed at discrimination or causing disparagement of the other individuals, it seems that we want in our society to have room for religious groups as well as secular groups.”

          Durham argued that if “reasonable accommodation” is not made for Ultra-Orthodox passengers, they might feel unable to use public buses. He said:

          “Denying it may mean that they don’t have any access to the public transportation system, which is actually discrimination against them…So you have to ask which is the greater form of discrimination.”

          National Public Radio reported that Shulem Deen, a former Hasidic Jew, and editor of Unpious.com, confirms that the practice is based on Jewish religious rules of modesty.”

          link to digitaljournal.com

          Do you think Hasidic Jews in NY are generally inclined to express any more ‘modesty’ about their religious freedom than Hasidic Jews in Israel? Well, I don’t. That’s one reason why US politicians will steer clear of comparing segregated buses in NY to Rosa Parks. The other reason is that liberal Jews would be deeply offended and cite their contribution to the Civil Rights Movement. Because according to the widely held ‘we Jews have to stick together’ – logic, if you object to some Jews, you risk offending the whole tribe. See also: Anti-Zionism = Anti-semitism. Therefore controversial issues like gender segregation in buses (to which all liberal Jews are naturally opposed) will be kept out of the courts at any cost – and preferably out of the media as well. Hasidic Jews only have to threaten to take this to court along the lines of civil rights vs religious freedom in order to have everyone run to seek some sort of compromise at whatever cost:

          “Alleged gender discrimination on publicly funded commuter lines serving heavily Orthodox communities has made the news before. In 1994, a woman named Sima Rabinowitz sued Monsey Trails, a charter firm that operates a publicly subsidized commuter line serving Orthodox communities in Orange and Rockland counties, after she was told by ultra-Orthodox passengers to leave a men’s section. The suit resulted in what The New York Times described as an “out-of-court settlement of talmudic subtlety.”
          The bus company said at the time that, though it would no longer provide a curtain or ceiling hooks to hang it from, passengers could hang their own curtains if no one objected. But lawyers for Rabinowitz contended that no curtains were permitted under the settlement.
          Fifteen years later, Monsey Trails says that it maintains a laissez-faire posture toward the dividers. “We just leave it up to the passengers for them to decide what to do,” said J.J. Lunger, general manager of Monsey Trails. “Sometimes they decide and put it up, and we let them do what they want.” Lunger said that drivers had been instructed not to put up or take down the dividers. Monroe Bus, on whose vehicles curtains continue to hang, is not party to the Monsey Trails agreement.
          The government funds that Monroe Bus receives for commuter service to Kiryas Joel come via New York’s State Operating Assistance (STOA) program, which is administered by the New York State State Department of Transportation. The NYṢ does not yet have figures for State Operating Assistance grants awarded during 2011, but Monroe Bus remains on Orange County’s online listing of public commuter bus lines.
          “The New York State Department of Transportation takes allegations of discrimination seriously,” spokesman Bryan Viggiani wrote in an e-mailed statement. “If we hear of a complaint, we follow up to ensure that STOA operators are in compliance with the law and all rules and regulations.”
          According to DOT records, state officials inspected Monroe Bus vehicles 61 times in 2010 and 2011.”

          link to forward.com

          Oh, and there is this. If Muslim/Iranian Americans did this, we wouldn’t hear the end of it:

          “In May, the Brooklyn-based Orthodox weekly Di Tzaytung digitally removed Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason from the famous Situation Room photograph following the death of Bin Laden. Since then, new stories have been reported about the absence of women from Jerusalem billboards and ads as well as the exclusion of girls from Clalit HMO stickers, which are given to children as prizes at doctors’ offices. Images of women were also removed from the National Transplant Center (ADI)’s bus ads for its organ donation campaign in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak. Last week, the pluralistic organization Yerushalmim began fighting back by inviting women to be photographed for its “Uncensored” poster campaign. The organization plans to hang the posters around the city in order to return Jerusalem to its “natural state.”

          link to lilith.org

          What’s the ‘natural state’ of women?

          “THREE months ago I was on the Golan Heights in the general store of an Israeli “moshav” (farming collective), buying bottled water from a friendly man with an immense curly beard and yarmulke, when my daughter pointed at a xeroxed flyer on the bulletin board and asked “Why is that baby there?” The flyer depicted an upside-down foetus in the womb, and I moved closer to get a better look, assuming that this would be some type of Orthodox religious anti-abortion screed. My Hebrew isn’t that great and I wasn’t sure I’d be able to figure it out, but once I got closer it became clear that I was looking at an entirely different category of religious propaganda. The picture depicted the foetus superimposed on a map of the occupied West Bank, with the head at the bottom representing the Hebron-Bethlehem area south of Jerusalem, and the curled-up body representing the larger northern Nablus-Jenin-Ramallah-Jericho section. The idea was that God had seen fit to leave the borders of the tract which religious nationalists call by the Biblical names “Judea and Samaria” in the shape of a foetus, as a signal to his chosen people that they should nourish and ultimately deliver the territories as a living part of the Jewish state.

          I’d thought I was going to have a hard time explaining an anti-abortion poster to my daughter. That would have been a picnic compared to this thing. And what was most depressing was that this wasn’t really such an unrecognisable aberration in style. The vulgar, superstitious literalism was all too familiar, not just from Israeli religious-nationalist thinking but from similar stuff you might have seen among messianic Slavophiles in the Russian empire in the 1890s and on down the reactionary lineage. The idea that living in Israel these days might mean prolonged exposure to this sort of violent drivel made me seriously reflect on how much time I’d want my kids spending there.”

          link to economist.com

          Coming soon to a city near you, supported by Christian fundamentalists and white supremacists

        • Hostage says:

          hostage – the info you cite is incomplete and does not address the point I was making

          I’ve actually commented on the case before and mentioned the fact that passengers can petition the courts for a writ of mandamus directing the city’s human rights and department of transportation officials to perform their duties.
          link to mondoweiss.net

          Do you think Hasidic Jews in NY are generally inclined to express any more ‘modesty’ about their religious freedom than Hasidic Jews in Israel?

          Antidote, Mayor Bloomberg made it clear that no one is stopping the Hasidic Jews from operating a private bus line or being modest.

          However, they were awarded a publicly franchised City bus route through a competitive bidding process and the bus is not intended to be exclusively used by members of the Hasidic community and other Orthodox Jews. It wouldn’t impede the free exercise of their religion to terminate the City’s franchise for cause if they fail to comply with the applicable laws or the terms of their franchise agreement. There are both federal and state laws that govern motor common carrier operations and they prohibit any carrier from discriminating against the passengers on the basis of gender, religious beliefs, or creeds. There really is no question of permitting state franchised sex segregation under the guise of accommodating Orthodox Jews or religious freedom. There is a wall of separation between church and state, but not the sexes.

          neither Clinton nor any other American can criticize American Jews for whatever reason without risking defamation as being anti-semitic.

          Jews get criticized, sued, prosecuted, and upon conviction jailed just like everyone else. The Hasidic community has been rocked by sex scandals, the Pell Grant scandal, the Agriprocessors’ kosher slaughter scandal, and etc. So far as I can tell nothing you’ve mentioned above would prevent the City’s Human Rights Commission from investigating the complaints or the DOT from terminating the franchise.

          Clinton criticized Israeli claims that the Bush-Sharon letter represented US support for Israel’s retention of occupied territory; made a federal case out of requests to indicate “Jerusalem, Israel” as a place of birth on US passports; and her husband, former President Clinton flatly stated that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu killed the peace process and is the key reason there has been no Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, e.g. link to thecable.foreignpolicy.com

        • Antidote says:

          hostage – I did not suggest that American Jews or hasidic Jews are free from criminal prosecution in the US. Of course not. But I still maintain you are not addressing my point. The difference private-public (funding and use) is obvious. Now explain to me why there was a huge outcry when Rand Paul answered Rachel Maddow’s question whether he thought a private business was free not to serve blacks, and why there was none when Bloomberg suggested that a privately run bus is free to impose gender segregation? What’s the difference?

          link to washingtonpost.com

        • Hostage says:

          The difference private-public (funding and use) is obvious. Now explain to me why there was a huge outcry when Rand Paul answered Rachel Maddow’s question whether he thought a private business was free not to serve blacks, and why there was none when Bloomberg suggested that a privately run bus is free to impose gender segregation? What’s the difference?

          IIRC Rand Paul was saying that he was troubled by the provisions of the Civil Rights Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act that apply to private business which provide services or accommodations to the general public, like a motor common carrier. Mayor Bloomberg said that a private bus line intended solely for the use of Haredi or Orthodox Jews, which doesn’t offer services or accommodations to the public, could have sex-segregated seating. So, the two men were not talking about the same thing. There are plenty of churches, synagogues, and private organizations which legally impose discriminatory rules, doctrines, dogmas, and creeds. That is perfectly legal, so long as they are voluntary associations which don’t offer services or accommodations to the public and don’t accept government subsidies.

          So, the answer lies in the relevant portion of the title of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

        • hophmi says:

          “That’s one reason why US politicians will steer clear of comparing segregated buses in NY to Rosa Parks.”

          The main reason is that the comparison is ridiculous because Rosa Parks acted on behalf of the civil rights movement and Hasidic women sit in the back of the bus willingly because of modesty issues. It’s clear that if anyone actually did challenge the practice in court (assuming they had standing), they would likely prevail.

          “The other reason is that liberal Jews would be deeply offended ”

          I doubt it. Liberal Jews would not stand up for Hasidic bus segregation practices, especially since a lot of them are among the ACLU members who would support a case against the practice. You seem to believe in some old discredited stereotypes. Liberal Jews do not support any of these practices.

          If places like Kiryas Joel are able to get away with certain things, it is largely because they vote as a bloc, and that enables them to cut certain deals for themselves. Many of us Jews, including many more modern Orthodox Jews, are not big fans of these communities and cannot relate to their level of insularity any more than we can relate to similar communities, like the Amish.

          That said, it is no different in the Christian fundamentalist community. The fundamentalists have used their political clout to secure money for their social organizations by the boatload, and have prevailed on Congress to carve out more and more religious exceptions to the Civil Rights Act. The entire Faith-based Intiative is a major accomplishment for this community that dwarfs anything any Hasidic community has ever done.

        • patm says:

          “Many of us Jews, including many more modern Orthodox Jews, are not big fans of these [Hasidic] communities….”

          Hophmi, what do you as a liberal Jew make of Ami Kaufman’s “Israel’s bizarre decision to give up on education – and its future”? It seems to me that Israel will be over-run with Hasidic communities in the near future.

          The grade school education statistics in Kaufman’s piece are mind-boggling. And here are his last paras, on higher education and the brain drain:

          “Israel’s problems, of course, don’t stop at grade schools. The higher education system is in total chaos. I’ve also had the opportunity to hear Manuel Trajtenberg, the chair of the Planning and Budgeting Committee of the Council for Higher Education in Israel…

          Trajtenberg, … is fighting a losing battle as well. Besides aging faculties, low results and more – Trajtenberg is fighting the biggest brain drain a Western country has ever seen.

          The numbers are staggering (2007):

          - 25% of active Israeli researchers reside in the U.S.(!!!). This is astonishing compared to other countries: Nearby Canada has “drained” only 12.5% of its faculty, Holland 4.3%, Italy 4.2%

          - 33% of Israeli computer science researchers reside in the U.S.

          - 28.7% of Israeli economists reside in the U.S.

          What does all this mean? That Israel has decided what its national priorities are: Less basic and quality education. The ones that are educated are leaving because they can’t make it here, and they’re not coming back. Israel has given up.

          Taking these conditions into consideration, the anti-democratic legislation, the nationalism and the religious coercion taking over Israel is not only well under way – it has a bright future.”

          link to 972mag.com

        • Antidote says:

          hostage – you are overstating the case citing Paul and common motor carriers. This is what he said:

          “Question: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

          Rand Paul: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains and I’m all in favor of that.

          Questioner: But…?

          Rand Paul: (nervous laugh) You had to ask me the “but.” um.. I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners – I abhor racism – I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that’s most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind.”

          I see no difference between a private bus enforcing gender segregation and a private restaurant enforcing gender and/or racial segregation. In either case, the general public can be told to take another/normal bus, or go to another/normal restaurant. Surely it’s not only Jews or Hasidic Jews for whom race/ethnicity and religion is pretty much the same thing. What rational grounds are there for tolerating one group and demonizing the other (either way)?

        • Hostage says:

          Antidote, I guess I didn’t emphasize the title and purpose of the Civil Rights Act enough. Rand Paul is simply dissimulating when he suggests that restaurant owners shouldn’t be governed by the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because “most of what the Civil Rights Act was about” to his mind were entities that receive public funding. In fact, the act was mostly about granting the courts and federal prosecutors powers over any business or owner that offer a service or accommodation to the general public.

          You are simply beating a dead horse when you pretend that Mayor Bloomberg did something similar when he suggested that a private motor carrier could offer a service that caters to the whims of the Haredi and Orthodox community only.

        • Antidote says:

          “In fact, the act was mostly about granting the courts and federal prosecutors powers over any business or owner that offer a service or accommodation to the general public.”

          Why the selective quoting, hostage? Again: “Paul: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination IN ALL PUBLIC DOMAINS and I’m all in favor of that.” He also abhors racism just as Bloomberg abhors racism (and sexism). Neither thinks discrimination in restaurants/buses is a good idea. Paul cites public funding as “MOST” but not ALL the CRA was about. So does Bloomberg who MOSTLY objects to gender segregation on a haredi bus receiving any public funding. Like Paul he doesn’t advocate or promote the existence of any such private enterprises in any way but is willing to allow their operation provided they don’t receive public funding

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          Antidote,

          The problem is that Paul is simply wrong to suggest that public funding was most of what the CRA was about. It was aimed at public accomidation, not public funding.

          The equivalent to a private bus company would be a private supper club, which the CRA permits. But it couldn’t be open to the public, but be members only.

        • Antidote says:

          see my comments above, esp 5:40

        • Hostage says:

          Why the selective quoting, hostage?

          I wasn’t selectively quoting, you were. Rand Paul suggested that a privately owned restaurant was not part of the public domain, so long as it didn’t receive public funding. Restaurants and retail establishments have always been defined as places of public accommodation. See for example Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter II, § 2000a, Prohibition Against Discrimination Or Segregation In Places Of Public Accommodation http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002000—a000-.html

          The applicable legal test was whether or not an establishment offered a service or accommodation to interstate travelers or the general public. The restaurant owner could operate a private, members-only, establishment and refuse service to the general public or interstate travelers, e.g. the code cited above provides:

          (e) Private establishments
          The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b) of this section.

          Mayor Bloomberg was alluding to that exception, while Rand Paul was redefining the term places of public accommodation to exclude privately-owned retail establishments that serve the general public.

      • lobewyper says:

        eee,

        I’m serious about Hillary’s awakening the women of the world to their mistreatment by many Israelis. Apparently, this mistreatment doesn’t concern you in the slightest. (Now, ask me if I’m surprised!)

      • The values and aspirations of the US and Israel are completely antithetical.

      • Charon says:

        The relations are 5.9999 feet deep, eee. Just waiting for that extra percentage to cut all ties with *”Israel”

        *What is an “Israel?” There is no such thing as Israel. There never was an Israel. Israel is a paper ‘state’ just as a street which does not physically exist on a map is a paper street. Israel claims to be a nation yet has no real borders or sovereignty, nor do their majority “Jewish” citizens extend much beyond a single metropolitan area. “Israel” is the biggest hoax of the past century, the only time it ever existed in the history of man.

      • Polly says:

        “The relations between Israel and the US are very, very deep and in fact getting better all the time.”

        A kidnapper and his hostage have a very deep relationship too eee but it ain’t based on shared values.

      • pjdude says:

        if you think that your delusional between the rulers who want jewish donor money maybe but for everyone else its nonexistent. your showing zero understand of even why the us supports Israel(jewish donor money). but than again given your poor grasp of history that isn’t surprising. the us Israel relationaship is getting worse not better. eventually those of us who want to drop Israel like a bad habit will get their wish and the Us will be better off for it.

        • hophmi says:

          “your showing zero understand of even why the us supports Israel(jewish donor money)”

          Please. I think the fact that 25 percent of the country is fundamentalist Christian has a little bit to do with it.

        • Hostage says:

          Please. I think the fact that 25 percent of the country is fundamentalist Christian has a little bit to do with it.

          Well I grew-up and live in “The Bible Belt” and I can tell you that no one out here believes that apartheid is God’s will. Plenty of Christian denominations have changed their positions on the occupation. 80+ percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians, not just 25 percent. The overwhelming majority belong to mainline denominations represented in the World Council of Churches and its “Ecumenical campaign to End the Illegal Occupation of Palestine: Support a Just Peace in the Middle East”. The 349 member denominations avoid economic links to illegal activities related to the Israeli occupation and their members vote in the general elections too. link to oikoumene.org

          Attempting to call the Presbyterians or United Methodists racists or anti-Semites will get you laughed out of town in this region of the country and they are calling the conditions Israel imposes on Palestinians apartheid. Even the fundamentalists admit that there is no biblical support for backing Israel when it engages in wrong-doing against others.

        • john h says:

          Thanks Hostage; this truth needs to be better known.

    • anybody else pissed off at the desecration of the US flag?

      Look at that flag behind Hillary — It’s stamped with the goddamed star of david!

      fuck that.

      • Charon says:

        Happens every time they do such things. Makes me vomit a little and swallow it every single time. Ashamed to be an ‘American’ most of the time…

  2. lobewyper says:

    Next Kristol piece header: “US Secretary of State Channels Anti-Semitism!”

  3. pabelmont says:

    But, as you note, the HC has no words for Palestinians, whether in Israel, in OPTs, in exile. Her occasional HR stances are, like those of most USA pols, tactical, not from the heart, and not universal.

    • right you are, pabelmont, no words for Palestinians.

      which puts the lie to Hillary’s comparison to Iran — Iranian women are treated infinitely better than Palestinians. In fact, in VERY fact, Iranian women are esteemed and treated much better than Israelis treat Jewish women, if Avigail Abarbanel’s reports and analysis of Israeli behavior is to be believed.

  4. lobewyper says:

    Bibi, I’ll bet you’re still chuckling about how you humiliated Obama in front of his own Congress! Payback time, my brother.

  5. yourstruly says:

    now the secretary of state only has to mention that there’s a disgusting similarity between today’s jewish settlers’ attacks upon west bank peaceful palestinian protesters and yesteryear’s nazi brown shirters’ attacks upon german jews. She does this and, voila, the public’s gonna start thinking, “hey, have i been missing something?”

  6. Krauss says:

    You should read the comments on YNet’s English website. They are apocalyptic.
    And I’m reading both the Hebrew and the English version, and the English version is always more calm and sanitized than the Hebrew one, yet on both version it’s not uncommon to find outright Nazi comparisons. Plenty of anti-Semitic acusations.

    Talkbackers aside, what surprised me is how the Israeli establishment is lashing out against her. This is the real litmus test of where Israeli society is at the moment.

    Panetta, Gutman(the ambassador), Clinton. Remember what the last Pentagon chief Robert Gates said as he went? Israel’s a problem for the U.S. and Netanyahu is an ungrateful ally.

    It’s not just Sarkozy and Obama. The dislike for Netanyahu runs deep and the genuine alarm within the administration for the direction that Israel is headed on is breathtaking – is this why Dennis Ross jumped ship? A quiet signal to the lobby that Obama cannot be humiliated anymore, nor will his administration either, and therefore must be destroyed? Even for Obama – who has been the lobby’s good little whipping boy – cannot please them and now he is souring, and all those around him.

    Maybe you’re right. Maybe Obama has tried to appease them because he has tried to avoid a war with Iran. MJ Rosenberg’s latest column, which you linked to, was filled with pessimistic certainty that Iran would be attacked.

    Either way, the political price will not be as cheap as it once was. Things have changed since about 10 years ago. Will Glenn Greenwald let the neocons get away? Will MJ Rosenberg? Will even a moderate like Roger Cohen at the NYT? Remnick?

    The election season will get very, very ugly.

    • A few years ago Thomas Friedman and others kept saying that “soon” Israel would have to choose between remaining a Jewish State and being a democracy. It seems clear now that Israelis are choosing to tolerate a creeping fascism to maintain Jewish privilege and ethnocracy. Now more American Jews can see this and don’t like it. It is generating anxiety and a crisis of identity. If American Jews/liberals grab at the steering wheel and insist Israel turn toward democracy, such fighting over Israel’s direction weakens the Lobby and hastens the birth of the One State.

  7. What a steaming hypocrite. She is so concerned with the way woman are treated in Israel ,but says completely NOTHING
    about the way Palestinian women are treated by Israel.
    She just PRETENDS that she cares. She is nothing than an opportunist and pretender. There is nothing real about this woman. She is so fake in everything what she says. Exceptionally ugly character.

    • Walid says:

      Clinton doesn’t talk either about those other women in need of a helping hand in a US-allied country that won’t allow women to drive under penalty of lashing. According to yesterday’s Haaretz article, a serious scholarly study recommended to the country’s high Shura council that letting women drive would lead them to having premarital sex so the driving ban will remain in force. It’s curious Iran that’s being disparaged by Clinton doesn’t have such a ban.

      • good point, Walid; “It’s curious Iran that’s being disparaged by Clinton doesn’t have such a ban.”

        “Referring to the decision of some IDF soldiers to leave an event where female soldiers were singing, she said it reminded her of the situation in Iran. “

        what situation was that, exactly, and does it indicate an overall trend of vicious treatment of women in Iran, or did Hillary’s staff find a broken fingernail-ish situation that had the Iran brand name on it so she tossed it like red meat to the carnivores at Saban.

        the use of Iran as a synonym for all that is despicable has got to stop. The point of such attacks is to engender hatred. That’s not what I expect the diplomats in my government to be about.

        • Hostage says:

          what situation was that, exactly, and does it indicate an overall trend of vicious treatment of women in Iran, or did Hillary’s staff find a broken fingernail-ish situation that had the Iran brand name on it so she tossed it like red meat to the carnivores at Saban..

          Women are forbidden to sing in public in Iran, a fact that was reported by the NYT when Neda Agha-Soltan was killed during the demonstrations over the Presidential elections there. link to nytimes.com

        • here is a video how powerless, underage, jailed girl has been treated by the police in , so called, democratic country, aka USA.

        • RoHa says:

          “Women are forbidden to sing in public in Iran”

          So Iran isn’t all bad, then.

  8. dahoit says:

    Couldn’t this all be domestic pushback against Dr.Pauls rising popularity and his call for American sovereignty?Obomba has been a whore for Israel,and the public have taken note.
    The women’s rights angle blunts the Zionist lobbies counterattack.Kabuki Theater for liberal(hah)value voters.

  9. lobewyper says:

    Why aren’t Clinton’s remarks here in the NYT???

  10. Potsherd2 says:

    Hillary has always been Saban’s girl, and it’s Haim she’ll listen to, not talkbackers on Ynet. Fact is, Abe Foxman has effectively declared open season on Israeli antidemocracy, which gives a license to people like Hillary. If the Zionist lobby starts branding Hillary as anti-Israel, it’s going to cause even more cognitive dissonance among US Jews than her actual remarks.

    • Krauss says:

      Potsherd2, I hope you weren’t seriously thinking I was indicating that Hillary cared about talkbackers, I just think they are at times a useful tool to see what ‘everyday’ people think in Israel, especially on the Hebrew site.

      As I stated, I was surprised that the Israeli establishment attacked her in that way.
      But I also agree with you that since Abe Foxman declared his distress, Hillary and others saw it as a green light.

      The cynical, but perhaps true, reading is that this isn’t a sudden flash of independence but rather something that Hillary has been thinking a long time and after what she saw as a ‘go ahead’ from Abe, lashed out. I also think it’s not a coincidence that all these messages are coming out at once.

      It’s much easier to attack Panetta alone than it is to attack 3 moving targets.
      But even if one takes a cynical standpoint that essentially says this is all within the lobby’s playing field, the outpouring is still significant.

      The lobby may be powerful, but it isn’t omnipotent. I’d like to believe that no matter how distorted U.S policy towards the Middle East is, there is still a sense of independence left in the U.S. admin.

      Also, Hillary is not running for re-election, and neither is her husband. Nor do their daughter seem very interested in politics. She does not have much to lose. Perhaps a few invites to cocktail parties, but at her age, does she care? She still has enough friends in high places, including many liberal establishment Jews who do not see anti-Semites everywhere and share her concern for Israel’s direction.

      I think that aspect contributed to this public lashout.

      • Potsherd2 says:

        Krauss, I entirely agree.

        I’m not sure everyone realizes what a game-changer Hillary’s remarks are, especially if she doesn’t recant. No one respects Abe Foxman. A LOT of Jewish feminists respect Hillary. They’re going to listen. They’re going to listen to her when they wouldn’t listen to the likes of Mondoweiss.

        And this is why I don’t get bent because she doesn’t mention the Palestinians. The American Jewish population isn’t going to be moved by sympathy with the Palestinians. It’s going to be moved by the backlash against what Israel is becoming, which is a thing that doesn’t recognize them as fellow Jews.

    • Sand says:

      “…Abe Foxman has effectively declared open season on Israeli antidemocracy, which gives a license to people like Hillary…

      Also she’s backed by Reform Rabbi Eric Yoffie. Hills knows she’s covered.

      link to haaretz.com

      Very good point! — I agree.

      • annie says:

        sand, the fundies are going after the judicial system. they are going after the supreme court judges and how judges are chosen. (check my link below) they (ultra fundies) want women off the courts.

        it’s also impacting the rabbinical courts via the one seat afforded to women/seculars thru the bar association wrt the commission to choose the judges which will have a devastating impact on divorce and child custody.

        there’s a lot going on in the background swinging deals.

        • Sand says:

          sand, the fundies are going after the judicial system.

          Yep, I’m with you on that one.

          Also, as an aside here in the US it’s scary how many of the Pro-choice organizations just seem to be rolling over and not addressing this fundie onslaught in any meaningful way.

          With regards to background swinging deals (the Veal Pen Syndrome) — I’m wondering if Zionism politics is trumping the rights of women? It’s a fact that any Jewish Foundations and high-end pro-choice donors are Jewish.

        • Sand says:

          Above edit: “…It’s a fact that many Foundations giving to pro-choice causes, and high-end $$$ pro-choice donors are Jewish.

          Example of deal-making: NARAL and Planned Parenthood: Ineffectiveness Anti-Choice Democrats Can Rely On
          link to huffingtonpost.com

      • Potsherd2 says:

        US Jews should be more exposed to the really vile things that Israelis say about Yoffie, and by extension about all Reform Jews.

        • Sand says:

          “…US Jews should be more exposed to the really vile things that Israelis say about Yoffie, and by extension about all Reform Jews…

          The US Jewish establishment has certainly been aware. I noticed the change last year:-

          JPost: Conversion bill dismays US senators
          07/15/2010
          Senator to send “unprecedented” letter to Oren slamming bill.

          …“Israel should continue to be a welcoming place for Jews, as it has been through its history,” said Matt Dennis, communications director for Rep. Nita Lowey (D-New York), characterizing her thinking. “She is concerned that this bill would alienate Jews around the world and risk weakening the sense of unity within the Diaspora that is critical to Israel’s security.”

          “There’s an overwhelming feeling among Jewish members of Congress and Jewish senators that the conversion bill is offensive to them and is exclusionary in that it disenfranchises and disrespects 85% of Jews in the US.”

          link to jpost.com

          Sounds like the Zionist World Congress wasn’t happy either:

          Haaretz: World Zionist Congress resolutions show Diaspora and Israel at loggerheads

          Facing international condemnation, Israel this month also found itself at odds with a powerful Jewish presence – the World Zionist Congress.
          link to haaretz.com

          Hostage you’ve gotta do a write up on these guys.

  11. yourstruly says:

    speaking of delamination, is the screeching noise eminating from these israel-firsters a signal that the split within the jewish community is now well underway? if so, look, this side of the horizon, palestine, a land stolen from its people, about to be returned to its rightful owners.

    • yourstruly says:

      …..and as the israel-firsters plummet towards infamy, so go the neocons

    • Philip Weiss says:

      yes. the split is underway at last

      • that’s correct. The Hornets are finally attacking each other.
        Hopefully, they will sting each other hard enough, that their Powerful Nest made of lies, desinformation, corruption, threats etc. will crumble right before our own eyes.
        And the little bees will be set free:).

    • Thanks Phil for highlighting this- a fascinating development. The settler mentality seeping westward back across the Green Line has so contaminated the general Israeli mindset that they have forgotten how important American Jewish public opinion is to the survival of the Zionist dream state. The settler mentality taking over Israel (not to mention bus lines in Brooklyn) is hobbling the efforts of the Lobby here by so badly tarnishing Brand Israel. Foxman’s and Marcus’s public anxiety provide a green light for Hillary (with Obama behind the curtain) to help accelerate the fission of the American Jewish/ liberal voting bloc. I think Foxman is mainly worried about the erosion of the Lobby’s power, whereas Marcus’s anxiety relates to her identity as an American Jew, as cracks appear the Zionist mythology that has always supported this identity.

      It seems more palatable for mainstream American Jews/ liberals to accept criticism of Israel if that criticism is restricted to issues of women’s rights and the erosion of democracy west of the Green Line. This psychic compartmentalization enables mainstream American Jews/ liberals to continue to avert their gaze from the Occupation, the unconscionable continuation of which is in fact their special achievement (as Phil points out). Obviously in the long term it will be impossible to maintain this intellectual compartmentalization because Israel/Palestine is now one inseparable entity due to the widespread metastasis of settlements. This is why J Street’s mixed messaging and navel-gazing cannot last and must ultimately yield to the clearer, simpler vision of JVP and the Palestinian popular movement.

      The Lobby must appear to support democracy and women’s rights so Hillary and Obama just have to keep gently tapping their chisel right on this point. Hip-hip-hooray!

  12. lobewyper says:

    From the YNET story (link above)

    “Some members of the forum said that Clinton’s statements about Israel stemmed from genuine fear for the country’s future.”

    Look, folks–”self-hating Jews” appear to be multipying faster than rabbits. Somebody DO something!

  13. eGuard says:

    Since the Washington Post has decided for me beforehand, Ruths name should have the note “Left-leaning” or “Right-leaning” attached even here. Now I have to check out by myself. WaPo does not like that.

  14. annie says:

    i knew this would blow up after the recent legislation, i didn’t know it would happen this fast.

  15. LeaNder says:

    The election season will get very, very ugly.

    It was pretty ugly last time. The whole campaign against Barack “Hussein” Obama, the birth certificate and so on.

  16. yourstruly says:

    no replies to this post by israel-firsters? significance?

  17. lobewyper says:

    The administration has now fired several warning shots. What the Israeli government does in response will be interesting to see. They are playing with fire, now, and fire can be very dangerous!

    • seafoid says:

      Yeah but they effectively used their veto to kill the UN initiative on the Palestinian state. So what if Jewish women have to go to the back of the bus . Palestinians aren’t allowed on the bus at all.

  18. lobewyper says:

    My hope is that the recent statements by Clinton and Panetta will lead to similar sentiments being voiced by at least a few members of Congress–with added comments re: Palestinian rights.

    • irena says:

      lobewyper, I like your optimism but I feel there’s a long way to go. It is time for the American Jewish communities to raise their voices against the apartheid state that has destroyed Palestinian lives and dreams, emboldened our government’s imperialistic dreams in the Middle East and corroded our foreign policy.

  19. annie says:

    while the hasbarists are prancing around bragging about how gay friendly israel is women’s rights are on the precipice of being slashed across the board.

  20. RE: “Hillary says Israeli restrictions on women remind her of Rosa Parks and Iran” ~ Weiss

    SEE: Women noticeably absent from Jerusalem ads, By Nir Hasson, Haaretz, 10/21/11
    Municipality officials deny change in policy, refer to several campaigns that featured images of women. Yet figures in city’s public relations industry say women have been entirely removed from public billboards and advertisements.
    LINK – link to haaretz.com

  21. lobewyper says:

    After much reflection, I have decided that Hillary has struck a very low blow here against the Israeli government. In a few careless remarks, she has mobilized the feminine population of the entire earth against the Israeli regime. Speaking of regime, I hope Kristol has enough strength left to point out that Hillary is clearly calling for “regime change”in Israel–who just happens to be our “best friend”!

    • kalithea says:

      LOL! Regime change in Isreel??? No, sorry, the outgoing Kadima was as bad as Likud. In Israel they just exchange one devil for another. Kinda like in the U.S. : Democrats and Republicans on Israel and Wall Street, you hardly recognize the difference.

    • Antidote says:

      “After much reflection, I have decided that Hillary has struck a very low blow here against the Israeli government. In a few careless remarks, she has mobilized the feminine population of the entire earth against the Israeli regime.”

      I’d like to know why women around the world were not particularly mobilized against the US regime when Madeleine Albright, epitome of the liberated woman of the West who has arrived in the corridors of big power, announced that starving half a million Iraqi children by sanctions was a reasonable price to pay for regime change in Iraq. My guess is that most women would rather sit in the back of the bus for the rest of their life than watch their children starve to death. Or see their husbands, brothers and fathers killed by US soldiers, and their villages and cities destroyed by US bombs. I guess I’m not ‘liberated’ or ‘liberal’ enough to be fooled by such hypocrisy. Do I need to take more ‘Women’s Studies’ courses to come around to your depth of though?

      • lobewyper says:

        Please, Antidote, I was joking. (I guess I’m not going to be asked to do the New Years’ Eve Jimmy Fallon show, after all.)

        • Antidote says:

          lobewyper says:
          December 4, 2011 at 2:05 pm
          eee,

          I’m serious about Hillary’s awakening the women of the world to their mistreatment by many Israelis. Apparently, this mistreatment doesn’t concern you in the slightest. (Now, ask me if I’m surprised!)

          Now which is it, lobewyper?

  22. Why Hillary cares so much what Israel is doing internally??
    This is basically NONE of her business. Let them sort out their own, inner problems.
    She is NOT the Secretary of the State of Israel, from what I remember.
    She doesn’t seem to be bothered too much, about what Israel is doing externally. About the way it treats its neighbours.
    THIS should concern her more, since Israel’s “attitude ” of an agressor affects the geo-politics not only of the MiddleEast region ,but basically the whole world.
    She uses old defense mechanism of diversion from the real problems, focusing instead on something that shouldn’t concern her too much.
    Did she mentioned lately anything about the law ,that is about to be passed ,about permitting indefinite detentions of American citizens ????
    Maybe she forgets WHICH state ,the State of Secretary she actually is?
    Maybe for her its all the same??

    • annie says:

      Why Hillary cares so much what Israel is doing internally??
      This is basically NONE of her business.

      hillary cares because lots of american jews are freaked out israel’s going fundie. up to now there’s been a tight lid on the image of israel vs the reality of israel. we’ve known for a long time there’s a real problem with fundie influence, and for the most part i would imagine the jewish community knows too. but the american public is largely unaware of how drastically things are swinging, not just to the right, but to wacko religious fundamentalism.

      in fact, when americans think of religious extremism we’re trained to think of islam, we know about our own christian fundies and what wingnuts they are…but very few people associate religious extremism w/judaism. but it’s flourishing in israel and has been for a long time.

      they don’t mind so much having some wacko nutjobs settlers terrorizing palestinians in the bowels of the WB, no biggie. but what i saw in jerusalem? secret. those images for the most part are shielded from the american public, carefully shielded. while we have rosie ad campaigns w/glamorous women on magazine cover perfectly poised in a provocative sexual mating game w/bolded print about female idf members….the reality is very different on the ground in many places in israel. i was traveling there on a saturday and was in this one town that was like a ghost town. nothing was moving.

      one thing i found striking about jerusalem, after just coming from gaza was…most women were covered up there too, the shop keepers etc. it didn’t take me very long to realize everywhere i looked women’s arms and heads were completely covered just like in gaza. not all of them but a lot of them. i realized, wow, these two cultures have a lot in common wrt the women’s dress code. it wasn’t like that in tel aviv but it was really like that in jerusalem.

      anyway. i think hillary cares because this legislation will change the whole face of israel and their image has a lot riding on ‘share our values’ and ‘democracy’. ‘women’ is a big issue.

      • So …it looks like Hillary C. cares, because she is very afraid that many “reformed” American Jews close their pockets to fund the State of Israel, since this State doesn’t treat women the way they should be treated according to them.
        Never mind that this State persecutes , discriminates against Arab, Christian population. Never mind that this State steals land from Palestinians, oppresses and humiliates them on daily bases.
        This doesn’t matter so much for Hillary. She just wants Israel to be perceived as a “vibrant Democracy” in the eyes of the world, and the recent changes, according to her, distort this “beautiful”, fake,phony picture.
        Mrs. Hillary, majority of the people in the world don’t perceive Israel as a “vibrant democracy” at all, they perceive Israel as an apartheid, as a oppressive regime ,and not because of the way it treats its women, but because of the way it treats everybody ,who is not a Jew.
        You don’t touch the real problem, because you don’t care for it at all.
        You are concerned that Israel is losing more and more in the eyes of the world, (in ALL areas), and that ‘s the reason for your kvetching, and whining and moaning.

        • annie says:

          it looks like Hillary C. cares, because she is very afraid that many “reformed” American Jews close their pockets to fund the State of Israel, since this State doesn’t treat women the way they should be treated according to them.

          no, i think you are off course here. listen to phil:

          Women’s rights are central to American Jewish values; and this issue is providing a landbridge for American Jews to defect from the orthodoxies of the Israel lobby.

          Why do you think Hillary Clinton feels so comfortable talking about the assault on democracy inside Israel?

          she (really obama) is facilitating the split in the american jewish community/pre election. secular and reform jews are probably behind her. they will open their pockets when the fundies attack their way of life. orothodox, not so much. rightwingers? not so much. but 78% of american jews went democratic in the last election, she’s wooing them.

        • I don’t trust this women, so I have no idea for whom she is ouching or booing , oohing and aahing .
          As long as she casues a split , a crack in the facade, then it’s fine with me.
          It good that “divide and impera” rule stirs some troubles on the very top.
          Let them “divide” more, and we’ll do” impera”.

      • yourstruly says:

        does the secretary of state really care about segregation in the zionist entity, or is the simultaneous putdown of said entity by top level political appointees the beginning of a get tough with israel moment?

    • why Hillary OR Israel cares so much about what IRAN is doing internally?
      That is basically NONE of her, or its, business. Let them sort out their own, inner problems.
      She is NOT the Secretary of State of Iran, from what I remember.

  23. lobewyper says:

    Dumvitaestspesest (Please choose another, easier to spell pseudonym):

    I’ve already explained about regime change (see above post). :)

  24. The implications of Hillary’s statements notwithstanding, I have a meta question that begs to be asked:

    How did Israel know what she said behind closed doors?

    The report seems to imply that Israelis were present behind closed doors, but I see no indication of this in any other report. Is this an indication of the insidiousness of Israeli spies in all aspect of our government – all walls have ears? If that is true, then the consequences are dire indeed!

    • annie says:

      C&D, do you mean at the Saban Forum?

    • Sand says:

      Hillary Clinton might of thought her remarks would remain “behind closed doors” as the Jewish establishment often tells us it doesn’t like airing US-Israel dirty laundry in public— EXCEPT — tho’ when they deem it to be to their advantage!

      Hills is shrewd she knows never to ‘Trust’ Israel-Firster Saban. He makes the rules.

  25. Yes, in the above article, the statement is

    In a closed session at the Saban Forum attended both by Israeli and American decision-makers Clinton addressed the issue of discrimination against Israeli women.

    I had the impression from other reports on the interweb that the discussion was in private and not meant for public consumption, hence my question. In any case, “closed session” would also imply that we would not be privy to what was discussed…

    • annie says:

      well, it looks like the word got out and was intended to get out by clinton. this is obama taking a stab at the heart of israel’s ‘democracy’ and ‘share our values’ myth making. it’s a non violent attack and it’s got legs. but the power of comes directly from israel, from what is happening. very smart move.

      • Perhaps you are right – I don’t know.

        Personally, I am not convinced that this is much of a “game changer”. Obama’s disdain for Israel is no secret. Neither is his impotence in that regard. Were he to indeed desire to change the game, this would not be a spectacular volley on his part.

        Were I to be president for a day, I would begin by muting and reversing the onslaught against Iran and then extending the hand of friendship in direct talks. Cooperation with Iran would be the most significant way that he could neuter the lobby, and I suspect that despite all the shrieking from the neocons, the majority of the American people would be solidly behind him – and would probably reward him with a re-election victory.

        With the Iran threat removed, there would be no reason for our troops in that region, or for the large military grants to Israel.

        No MIC, no Israel.

    • From link to english.alarabiya.net:

      Clinton’s remarks, reportedly made Saturday behind closed doors at the Saban Forum in Washington, made headlines in most Israeli newspapers, which reported them without explaining how they obtained the comments.

  26. American says:

    I don’t see Hillary’s remarks meaning that much, not anything really, when it comes to US policies unconditionally supporting Israel.
    I think it was more a message to Israel first leaders that they need to exert some influence to tamp down some Israel practices lest they attract wide public attention/criticism and make it harder for US officials and politicians to continuously cover for Israel.

    I mean really….Israeli settlements are OFFICIALLY against US policy, always have been and the most the WH and Dep of St. can muster is “not helpful”? When Americans have been killed or injured by Israel not a flaming peep out of Hillary or Obama. Has Hillary ever made a peep about Israeli and IDF injuring or treatment of Palestine women. No they haven’t.

    Hillary’s using selective morality to say don’t make our Israel First jobs any harder.

  27. mudder says:

    I would love to hear what Huwaida Arraf, organizer of the Palestinian Freedom Riders, thinks about Hillary’s reference to Rosa Parks.

    • Cliff says:

      Coretta Scott King, MLK’s wife, supported Mubarek Awad.

      She vouched for his non-violent tactics and aspirations toward such a movement.

      Awad was expelled by Israel precisely for this reason, despite King’s endorsement.

  28. From the ynet article:

    Interior Minister Eli Yishai also rejected Clinton’s statements. “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. I assume that whatever will be done here will be within the measure of the law.”

    Even though elections were just held in neighboring Egypt, Israeli officials continue to blurt this absolute falsehood. Another neighbor is Lebanon, which has a parliamentary democracy as well. And of course israel is and never will be a democracy as long as it insists on being a jewish state. The government headed by Netanyahu controls all historic palestine, where jews are in the minority. its all rigged so that that there is one area under control called ‘israel’ where jews have a majority; people living in occupied palestine, the west bank and gaza, have no say in electing the people who make the most important decision of their lives; the PA is just like a local authority.

    • seafoid says:

      Another neighbor is Lebanon, which has a parliamentary democracy as well.

    • upsidedownism- I won’t argue with you on the limitations of israeli democracy, but Egypt and Lebanon are not role models either. First Egypt. It has held an election. First step. But it takes more than one step to make a democracy. It is still a military dictatorship as of this date. And if the democracy takes shape and places limits on the ability of Muslims to convert to Christianity, then it will be a limited democracy. So it is way premature to declare Egypt a democracy. Second Lebanon- Lebanon has a number of militias- one called the Lebanese army and one called Hezbollah. When the state does not have a monopoly on power and in fact would lose a battle to a militia within its borders it is not just its democracy that is faulty- it is its essential statehood which is under a question mark.

      • Taxi says:

        Wandering jew,

        You don’t know anything about Lebanese democracy – they had their first democratic election 1943, five years before the zionist invasion of Palestine.

        Yes it has it’s faults, but not the ones you mention.

  29. kalithea says:

    Let’s be serious, this is NOT a game changer. Israel will continue to do whatever the hell it wants to and still get a pass from the U.S. and U.S. politicians will continue to grovel before the Lobby and SO WILL HILLARY, their favorite gal!

    What Hillary is doing here is stating how can we as “Democrats” publicly support this? It’s also Hillary besmirching the Likud administration in Israel so Tipzy gets in next time, but Tipzy’s a Cast Lead war criminal and just as bad as the rest.

    Nothing will ever change and Zionism will continue to stomp on Palestinian rights and try to trigger WWIII by getting U.S. approval on a strike against Iran.

    That’s all this is. So move on quickly and don’t hold your breath.

    • American says:

      I’m with you kalithea …I think this is exactly what it is.

    • john h says:

      this is NOT [perhaps] a game changer

      Man acquitted after confession obtained by Shin Bet torture

      link to maannews.net

    • I agree with Kalithea .
      Hillary is trying to wave her finger a little and say:
      Oh , Allmighty Israel, we support you and pay homage to you, as requested,
      but, oh silly me ,can you do something about those women in Israel?
      You see , the feminists in America may not like it too much, and they probably will voice their disapproval ,and you know, oh, Allmighty Israel, your IMAGE of the “vibrant, the only democracy in the ME” will be harder and harder to defense.
      I won’t be able to pull it off anymore, no matter how hard I will try.
      And you know, I’m your faithful and loyal servant. “

  30. radii says:

    Hillary has always blown hot and cold on israel

    She’s an intellectual and her core values are liberal and feminist, yet she’s a politician

    Hence, she can occasionally say what she really thinks but most of the time must kow-tow to israel because she needs US jewish money and political machine behind her to even hold any power

    She mentioned “Rosa Parks” for a specific reason – to tie directly to the Palestinian protests on buses recently – nailing two targets with one statement

    Israel itself has given the Obama administration their long-sought opening to divide israeli zionists from US jews – the ad campaign recently suspended calling US jews not real jews, and indeed they’ve fired shots across the bow to israel – Obama is now not afraid of losing jewish money for his 2012 re-election

  31. lobewyper says:

    Hillary knew very well that her remarks would become public. She and the administration are seriously ramping up pressure on the Israeli government.

  32. Taxi says:

    The White House is now openly against Likudism.

    Yet the White House is still a staunch supporter of leftist zionism.

    Really what this tells us is that there’s a vicious in-fight between major forces in American jewery and major forces in the isreali likud government.

    Both sides have clearly drawn a line in the sand AND in public – and the battles will be ongoing I reckon.

    And the prize for the winner? Obama’s destruction or Obama’s re-election.

    But it’s not really about Obama, it’s about jewish in-house tribal power. It’s about who controls israel and it’s projected ‘values’. American jewery or israeli settlers?

    It’s a fight over jewish morality.

    Oh yeah, it’s THAT bad.

    • for those who dabble in the Nazi comparisons, the in-fighting amongst groups within the Jewish community is a replay of the battles waged between the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress from the years pre-WWI all the way thru WWII.

      The Committee was formed by German Jews — generally earlier immigrants to US, overwhelmingly wealthier — ie. Schiffs, Warburgs; intensely committed to Germany and resistant to calls to wage war on Germany, preferring to wage war on Russia. The Committee preferred to work in quiet ways. Reading between the lines in many histories suggests that wealthy German Jews in US were more concerned about the success of their investments in Germany and loathe to see Germany constrained lest, ie. loans to Germany not be repaid.

      The American Jewish Congress were/are Russian Jews, stridently zionist, preferring to act in provocative ways.

      This passage from Edwin Black’s “The Transfer Agreement,” (linked above; see pp. 5-6) is extremely important documentation of the precise point when ‘it all began,’ — when Wilson betrayed his 14 Points promise to former states of the Ottoman Empire that they would have “self determination.” Wilson did so in preference to granting a ‘homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people,’ and he was induced to do that by the Jewish councilors who surrounded him at Versailles:

      After the war, the question of who would represent Jewish interests at the Peace Conference was bitterly contested. A delegation cutting across Committee and Congress lines finally did assemble at Versailles. . . .[I]n the Committee view–the proposed rights went “too far.” . . .[in that they] meant a Jewish homeland in Palestine — Zionism.
      Committee leaders were repulsed by Zionism. . . .However, majority Jewish sentiment won out at Versailles, assuring a Jewish homeland in Palestine, with stipulations preserving Jewish rights in other countries.
      American Jewish Congress leaders returned from Versailles in triumph. They had helped create a Jewish homeland. . .”

      just as an aside — it’s probably sheer coincidence that Jane Harman left the Senate to take position as head of the US govt supported Woodrow Wilson Center.

      • MW Moderators — the information re tensions between Jewish COMMITTEE and Jewish CONGRESS is almost entirely out of Edwin Black’s ‘The Transfer Agreement.’ Only the first sentence and last sentence in the post are NOT either direct quotes or paraphrases of Black’s work.

        this comment might be more appropriate on a different thread, but in my opinion it is worth knowing, and very important information for all people who wish to understand the base of Arab anger. 85 years is a long time to wait for sovereignty over one’s own life.

    • yourstruly says:

      once the public becomes aware that jewish-americans are engaged in a fight over israel, israel-firsters risk losing control of the narrative. they know this, which is why they’re so scared. it isn’t the fight itself, it’s the effect the fight will have on public opinion. momentum has shifted and with it, perhaps, opportunity. isn’t it time now the for a campaign (initially online) in support of the obama’s two cabinet members and his ambassador to belgium. the anti-zionist movement must learn to be as quick to spot and exploit openings as israel-firsters are to close them. we can’t afford toremain merely analytical/cynical when opportunity knocks, can we?

  33. Hillary’s comments are nothing compared to what Gideon Levy says about the influence of the charedi and Hillary in her heart of hearts (not her senate bid heart) has always been a Gideon Levy type of Zionist.

    Of all the reasons for the failure of the Clinton bid for peace in 2000 Hillary’s bid for the senate is not mentioned often enough. Certainly Clinton was concerned for the Gore Lieberman ticket, but Hillary’s bid for the senate required a delay of the release of the Clinton parameters to December of 2000 instead of July of 2000. Those lost five months could have made a difference.

  34. lobewyper says:

    Look, we’re forgetting the “Rosa Parks” parallel Hillary drew. She has now endorsed the view of many that Israel is an apartheid state. I agree with Phil–this is a potential “game changer.” This charge cannot go unchallenged by Israel, because of the enormous hated of such by Americans and their history of slavery. Unfortunately for Israel, they are a thousand times guilty of apartheid!!!

    • snowdrift says:

      How has Clinton called Israel an apartheid state? She’s only talking about womens’ rights — no mention of Palestinians. In fact, making an analogy with Rosa Parks is rather awkward since Rosa Parks’ action was part of the civil rights struggle. It’s almost like Clinton subconsciously chose an example that fits the Palestinians’ struggle while she’s actually talking about an internal, liberal-vs-conservatives Israeli thing. I think it’s an overoptimistic mistake to view her statement as a deliberate comparison with apartheid. This reads more as yet another argument about the need to make Israel more presentable so that the US has an easier time supporting them. “Be more liberal so we can send you more missiles!”

      • Snwodrift.
        Very good comment. I fully endorse it:)
        “Be more presentable , my dear friends, to the liberal American public , otherwise, they may start hissing at you.

      • Donald says:

        ” This reads more as yet another argument about the need to make Israel more presentable so that the US has an easier time supporting them. “Be more liberal so we can send you more missiles!”

        I think that’s right. In the short run this is entertaining, watching the “liberal” Israel supporters suddenly have their feelings hurt, but so far that’s all it amounts to.

        • yourstruly says:

          of all the statements this past week, the one by the ambassador to belgium is the hottest, because it gets to the heart of the matter, israel’s brutal treatment of the palestinian people is why “they” hate us. once again, them words present the justice for palestine movement with an opportunity to go after the israel-firsters and make them play defense, something they ain’t used to. an internet campaign, for example, which praises the ambassador for his recent statement and builds upon that. damn it, it’s not enough to just analyze/criticize these israel-firsters, we’ve got to be ready when opportunity presents itself. me thinks. oh, but what can we accomplish just with words? must be kidding, didn’t the arab uprising start online, ows online after a few choice words by adbuster?

    • Rusty Pipes says:

      Not apartheid, but Jim Crow. The Jim Crow/Civil Rights Movement analogy about Israel is gaining steam among African Americans and Black Churches. As a United Methodist, HRC has probably heard the analogy through her church as well. Obama and HRC may not make these analogies in public, but they know what is going on. The prevalent form of discrimination that Rosa Parks encountered on the bus was not sexism, but institutionalized racism and Clinton’s analogy raised that issue, whether she intended to or not.

  35. lobewyper says:

    If Hillary stands by her comments here, we will be on the verge of a full-scale “war” with Israel, which is the last thing Israel needs about now…

    • lobewyper says:

      And if war it is to be, some folks in Israel (and AIPAC) are about to learn something about Chicago-style politics–the only rule of which is, you play to win!

    • Sumud says:

      I’m not sure how to interpret Hillary’s words actually.

      The optimist part of me hopes it is Hillary firing a shot across the bow, a warning to Israel to get their shit together NOW, because it would be Oh-So-Easy to simply start telling the truth about Israel and cause a massive shift in US public opinion towards support for Palestinians. Given how messed up Israel and the OPTs is, zionists are extremely vulnerable on that front. The rest of the world has regular media and has worked it out, and there’s only so much damage-control the zionist mainstream media in the US can do.

      But that’s the optimist in me, the pessimist in me says Obama still has no spine with regards to Israel, and Hillary is playing checkers rather than chess.

  36. MHughes976 says:

    I’m with those who find it hard to believe that this is big news. The Obama crowd, HC among them, cannot but cannot want a serious confrontation with Israel at this turn of events,with an election coming up. They’re playing their cards so as to neutralise as best they can the obvious hatred and contempt which the Likud crowd feel for them, Obama especially, by lining up with the liberal Zionists, who are a big segment of the donors and opinion-formers whose support they need. The next thing we hear will be another bang on the drum of right to exist, right to security etc..
    The inconsistencies and insincerities of all this may slowly become apparent over time and over time the huge Zio coalition may indeed begin to crumble. But it won’t happen in the very short term and the Republican candidate, unless indeed it’s Paul, won’t be in any position to point the problems out, since they have equal problems of their very own.
    We may look back on the day when Ms. Clinton became indignant because female Israeli soldiers were insulted when they tried to sing as the day when the game changed. But can such a disproportionate kind of indignation, based so clearly on the domestic politics of the United States, really have that kind of moral force? Concert opportunities for Palestinian chanteuses?

  37. seafoid says:

    hillary and Obama would like a good old house trained Ashkenazi to be driving things in Israel instead of those trailer trash russians and savage Mizrahim but that train left the station several years ago and the new owners don’t care about what Americans think because they are on a date with destiny and Moshiach is on the way

    • yourstruly says:

      the new owners may not care what the american public thinks right now, but wait until public opinion threatens to force the u.s. government to change course, then they’ll care, but it’ll be too late for the zionist entity. impossible? public opinion here doesn’t change that fast? no, well remember four years ago when the stock market crashed and the house of representatives first voted on that bailout bill, it went down to a 90% or so defeat? yes, that was quickly reversed when “cooler” heads (ie msm) pointed out to the public that, tut-tut, the bankers may be very bad, indeed, but, after all, they do play and essential role, etc. etc., and, alas, within a couple of days, the public came around (according to polls, at least) to accepting the bailout. this time, however, once the public flips on the p/i issue, the burden will be on us anti-zionists to find ways to convince the public to hold fast in demanding an end to america’s unconditional support of the zionist entity. we can do this.

      • lobewyper says:

        y/t wrote:
        ‘…this time, however, once the public flips on the p/i issue, the burden will be on us anti-zionists to find ways to convince the public to hold fast in demanding an end to america’s unconditional support of the zionist entity. we can do this.”

        I agree, the Israelis are extremely close to the tipping point. If Obama went on TV tomorrow night and said that the Israelis are planning to attack Iran but that this would be disastrous, and asked the citizenry to contact their congresspersons and senators at once about this, the need for a just I-P peace, and the start of reconciliation with Muslims generally, it would happen. Militant Zionism would be toast.

        I’m sure we would have all the help we needed to end “unconditional support of the zionist entity” from most Americans.

  38. RoHa says:

    “Referring to the decision of some IDF soldiers to leave an event where female soldiers were singing, she said it reminded her of the situation in Iran. ”

    Are Iranian soldiers forbidden from listening to women sing?

  39. kalithea says:

    Hillary needs to personally witness Zionists at their finest, then maybe she’ll address the WHOLE truth, instead of limiting herself to half a lie.:

    link to friday-lunch-club.blogspot.com

  40. Is there some “daylight” between the US position and the Quartet?

    link to jpost.com

    Erekat says the PA did its homework and Israel did not. US says they have to come to dinner.

  41. DanMazella says:

    yourstruly and lobewyper.
    I never knew Israel was referred to as the zionist entity”.
    Its amazing the people who have been barred from this site cause Philip didn’t like the fact they were Pro Israel, yet he allows hater mongers like yourstruly and lobewyper to post on here.

    • @ DanMazella

      I never knew Israel was referred to as the zionist entity

      Have you been living under a rock? “Zionist entity” is a common label for Israel by all those (including myself) that refuse to recognize Israel as a “Jewish State”. Other common terms are “Apartheid state”, and “Rogue state”, not to mention “that shitty little country”, not to make too fine a point.

      Its amazing the people who have been barred from this site cause Philip didn’t like the fact they were Pro Israel

      What rubbish! If that were true, the likes of “eee”, “dbg”, “witty”, and others would not have been allowed to persist.

      “hater mongers” [sic] ? Whatever that means.

      Do you mean that many of us hate Israel?

      Yes many of us do (not everyone here, though) – not because of who they are, but because of what they do. Our hate is not limited to Israel. We hate all other nations that perform vile acts on others and are racist and apartheid in nature. We also hate our own government when they sacrifice American values and wage wars for profit and Israel against the self-interest of Americans.

      So, what is your point?

      • Mooser says:

        @Cloak and Dagger,

        Did you miss Mozzerellas wonderful post the other day? He was kvetching, wailing and gnashing his teeth, aghast at the anti-Semitism here! Yes, Dan told us that all of his posts appeared with “waiting for moderation tags” before they were published, and that this wait for moderation applied only to Zionists. Now that’s brains!

    • Chaos4700 says:

      …so now Israel isn’t Zionist? Or referring to it as such is considered “hate mongery?” So it’s anti-Semitic to use the word “Zionist” unless the speaker is Jewish? Really now?

      The new guy is a real laugh riot, isn’t he?

      • Mooser says:

        “The new guy is a real laugh riot, isn’t he?”

        I must admit, I had more than a few traces of Jewish exceptionalism and chauvinism before I started reading Mondoweiss. God forgive me, but I really didn’t think Jews could be quite this stupid. Okay, call me naive, a babe in the woods, but I’ve learned my lesson.

    • kalithea says:

      Uhhh…got a problem with the word “Zionist”? Take it up with those who invented the ideology with a bad name.

    • Sumud says:

      Its amazing the people who have been barred from this site cause Philip didn’t like the fact they were Pro Israel, yet he allows hater mongers like yourstruly and lobewyper to post on here.

      Interesting.

      So who has Phil banned from this site because he “didn’t like the fact they were Pro Israel”…? Do you have a list? Do you belong to an organisation that has such a list?

      I understand the Israeli compulsion to occupy and control, but Mondoweiss belongs to Phil and Adam; they can do what the hell they like.

    • homingpigeon says:

      I never call it the Zionist Entity. I call it the Fraud That Occupies Palestine.

      • Taxi says:

        I call it effing this and effing that.

        Check out what a Lebanese shepherd I met a few days ago told me what he calls it and why:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        • Taxi, thank you for this beautiful story.
          This Lebanese shepherd is right by calling Israel: “the Occupied Palestine by israelis”. I also liked his way of explaining the term “chosen people”. Neat.
          Oftentimes, people with not too much formal,complex education have the best insights. They go right to the heart of the matter, and they know what’s right and wrong, and they try to live their lives “the right way.”

        • Sumud says:

          Great story Taxi, thanks.

          It touches on something that’s been on my mind lately. The two-state solution is dead as a door-nail, this is clearer than ever before. So what is the way forward?

          One possibility is that Israel continues it’s descent into fascism and some fanatic like Avigdor Lieberman comes to power, and decides in a desperate all-or-nothing fashion to do ethnically cleanse all Palestinians from Israel and the OPTs. I really don’t think this is outside the realms of possibility. It would be catastrophic for all involved and make zionist as dirty a word as nazi. While this might be satisfying for everybody who cares about Palestinians I can’t see it happening without *massive* loss of life. Maybe Israelis can’t be woken up any other way, but i hope not.

          I wrote a little while ago about the small but vital issue of what a single state might be called. It might be Israel, until the majority Palestinian population enable right of return then change the name to Palestine. Again, while this might be gratifying for all of us who resent the injustice of 60+ years of Nakba, going in this direction still represents a continuity of the Israel vs. Palestine conflict.

          Your shepherd friend’s grandfather is extremely wise:

          He said his grandfather used to say that all Palestinians: jews, moslem and christian, were the real and only ‘chosen people’ – chosen by god and more fortunate than all other arabs to be born and to live on holy land – chosen to belong to the holy land.

          He points to a different way of thinking about who is a Palestinian. It’s inclusive, and goes beyond Israel vs. Palestine. If there’s going to be a single state solution – and there is – then it’s either going to be because zionists are forced into it kicking and screaming, or because they adopt it willingly. Whatever it will be, we can’t turn back time. An outcome as occurred in Algeria (the suitcase or the coffin) would be every bit as disastrous as Lieberman trying to ethnically cleanse Palestinians. Other than who was the victim, there’s no moral difference. We can’t and shouldn’t ignore the fact that many Israeli jews were born in Israel, and maybe their parents and grandparents were too, even if their ancestors weren’t.

          What I’m getting at is that maybe a future single-state needs to not be Israel or Palestine, but something more neutral and inclusive like “Holy Land” (though it sounds clumsy and I’m sure there’s a better word). That way, it is not only Israelis who have to give up something to live in a single peaceful multi-ethnic and multi-religious state, but Palestinians also. If they both have sacrificed, then I think there’s a better chance that it really does put the Israel-Palestine conflict to bed forever, by mapping out a third way where neither party is seen by the other as being victorious.

          What do you think? I know there will always be zealots on both sides who can only think of victory in terms of their ‘side’ winning, but maybe the bulk of Palestinians and Israelis can be brought together with a vision of living together, in a new entity that leapfrogs the current us vs them paradigm.

        • MHughes976 says:

          That was a great story/report, Taxi. No doubt you’ll have more to tell us when you’ve returned from your visit.

        • Taxi says:

          Sumud,

          You have some interesting ideas my friend. I like how you’re looking for the ‘soft’ path where all sides can tread towards a solution.

          We must recognize though that the one state solution is very emotionally complex for all parties involved. More complex and more emotionally demanding than the two-state solution.

          But some aspects are easier than others to configure. For example: what to call this democratic, multi-ethnic, multi-religious state? Palestine is unacceptable to the israelis and israel is unacceptable to the Palestinians. So if it has to be renamed, why not call it the Republic of Jerusalem, with the old City of Jerusalem as it’s capital.

          Why not? Let’s call the whole country ‘Jerusalem’.

          It’s not that unusual to have a city capital and it’s country share the same name. We already have Mexico=Mexico City, Singapore=Singapore, Kuwait=Kuwait City, Luxembourg=Luxembourg, Djibouti=Djibouti, Vatican=Vatican City, Guatemala=Guatemala City.

          Jerusalem, as an actual place, as a name and also a religious symbol, is loved by all sides, so who can object to it on good grounds? And to call the one state ‘Jerusalem’ does indeed give one a feeling of a new enlightened direction for the future of the holy land. It also simultaneously honors and acknowledges it’s ancient historic ties to all three Abrahamic faiths.

          A far more complex problem is this however: if israelis want to continue living in the ‘Holy Land’, they’d have to not only accept sharing power with the Palestinians, but also accept that they’re in an Arab region, part of the greater Arab world, accept becoming part of the Arab League, ie accept their eventual Arabification – kinda like the Hawaiians accept their Amerification yet remain Hawaiians. Do you think the israelis are capable of accepting this? The middle east has always had a jewish character and not a zionist one, so are the israelis willing to drop their Arabphobic zionism and live simply as jews in the middle east? Are they more attached to political zionism than they are to religious/cultural/historic judaism?

          You know israelis better than I do, what do you think? Do you think the ‘people’ of israel, not the government but the people, can be open to this? I mean I’m not proposing this as a submissive ‘idea’ for israelis, but a breakdown of the practicalities and realities down the line of time. Even the island of Great Britain had to eventually accept it’s ‘europeaness’, which it militarily and culturally resisted for centuries. It eventually joined the european union for economic reasons, which is fair enough. They’re still stiff-upper lipped and English. Their ‘character’ has not been altered one bit.

          If israelis dropped discriminatory zionism and embraced the character of the region, and also the region embraced them back, then the jews can only benefit in ways they can only imagine. And the region too would clearly benefit immensely from their presence.

          Everyone wins when you have peace. Everyone knows this. Except our leaders. Talk to some israeli people about these ideas, Sumud, feel their pulse, and please do share with me what they think.

        • john h says:

          Sumud, Taxi did have a great story, and your comment is food for thought too.

          Here’s a little more along that line:

          link to mondoweiss.net

          link to mondoweiss.net

        • Sumud says:

          Taxi ~ Republic of Jerusalem, i LOVE it!

          It even translates easily to the three language groups: Yerushalim Republic, Republic of Jerusalem, Al Quds Republic. It’s not one or the other, it’s all three.

          That emotional complexity of the one-state solution is exactly what I had in mind when I responded to your shepherd’s story. And, the feeling of enlightened direction you experienced when considering the idea – I feel that too. I think this idea has legs. I’m going to ask Annie to do a piece on this idea, with some contributions and responses from Israelis and Palestinians (BTW I’m in Australia not Israel so not really in a position poll Israelis about the idea).

        • Sumud says:

          Thanks john h, maybe this is an idea whose time has come? I don’t know a whole lot about the breakdown of apartheid in SA, but I do know that Mandela’s inclusive thinking contributed greatly.

          I’m gonna ask Annie to do a piece on this, so hopefully: watch this space.

        • john h says:

          Sumud, you probably know that some of this has been going on quietly for years. For instance, the work and example of Elias Chacour, author of “Blood Brothers”.

          I love the name choice too. Jerusalem is often used biblically to encompass all the people of the land.

          Yeah, I’ll be watching this space!

        • MHughes976 says:

          What biblical passages are you thinking of, john h?

        • john h says:

          MHughes976, there aren’t as many as I had thought, but see what you make of these.

          Isaiah 52,62,65,66
          Matthew 23:37-38
          Galatians 4:22-31

          What believers look for in the final future is the New Jerusalem, which is called a homeland in Hebrews 11.

          By the way, what do you mean by “secular Christian”?

  42. DanMazella says:

    Clinton called Assad a reformer twice after thousands killed.
    She had the U.S ambassador praise Assad then called him a reformer to congress after 1,000 were killed then praised assad again after he killed thousands more.

  43. NickJOCW says:

    Clinton’s leaked remarks were obviously intentional and their significance is clear from the ripples. Taken together with Panetta’s impatience and the Belgium ambassador’s recent comment, they suggest an impending adjustment towards a more ‘normal’ relationship between the US and Israel. Kristol, who may be misguided but not a fool, probably sees this coming as does Ron Paul, and a host of others only now peeping out of the closet. My take, for what it’s worth, is that it is all strategically directed towards the liberal US voter. The mention of Iran was very feminine, pure revenge. Nice one!

  44. hophmi says:

    As a number of commentators point out, this bus segregation is no different in Chasidic communities in the United States. Therefore, if women’s rights are under siege in Israel because in very religious communities, women sit in the back, they are just as much under siege in the United States, where exactly the same thing happens. And it is, of course, hardly limited to the Jewish community, which worldwide, is about 16 million people. Discrimination against women is way, way more prevalent in the worldwide Muslim community, which is 1.5 billion people, and in terms of quantity, much greater in the worldwide Christian community, also around 1.5 billion people. Last I checked, the Pope was not sanctioning a women’s right to choose in cases of rape and incest.

    Of course, Phil did not highlight this part of Marcus’s article, which puts things into perspective:

    “The paradox of Israeli society is that women have long been in positions of power. The heads of the two opposition parties are women, as is the chief justice of the Israeli Supreme Court. Israel is the only country to draft women into the military.”

    And though I, like many liberal Zionists, are not fans of segregated busing under any circumstances, comparing it to Rosa Parks is wholly inappropriate. There is not, to my knowledge, a grassroots protest movement among women in the Chassidic community to end this practice.

    Her comments on some IDF soldiers leaving an event where there was female singing are also inappropriate. Why should it be undemocratic for soldiers to exercise their right not to listen to something? Is it your position that free speech means people must be forced to listen to women sing?

    As usual, Phil is crying wolf. There is no game changer here. This is an example of pinkwashing with womens’ rights – criticizing parts of the Middle East’s most advanced country in terms of womens’ rights in order to distract from much worse womens’ rights situations in literally every other country in the region.

    • Sumud says:

      This is an example of pinkwashing with womens’ rights – criticizing parts of the Middle East’s most advanced country in terms of womens’ rights in order to distract from much worse womens’ rights situations in literally every other country in the region.

      Oh hophmi, if only Israel would accept the Arab Peace Initiative you could actually travel to other countries in the region, and see how silly your hasbara comment is. The rights of women in Saudi Arabia are far far worse than those of women in Israel, obviously, but other countries, no. There are no gender segregated public transport systems anywhere in the region that I’m aware of. Persian Gulf countries such as the UAE have about 60% of tertiary education places taken by women, and women are active and powerful in the workforce, and increasingly so. There hasn’t been an outbreak of 60s style western feminism in the arab world, but arab women aren’t nearly as meek and powerless as you might hope.

    • eee says:

      Exactly. I agree with every word. As a secular Jew I don’t like what is happening but until there is a “grassroots protest movement among women in the Chassidic community to end this practice” there is nothing much that can be done in a democratic state. These are the choices of all (including women) in the community and they have to be respected.

      • Mooser says:

        “As a secular Jew”

        Oh, I see! Last week you were an “atheist Jew” and this week you’re a “secular Jew”. I can’t wait for next week, when you call yourself a ‘Christian Jew’ or maybe a ‘Moslem Jew’.
        I keep on trying to tell you, eee, don’t project your ziocaine syndrome amnesia on to everybody else.

    • dimadok says:

      Anything against Israel is good-Phil was just happy to jump the to the occasion.
      The fact is that Israel is one of the most feminist societies in world, where women can exercise their rights freely. Hence the backslash for the haredim, which I do not support at all.

      • Mooser says:

        “Hence the backslash for the haredim, which I do not support at all.”

        Yeah, I know, Dimadok. I mean, they’re so, so, well, Jewish, if you want to get right down to it. They must embarrass you terribly, being so overtly Jewish.

        • dimadok says:

          Mooser- you silly man. Not supporting their views does not mean that they are less Jewish than me or anybody else for that matter. Stop reacting-start thinking.

        • Mooser says:

          “Not supporting their views does not mean that they are less Jewish than me or anybody else for that matter.”

          You better check with your buddy “eee” on that. He’s the head of the Excommunication and Reinstatement department.

          And dimadok, I did my thinking, thank God, about forty years ago, and concluded (to keep it crisp) Zionism was a big loser. On every level. And at this time I want to extend my heartfelt thanks, my appreciation, and my gratitude to you, and eee and wondering and witty and the rest. If I ever had any doubts about my conclusions, you have done an amazing job of putting them to rest. So you will have to excuse me if I get a little smug, sometimes. I have never been proved so right on anything else. It’s almost embarrassing sometimes, as if you went out of your way to validate every negative conclusion I came to about Zionism. If you are doing that out of Jewish fellow-feeling, just trying to make me look good, stop already.

        • Mooser says:

          “Zionism was a big loser.”

          Make no mistake about this. I am not in any way minimising the persecution and troubles of the Jews. But I am positive that Zionism is not the answer for any of them, in fact, it is just another product of them, and a sure way to make things worse, and given the state of Judaism, probably the death-blow to organised Judaism.

    • marc b. says:

      As a number of commentators point out, this bus segregation is no different in Chasidic communities in the United States. Therefore, if women’s rights are under siege in Israel because in very religious communities, women sit in the back, they are just as much under siege in the United States, where exactly the same thing happens.

      commenters have already criticized this type of treatment of women, religious interference into what should be criminal investigations, etc. as it occurs in religious communities in the US. it’s no excuse for what goes on israel to claim that equally egregious behavior occurs elsewhere.

      Why should it be undemocratic for soldiers to exercise their right not to listen to something?

      written by someone who has apparently never served in the military. two points: 1. those serving in the military do not have the same ‘democratic’ rights as civilians; 2. since these soldiers are in effect government employees, their behavior at an event that is part of their millitary duties is subject to the supervision and approval of their superiors. do you think an atheist jew serving in the IDF would be permitted to disrupt the blessing of a rabbi being given to the troops?

    • Mooser says:

      Hophmi, if you are trying to tell us that Israel well eventually equal or exceed the crimes or discrimination practised against women in any part of the world at any time, you don’t have to bother. I’m sure everybody believes it.
      And I am pretty sure you’ve convinced everyone, over and over, that to Zionists, history is just one long litany of excuses for their own behavior (or worse, the inspiration for it).

  45. joer says:

    I don’t know how much of a game changer this is-or really if this type of thing is anything new. These types of issues-particularly dealing with Jewish religious fanatics or what size the smallest sliver of land should be that Palestine gets-allow Zionist supporters to keep a liberal persona while maintaining loyalty to the idea of Israel being a “Jewish state”. I’ve been dealing with this type of thing for years-where discussions about the root causes of the Israel/Palestine conflict are somehow directed into a “vibrant debate” about what direction Israel should take.

    • Donald says:

      “I’ve been dealing with this type of thing for years-where discussions about the root causes of the Israel/Palestine conflict are somehow directed into a “vibrant debate” about what direction Israel should take.”

      Well put.

  46. Mooser says:

    Is it time for me to post this link again, now that there’s been some troll turnover?
    Yes, I think it is. The article is as true today, maybe truer, than the day it was published. You have, no doubt, heard of the “four questions” of Passover. Here are the four central axioms of Hasbara

  47. I imagine HRC is being allowed to capitalize on an opportunity to look as if she champions the rights of women everywhere no matter who she has to take to task for it, because they have been assured that she will not actually take any action in support of her rhetoric.

    Same as it ever was.

  48. I didn’t hear Hillary giving a shit when religious rabbis call for the death of Arabs, or even the death of Gentiles in general, which includes herself. But now that some women can’t sing in front of the military, she’s all over it?

    I don’t think its right that someone demands women shouldn’t sing in front of the military, but I also can’t see how Hillarys comments are anything resembling deep, honest criticism of the larger Israeli right-wing attitude. She’s useless until she steps up and talks about more important issues.

  49. patm says:

    Ami Kaufman has a mind-boggling story up on 972.mag

    “Israel’s bizarre decision to give up on education – and its future”

    “As Israelis, Palestinians and the rest of the world deal with the crimes of the occupation and the possibilities of one state or two – Israel’s choices in education show it has already decided to give up on the state that already exists”

    link to 972mag.com