Surprise– courageous Elizabeth Warren is craven on Israel lobby

Elizabeth Warren from her site
Elizabeth Warren from her Senate campaign site

I’ve been waiting for this. Breathtaking. Elizabeth Warren is the lib-left consumer advocate in Cambridge running for Senate, and as PEP as they come (Progressive except Palestine). Max Blumenthal at Al Akhbar pulls the wool off our eyes:

While progressives celebrate Warren for her fight against the big banks and the financial industry’s lobbying arm, they have kept silent over the fact that she has enlisted with another powerful lobby that is willing to sabotage America’s economic recovery in order to advance its narrow interests. It is AIPAC, the key arm of the Israel lobby; a group that is openly pushing for a US war on Iran that would likely trigger a global recession, as the renowned economist Nouriel Roubini recently warned. The national security/foreign policy position page on Warren’s campaign website reads as though it was cobbled together from AIPAC memos and the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry by the Democratic Party hacks who are advising her. It is pure boilerplate that suggests she knows about as much about the Middle East as Herman “Uzbeki-beki-stan-stan” Cain, and that she doesn’t care.

Warren’s statement on Israel consumes far more space than any other foreign policy issue on the page (she makes no mention of China, Latin America, or Africa). To justify what she calls the “unbreakable bond” between the US and Israel, Warren repeats the thoughtless cant about “a natural partnership resting on our mutual commitment to democracy and freedom and on our shared values.” She then declares that the United States must reject any Palestinian plans to pursue statehood outside of negotiations with Israel. While the US can preach to the Palestinians about how and when to demand the end of their 45-year-long military occupation, Warren says the US “cannot dictate the terms” to Israel.

Warren goes on to describe Iran as “a significant threat to the United States,” echoing a key talking point of fear-mongering pro-war forces. She calls for “strong sanctions” and declares that the “United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon” — a veiled endorsement of a military strike if Iran crosses the constantly shifting American “red lines.” Perhaps the only option Warren does not endorse or implicitly support is diplomacy. Her foreign policy views are hardly distinguishable from those of her Republican rival, who also marches in lockstep with AIPAC.

Yes, now tell me what this is about?

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in American Jewish Community, Israel Lobby, Media, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics | Tagged

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

  1. dahoit says:

    Another pathetic alleged liberal.

    • Krauss says:

      This probably solidifies the fact that the Israel Lobby is the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. Wall St is powerful, but you can, after all, talk about it’s lobbyists. You can’t even mention the Israel Lobby in polite company.

      And you tell me which is more powerful: that which is spoken about or that which is hidden? It’s the same with the Koch brothers. The make great villains and I have no sympathy for them. But, really, do you think they are as powerful if they are constantly attacked in the media? The Wall St robber barrons never get profiled. Wall St is just one big gray zone.

      Power is most powerful where it is hidden, or at least silent. I remember a quote from an intellectual.. don’t rememeber his name but he is since long dead, and he was most active in the early post-war years all through the late 80s. He said that after all he had seen he had learn that the most powerful people, whether corporate, political or cultural, always explained that they were powerless and in fact the ‘real’ power was stashed away in some committee or working group.

      People with real power know that it’s best not to flaunt it. And the Israel Lobby knows it’s much more effective to ban all debate on the issue than allow it. Even if it is strong, by allowing debate means per definition of giving your enemies an advantage.

      So Ms. Warren takes on Wall St. But she dares not take on the Israel Lobby.
      The debate has already been settled for me for a long time, but I think most people who follow the situation closely are increasingly running out of excuses for not saying the obvious: there is no political force more powerful than the Israel Lobby. True, Wall St’s reach is wider and in some ways more harmful. But the Lobby’s power, when focused on foreign policy in the Middle East simply cannot be strayed or diluted. It is absolute.

      And this discussion has just yet begun. The debate has been shifted. And remember one thing: politicans are not ‘progressives’ by any standard or stretch. They are reactionary by nature. They want to get elected and please the status quo and the existing power structure.

      So look for progress at universities. That’s where the energy should be. And have patience. For this is a decade-long struggle. At least.

      • “Israel Lobby is the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. Wall St is powerful, but you can, after all, talk about it’s lobbyists. You can’t even mention the Israel Lobby in polite company.”

        The easist way to find out who is really in power in any country: Listen to folks and note about what and whom they are only talking in whispers.

      • dms says:

        One thing to consider is that Warren is not an expert on the Middle East while she has deep expertise on finance.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          She’s also terrible at maneuvering in DC, which is why she got cheated out of a job.

        • dahoit says:

          Right and wrong are foreign to expert,texperts of idiocy.

        • Citizen says:

          Yes, dms, that is likely very true. Her knowledge about Wall St is vast, and she renders her conclusions honestly; so I still support her, even though it is clear that she was seen as a viable candidate and so the Israel Firsters moved in to “help” her. Besides, her opponent is more status quo re Wall St AND is also supported by Israel Firsters, hedging all bets, so that, regardless if Wall St takes a hit, Israel retain its license to do whatever it want, and at US taxpayer expense. Interesting, wouldn’t you like to have a cup of coffee with her and discuss Ron Paul’s take on foreign policy?

        • dms says:

          Yes, Citizen, of course having coffee with Warren and Paul would be great. I am open to any time, if you can get to their calendars.

          But your use of the term “Israel Firster” is offensive. Did you mean it so? I hope not.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Why is it offensive, dms? She does put Israel first.

      • kapok says:

        Ms. Warren takes on Wall St. Kabuki at its finest.

      • Jeff Klein says:

        Someone I know attended a talk by Warren recently and wrote this:

        “I went to one of her fundraisers in JP — all very liberal types. Many party luminaries and officials were there. She gave the same stump speech we’ve all heard. They ‘allowed’ questions and I tried to make sure I was first so they wouldn’t stop me.

        I asked her directly about whether she had the courage to lead in the direction of peace in the Middle East, to resist the pandering to the Israeli govt and the language of Israel is our best friend right or wrong and find a more truthful representation of what is happening in Palestine.
        She replied that she didn’t need courage because she believes deeply that Israeli govt is our best friend and she would resist any attempts to change that.

        They then stopped having questions soon after, and when I tried to speak with her, they hustled her out the other door.”

  2. Dan Crowther says:

    YUP!!!

    Blumenthal is turning the corner, here is hoping for a continued exposing of the democratic party. And what an INDICTMENT that an american reporter has to write for a international journal in order to tell the truth.

    Greenwald has been saying the same thing about Warren – though not related to the Israel Lobby: working to get her elected, let alone idolizing her, is not all that wise.

  3. dms says:

    I’ve just started reading your blog and you (and your other posters and commenters) obviously have serious concerns.

    But about WHAT you are concerned is not clear.

    Ostensibly it is about Israel.

    But your single-minded hostility to Israel strikes a false chord — it is not just about justice for Palestinians or about Israel or American Jews.

    I’ll be reading and trying to understand to see if I can figure out the psychodrama. Many of your readers (all of your fellow posters) are probably decent well-meaning people. (Yes there a quite a few simple 100% bigots among the commenters.) But there is something so single-minded in your concern about Palestinians/Israel that I find out-of-proportion and unbalanced.

    But I will keep reading, for a while, anyway. Maybe I’ll figure it out.

    Best.

    • jewishgoyim says:

      We’re all dying to know what you think about us. Waiting for the grade. I hope it will be good! And whether you’re gonna think whether what we say is acceptable, questionable, repulsive… You decide.

      And if you think from time to time we are crossing some boundaries, please tell us because what we are really looking for if to fit into whatever orthodoxy you deem acceptable.

      • dms says:

        @JewishGoyim

        Thanks for your support and I will look carefully in general, and of course especially at your comments.

        • Citizen says:

          dms, thanks for sharing your initial impression. If you can find the time, you might choose a few search words and take advantage of the MW archives regarding anything you think you’ve seen as a Newbie here, and as indicative of half-baked or bias comments regarding the subject MW is dedicated to–you’re right, “it is not just about justice for Palestinians or about Israel or American Jews.” It’s also about justice per se, about humanitarian, Enlightenment principles, about Post-Nuremberg principles, and about the US-Israel “special relationship” and who it benefits, so in short, the subjects discussed here, by their nature, as case examples, reflect the macros of past and current history in the making. The 98% of Americans who are not Jewish, but are citizens of the only super-power, have a stake here too. As do all those foreigners who feel the impact of US foreign policy in the ME.

    • RoHa says:

      “But your single-minded hostility to Israel strikes a false chord”

      Are you suggesting that hostility to Israel is in some way wrong?
      If so, why? We should, surely, be hostile to evil, and Israel is undoubtedly evil in conception, evil in creation, and evil in conduct.

      • dms says:

        “Are you suggesting that hostility to Israel is in some way wrong?”
        Duh. Obviously so.

        “Israel is undoubtedly evil in conception, evil in creation, and evil in conduct.”
        Your remark is so off-the-wall and over-drawn, so preposterous and ill-informed, that you must be some sort of agent provocateur from AIPAC to make Weiss et al and Mondoblog look very very bad.

        Or, I can’t take your remark as anything but stupid. There is no charitable way to explain-away such idiocy. Please go away.

        • There is no charitable way to explain-away such idiocy

          i totally agree! let’s throw RoHa’s ‘evil’ references in with the nutjob claims about simple 100% bigots @ MW!

          whoops, i guess that means you. like jg said “We’re all dying to know what you think about us.”/not

        • dms says:

          Thanks for your concern, Annie.
          It’s great to receive such a nice welcome. :)

          I’ll offer my opinions as appropriate.
          And, don’t worry, I’ll try to be gentle.
          I think you and I may have some substantial disagreements but hey! I’m a liberal! and I am tolerant of a wide variety of opinions, unless they are just dumb-dumb-dumb.
          (Single dumb is often OK if the person means-well-but-ignorant. It’s when you get into double- and triple-dumbs that I get a bit impatient. But I am sure that you understand.)

        • I’ll offer my opinions as appropriate.

          in this regard you have something in common with everyone here.

        • dms says:

          Fabulous!
          Then we are off to a great start:
          There are few facts here and mostly opinion.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Just because you chose to shoah deny doesn’t mean there aren’t facts. It just makes you ignorant. Probably willfully so.

        • Shingo says:

          And, don’t worry, I’ll try to be gentle.

          Please don’t be. We can take it, and no doubt, the talking points and pre prepared responses you have ready to roll out will be all too familiar.

          So let it out. Say what’s on your mind and let’s get this over and done with. We’ve already dealt with Izik and Shaktiman in the last 2weeks.

          We should have you sliced and diced in a couple of hours.

        • RoHa says:

          ‘“Are you suggesting that hostility to Israel is in some way wrong?”
          Duh. Obviously so. ‘

          Why is hostility to Israel wrong?

          “Your remark is so off-the-wall and over-drawn, so preposterous and ill-informed,”

          I’m afraid it is you who are ill-informed about basic morality.

          Israel was conceived as an ethnic-supremacy state, to be run by Jews for the benefit of Jews. (According to Zionist writings.) This is an evil idea. It denies equal rights to people who are not of the selected ethnicity.

          Israel was created by terrorism and ethnic cleansing. Clearly evil.

          Israels conduct is that of continuing ethnic cleansing, violations of human rights, murder and war crimes. Clearly evil.

          If you do not know this, you are totally ignorant of the reality of the situation.

        • Citizen says:

          I agree RoHa; many of the rank and file cannon fodder of Zionism actually believed at the time they went to Israel from Europe that where they were going was literally a “a land without people for a people without land.” YouTube has a video of one of these guys stating exactly that, a guy who felt guilty about how he murdered the innocent natives once he got to Palestine. When asked why so few early Zionist cannon fodder have spoken of this in public over the years, he says he doesn’t know, but his best guess is that they believed they were the heros the Zionist community immediately made them at the time, and they have clung to that fictional reality ever since. I would add, Americans, led by Jewish Americans, have allowed the fiction to continue. Gentiles, because it’s been politically convenient, or because they are Christian fundies, and Jewish Americans because, in their thinking, why should I upset the apple cart that can only favor me and mine in Goyland?

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Or an active participant, RoHa.

    • Chaos4700 says:

      Here’s what I’m concerned about, dms.

      Never again.

    • marc b. says:

      But your single-minded hostility to Israel strikes a false chord — it is not just about justice for Palestinians or about Israel or American Jews.

      . . .

      But I will keep reading, for a while, anyway. Maybe I’ll figure it out.

      actually, i wouldn’t waste your time. i doubt that you’ll figure out much here or anywhere else for that matter. this site is dedicated to the discussion of politics in the ME in general, and the I/P conflict in particular. if you find this ‘obsessiveness’ distasteful or pathological, there are literally millions of other places to go.

      i do sympathize with your concern about ‘single-mindedness’ to a degree, though. i regularly visit the ESPN site and beg them not to be so obsessed with sports when there are so many other important issues in the world. ‘why all this air time devoted to lebron james or jeremy lin, when there is so much suffering going on in darfur?’, i ask. but, alas, they don’t seem to care.

    • Citizen says:

      dms, you say you just started coming to MW, but, assuming you’ve watched the US mainstream media and politicians discussing American foreign policy in the ME, say, since 9/11, would you characterize those much more prevailing opinions accessible daily to the American masses in the MSM–displayed a “single minded hostility” to Iraq? And, lately, the same “single-minded hostility” to Iran? Have you been watching the GOP POTUS campaign debates? Just asking. You write as if MW is the NYT, WaPO, or the WSJ, or CNN, MSNBC, or Fox cable channels–rather, I suggest to you, MW is the tiny voice contrary to that avalanche of propaganga regarding Israel, and the real impact of the US “special relationship” with Israel, both on America, and on the world, especially Palestinians.

    • Ostensibly it is about Israel. But your single-minded hostility to Israel strikes a false chord

      why are you here? why not hang out at a blog with more variation if what you see here is single-mindedness?

      I will keep reading, for a while, anyway. Maybe I’ll figure it out.

      rings a false cord, a little too concerned trollish if you ask me.

  4. pabelmont says:

    Ho-hum. I didn’t know, but am hardly surprised. She IS a USA politician, after all, and trying to be electable. Many Americans will benefit from her educational efforts w.r.t. banking. In time, perhaps she’ll benefit from education about Palestine. But consumer-protection will be quite dead if its chief spokesperson is shot down by AIPAC.

  5. Les says:

    Is she openly running as an agent of a foreign power?

    • Citizen says:

      NO, Les, Warren is just one smart, educated, professionally aware Gentile who is incensed at what Wall St has done to the USA, and continues to do–that’s a lot all by itself. What she offers is the means to actually curb Wall St power in a root way, something neither Obama nor the GOP is willing to do–right now, she’s absorbed in that giant task, and has not had time to look into our special relationship with Israel , and the Israel Firsters have taken advantage of that, eying her strength in the field of banking policy–at present, I surmise, because she has her hands so full, she has not had any time to look into US foreign policy in the ME, so has, for now, bought the AIPAC package, which comes with benefits she needs just to survive as a real opponent of the banking cartel.

  6. Chaos4700 says:

    That’s great and all, but if anyone hasn’t noticed, she can be as PEP as she wants and she’s got all of the political influence presently that Cindy Sheehan has right now, and it’s actually rather a shame on both accounts in spite of Warren’s pandering.

    Warren doesn’t have money and she doesn’t have enough friends in the Lobby. Who’s running the new consumer protection agency again?

    • Citizen says:

      Yeah, Chaos, Warren made the consumer protection agency viable, and she did not get that job. Obama. He has a history of initially supporting real game-changers, and then backing off, and ignoring them. Cairo Speech? Chas Freeman? Mitchell? Dempsey-next to be cold-shouldered by the Candyman, Obama? Boils down to he’s like Santorum, who blamed his inconsistent voting habits on having “to take a hit for the team,” the team, in Obama’s case, meaning the ultimate pricy value, AIPAC backing.

  7. RE: “Surprise– courageous Elizabeth Warren is craven on Israel
    lobby” ~ Weiss

    ALSO SEE: An Exchange with Rocky Anderson On Humanitarian Intervention, by John Walsh, Antiwar.com, 2/07/12

    (excerpt) A few days back I received an announcement from Rocky Anderson, announcing the platform of his newly formed Justice Party. Although social justice was mentioned prominently along with the desperate economic plight of many in the U.S., I was struck by the fact that the struggle against war was not prominently mentioned and the question of the U.S. Empire and overseas bases seemed to get no mention. “Human Rights,” an increasingly plastic category at least in the hands of the U.S. ruling elite, figures prominently in Anderson’s campaign literature and world view. I was further surprised that “High Road to Human Rights,” an organization founded by Anderson, counted on its board of advisers, Elie Wiesel, a defender of the Apartheid Israeli regime. On the other hand, Anderson was a staunch opponent of the war on Iraq and even the war on Libya, the latter because it lacked Congressional approval.
    I wondered about Anderson’s commitment to anti-interventionism and his view on “humanitarian” interventions, something that should be crystal clear from someone who is trying to appeal to progressives. The following email exchange resulted…

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to antiwar.com

  8. HarryLaw says:

    DMS This site is dedicated to resolving the Israel/Palestine question, it is hostile to Israel only because Israel flouts International Law in such a brazen manner and is enabled to do so by the US government, I suspect most commentators on this site wish to see a fair resolution based on the two states model as put foreward by all US presidents and many UN resolutions. Palestinians have suffered 45 years of cruel military occupation, it is an end to this injustice, and it must be said to save Israel from itself that this site, in my opinion is devoted to.

    • dms says:

      Thanks for your comment, HarryLaw.

      I hope that you are correct and perhaps my first impression (this blog is full of anger about Israel to the exclusion of virtually any other injustice — and I acknowledge that Israeli policy is in some instances is foolish and unproductive) is not accurate.

      Best.

      • Chaos4700 says:

        Three billion a year in American tax money to blow the limbs off of Palestinian and Lebanese school children and you’re mystified as to why people are mad at Israel? Do you also wonder why Hitler is such a remarkably despised person in history too? I’m just curious how far your capacity at equivocation extends.

      • Shingo says:

        this blog is full of anger about Israel to the exclusion of virtually any other injustice — and I acknowledge that Israeli policy is in some instances is foolish and unproductive

        In some instances huh? I take it your ambivalent about their drive for war with Iran even thought the US and Israeli intelligence communities agree Iran is not pursuing nukes.

        And frankly, I don’t buy your argument that you are all that perplexed about the fact this blog is full of anger about Israel to the exclusion of virtually any other injustice . You obviously sought out this blog and claim to have been reading it for some time.

        Of all the political blogs out there, why did you seek this one out if not for the fact that you have a personal stake in this conflict?

        You PEP’s are so easy to read.

        • Citizen says:

          Shingo, yes, dms seems to not take note of the fact the 98% Gentile US is keeping Israel immune from its land grabbing and oppression of the natives, whether treated as second class citizens in Israel, or as people without rights in the OT. Dms, if you are an American taxpayer, do you think this is a good way to spend American tax dollars?

      • mig says:

        dms :

        this blog is full of anger about Israel to the exclusion of virtually any other injustice

        Remember Darfur ! Tibet ! And what else but dont for a God sake talk about Israel. Right ?

      • mikeo says:

        dms – Here you go, link to tibettruth.com

        You won’t get any joy from the one-track-minders on this website – god knows I’ve tried

        But pop on over to tibet truth – they might be prepared to step out of their China-focused ghetto and look seriously at what is going on in Israel/Palestine.

    • tokyobk says:

      Most commenting on this site probably believe in one Palestinian state and BDS as a last peaceful attempt to get there, IMO.

  9. seafoid says:

    Warren goes on to describe Iran as “a significant threat to the United States”

    Its own plutocrats are the biggest threat to the future of the US. Just look at the circus that is the Republican nomination. Iran doesn’t have the power to turn the US back 80 years to the 1930s. The GOP does.

    • Citizen says:

      Warren does not get specific about why she thinks Iran is a “significant” threat to the US. She should talk to Zbig–at least send a lackey to get Zbig’s opinion, although he gives it freely if her staff is awake. She needs to stand for Americans as against the banking powers, but also against the Israel Lobby–I guess she would, if she knew more?

  10. jewishgoyim says:

    Elizabeth Warren has as much teeth as a toothless old lady (do I get a prize for this metaphor or what? Does it even qualify as a metaphor? I truly wonder…).

  11. Did anyone try to educate her? Maybe she has really no idea about what’s going on in Israel/Palestine?

    Hook her up with Rachel Corries parents, for example. If, after that, she still copy and pastes AIPAC, get rid of her ASAP.

  12. optimax says:

    Wasn’t Weener a PEP? I always liked Warren’s economic analysis and solutions, but I’m beginning to think the US is a lost cause destroying itself for the benefit of a paranoid little country.

    • Chaos4700 says:

      Weiner was worse. He was a traitor. Israel killed a US citizen in international waters on a Turkish civilian vessel, and Weiner proceeded to address Turkey as “our former ally.”

      The Lobby will take down NATO if that’s what the Lobby wants. No American interest is safe from Israel’s demands.

  13. chrisjj says:

    No surprise at all, and I’m sure the author intended the irony. Sadly, one tends to find that Democrat politicians rather than Republicans are the most sycophantic as far as the Israel Lobby is concerned. As a new naturalized citizen, ten or so years ago, I recall getting my first shocking first hand taste of America’s big unspoken problem in it’s political system (the disproportionate influence of lobbyists over our ‘representatives’) when I took advantage of my right as a citizen to 10 minutes one-on-one with my Representative in the House. This woman, while progressive in every other respect sat white faced and completely nonplussed when I asked her why she voted in favor of Israel’s apartheid wall. She muttered something unintelligible and promptly tried to change the subject. Until we eliminate the influence of powerful (especially foreign) lobbies in Congress, this nation will continue not to be a shining example of democracy in the world. As for Warren, she deserves no one’s vote – she is either duplicitous or ignorant and both attributes disqualify her for high office (from a moral standpoint at least – on the other hand I guess she’ll fit right in to the Senate as almost all the other Senators are similarly morally corrupt when it comes to the question of Palestine).

  14. Peter in SF says:

    Elizabeth Warren: “Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons

    Doesn’t she belong to the same party as this guy:

    Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense: “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.” (Jan. 8, 2012)

    And what about this guy, who also works for the administration:

    Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “We also know or believe we know that the Iranian regime has not decided that they will embark on the — or the effort to weaponize their nuclear capability.” (Feb. 20, 2012)

  15. Anar Green says:

    A person who believes in the system, and who aims to change it from within, is very valuable. While I might not share her stances in foreign affairs, or even necessarily her belief in the likelihood of success, her economic goals are worthy of my support.

    At any rate, carte blanche should never be given–Obama being an obvious case in point.

    Also, as I have never heard her comment on international affairs, it would not surprise me if I were to discover that she does not hold such foreign policy stances with even cognizant conviction! I rather get the impression that, to wit, someone like Mitt Romney gets his foreign-policy stances the way one would provision at an outfitters! They are just required accoutrements of running for that office! Hence, the blue-cheese brick of neo-cons he’s got.

    • dahoit says:

      Is she for bringing back all our jobs that the globalists have sent overseas in pursuit of profit over people?How about an audit of the FED?I doubt it,and to tell the truth,her face inspires me to say she looks like an idiot,or a deer in the headlights.
      Nice teeth,though,agreed.

      • Anar Green says:

        If, for you, she has no credibility in financial matters, then there is no reason left to vote for her. If, OTOH, you feel that she does, then the issue (addressed by me, above) is whether her apparent IP stance should stop you.

    • Citizen says:

      Anar Green, I think your comment reflects the likely reality–She knows more about what’s wrong with our banking system in detail than most people, and that itself takes up her time, and is the basis of her congressional run now–she should be supported for that alone, especially since her competitor parrots hasbara too–she does not strike me as a person who does not have the character to fight against the Israel Firsters, in the future. We need her. She will get up to speed–I don’t think she’s running for office not to help us all.

  16. Tuyzentfloot says:

    It’s all very nice to demand from politicians they take a principled stance, but if I were to advise an american politician I’d make very clear that if they want to get anything done, even completely unrelated to Israel, it will be very much harder if they deviate from the standard pro-israel positions. From a pragmatic point of view it makes sense to pick your fights wisely, and not take a principled position that is a losing game anyway. Warren has valuable things to offer for regulation of the financial sector. Do you want her to compromise that?

    Now there is still a big difference between internalizing this pro-israel stance and being aware and prepared for making a switch when the opportunity arises(what we call ‘opportunistic’). The first opposes change, the second requires a kind of threshold beyond which things start moving. I suppose she’s in the first category.

    • seafoid says:

      There must be more than a few pols in the US who would be ready to jump ship when the wind shifts away from Israel.
      The blowback is going to be massive when it happens.
      It’s very hard to see the US and Israel relating to each other over the next 2 generations given the processes underway now in Israel .

  17. Newclench says:

    Warren can have a lot more influence over Wall St. than foreign policy. I expect she wants to remove I/P from the table in her election campaign. Any reason for why that wouldn’t be the smartest political strategy?

    • i’m not sure what you mean newclencher. if she wanted to remove i/p from the table she has an odd way of doing it:

      Warren’s statement on Israel consumes far more space than any other foreign policy issue on the page (she makes no mention of China, Latin America, or Africa). To justify what she calls the “unbreakable bond” between the US and Israel, Warren repeats the thoughtless cant about “a natural partnership resting on our mutual commitment to democracy and freedom and on our shared values.” She then declares that the United States must reject any Palestinian plans to pursue statehood outside of negotiations with Israel. While the US can preach to the Palestinians about how and when to demand the end of their 45-year-long military occupation, Warren says the US “cannot dictate the terms” to Israel.

      sounds very ‘on the table’ to me.

      • seafoid says:

        I thought this was very good

        Baron Cohen had been engaging in a war of words with the Academy all week, after they objected to his plan to appear in character at the awards ceremony. Baron Cohen responded by accusing them of being “Zionists” on a filmed appearance on NBC.

        • Dan Crowther says:

          Yeah Clencher her reasons for “removing I/P from the table” are as follows: Newton, Wellesley, Brookline, Dover, Sherborn, Needham, Longmeadow, Northampton, Amherst, Sharon, Cambridge/Somerville……….

        • seafoid, i don’t like him. i think he’s an islamophobe. can you imagine hollywood promoting an arab or muslim actor making a reputation off impersonating jews in an unfavorable light? hello.

        • Dan Crowther says:

          i agree with annie — when he first started, i thought the jokes about jews were there to add a sense of shock – but then you realize he is impersonating a muslim guy who loathes jews, and makes it seem like this is true of all muslims.

          I admit, i used to laugh at his sht, not so much anymore…..

        • Baltim says:

          Baron Cohen isn’t an islamophobe, he’s a goyimphobe. Rewatch Borat, the only people cast in a sympathetic light in the whole film are the elderly Jewish couple who offer him food. Everyone else is shown as boorish and unintelligent.

          With everyone else

        • Citizen says:

          Yes, Cohen is a goyimophobe, specializing in belittling Eastern European goys and arab goys. Imagine if somebody did his stupid skits, say taking place in an Israeli settlement, in Brooklyn orthodox community, or in Larry David’s environs.

        • seafoid says:

          Annie

          I know but it was still funny. It just shows how soiled the term Zionist has become

        • i think after reading an article about some guy he represented as being a representative of a terrorist organization, and he never disclosed he wasn’t. he fabricated a false id for the guy and as an audience member i believed cohen, that the guy was some militant or representative of a militant org. and he wasn’t. all he was was palestinian. it’s one thing to fake your own identity (and the audience is made aware it is fake) it is another thing to use an unwilling/unauthorized participant as representing a terrorist. i never liked him after that. it turned my stomach.

      • Newclench says:

        Annie, do you understand why politicians bother to have positions at all? Given how our system works?
        The goal of any politician is to get rid of conversations that don’t advance the message. Lots of text on a website has zero to do with that. If Warren wins, it will be because her messaging on Wall Street works. Any deviation from the most normative, centrist Dem line will cost her votes and be distracting.
        I wouldn’t venture to make any guesses about her actual opinions based on what her website says, and there is little evidence that f.p. concerns matter to her very much at all.

        • newclencher, i noticed you ignored my point about your framing and diverted the conversation by asking me a question implying i don’t know why politicians have positions.

          i understand the point you are trying to make i just would appreciate you making it sans the lingo pretending a strong aipac/lobby/pro israel position is benign. i think the way you put it (again) was she wants to remove I/P from the table. as if ‘ strong aipac/lobby/pro israel position’ is ‘removed’ or hidden. as if we have all internalized this pro position to the pt it virtually ‘disappears’ the topic : “far more space than any other foreign policy issue on the page” and “unbreakable bond” between the US and Israel and “a natural partnership …our shared values.”

          these are extreme positions albeit not extreme within the dem party who has virtually aligned with those on the right over israel.

          and here you do it again: The goal of any politician is to get rid of conversations that don’t advance the message.

          warren is not “getting rid of a message”, she is promoting one. if she were “getting rid of a message” she would say nothing. this is not nothing: “United States must reject any Palestinian plans to pursue statehood outside of negotiations with Israel”

          so, you can either address what i am saying or you can pretend this ‘ strong aipac/lobby/pro israel position’ is making something disappear. the only thing it makes disappear is lobbiests breathing down her neck. as if they were the only ones who mattered.

          i don’t think it was necessarily your intention to use that framing, it could be you yourself have internalized this message to the degree is blends into the woodwork. but for many it doesn’t. it is like fingernails on chalkboard.

        • Citizen says:

          Yes, Warren has her hands more than full simply staying on message regarding Wall St and what it has done, is doing to us all–with the aid of government.

        • Newclench says:

          I disagree with Warren’s stated position. It wouldn’t surprise me if she does too, and just had a consultant borrow language from AIPAC. The goal is to NOT discuss this issue (if you are Warren) and you do that by coming up with a position likely to be identical to that of her opponent, Scott Brown. Not having a position, or having one less loyal to Israel, would make it an issue.
          I’m all in favor of going after electeds for being awful on I/P. But let’s be strategic – go after them when it makes sense. Warren is conforming here, not leading. And while that doesn’t make her any better than other Senators – it doesn’t make her any worse. And so, I disagree with anyone singling her out over this issue. Feels…. besides the point.
          That said, yes, the boilerplate text she has as a ‘position’ is gross. Boring, typical, non newsworthy gross.
          I hope she wins!

        • Dan Crowther says:

          She might not. Scooter Brown is still relatively popular. We always get the rap of “hippy tree hugging massachusetts” but thats really not that accurate – the carpetbaggers (most) are of that variety – but natives? We still got a little Appalachia in us. And after Coakley, and a host of others (Shannon O’Brien comes to mind) the Mass Democratic party is almost universally loathed…..I wouldnt be surprised if Brown wins again- and again, who the F cares, it doesnt matter at all.

        • The goal is to NOT discuss this issue (if you are Warren) and you do that by coming up with a position likely to be identical to that of her opponent, Scott Brown.

          thanks NC. i agree with you here. just keeping a watch out for framing. it’s so sad a politician has to put extreme views on their website in order to not discuss a topic.

  18. piotr says:

    “This [congress]woman, while progressive in every other respect sat white faced and completely nonplussed when I asked her why she voted in favor of Israel’s apartheid wall. She muttered something unintelligible and promptly tried to change the subject.”

    In those sad times, we have to be happy if our representatives do not get red faced and shouting rather than white faced and mumbling. I think that this congresswoman deserves a warning from AIPAC and a place on “watch list”.

    Just for sadistic pleasure, I would prepare a question for Elisabeth Warren how big sacrifices of American consumers would be justified for the sake of eliminating nuclear threat from Iran (or would she agree with a strategy that makes such sacrifices unnecessary).

    I would not dare to ask if she support the right of Jews to live anywhere in their God given homeland and what is her view on the Covenant. If she is smart, she should reply that she is still studying the issue, although the next question should be if a crypto-anti-Semite would not give the same answer.

    A question to our intrepid reporter: one may guess that Warren did not type all the text on Israel and Iran by herself, after all she is a member of a political party and the political positions should not be copyrighted. Can one see some striking similarities of her “foreign policy” pages with pages of other politicians? Some patterns?

  19. Kathleen says:

    I wondered when this would happen. Have heard her make comments about Iran awhile back that really put me on alert. One would hope that she has her head and brain in a brown bag on this issue and just has not accessed the facts. Hard to imagine for such a brilliant person. Terribly dissapointing. Folks should think about contacting her. Sending or handing her factual information. Terribly dissapointing.

    We want to hear from you. Please use the form on the right to submit your questions or comments.

    Please visit our volunteer page if you are interested in signing up and visit our donate page if you want to support the campaign with a contribution.

    Contact us at:
    Elizabeth for MA
    PO Box 290568
    Boston, MA 02129
    617-286-6715

    Or visit our campaign headquarters at:
    5 Middlesex Ave, First Floor
    Somerville, MA (map)

  20. Kathleen says:

    Phil so much about Israel, Netanyahu’s visit with Obama, Iran on both Chris Hayes Up program on Sunday and on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria’s GPS program on Sunday. So much. Jeremy Scahill rolled right over Anne Marie Slaughters inflammatory claims about Iran. Although she did get on last shot in at the very end when she repeated the lie that Iran “wants to wipe Israel off the map” Scahill was amazing and so informative as usual
    upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com

    Dr. Zbig Bryzezinski said many things that would have answered one of the questions that Chris Hayes asked Slaughter about whether there was anything the US could do to stop Israel from striking Iran. Slaughter said “no”
    Dr. Zbig had lots of suggestions to stop Israel from making such a huge mistake
    globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com

  21. piotr says:

    Let me check if I understand you, Kathleen: you propose to donate to Warren’s campaign and in the same time, attach “educational” message.

    This may be astute. In a democracy, the representatives will not be much more enlightened than the population. It Warren will do the right thing from “except Israel” point of view, i.e. build a political and financial base that is not dependent on big checks from fat cats, she will not be wedded to AIPAC.

    In most cynical political terms, Americans are “pro-Israel” if the question is phrased that way, and “anti-settlement” if the question is phrased that way. Tragically, the second question is not raised in the press etc. I perceived a certain attempt of Obama to used that angle in a positive way, but well, that was it. War on Iran is the issue that may a Sicilian Expedition for neo-cons and Zionists. It seems that Republican attacks on Obama on that issue increase the popularity of Obama. The public is tied of money and blood spent on wars that go nowhere. Right now we pay 50 cents on each gallon just for war mongering. Or a dollar, hard to tell.

    If a politician is not ideologically wedded to a position, she will respond to polls and donations. And Elisabeth Warren seems a good person. (very nice pic)

  22. Props to Phil and Max for shedding light on Warren’s PEP-ness.

    I must say I’m disillusioned. I admire her for standing up for consumers against the fraud perpetrated by Wall Street, and I thought it was gutless how Obama caved to their lobbyists and refused to appoint her to head of the CFPB. I donated money to her campaign for Senate.

    I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this is an issue on which she’s grossly misinformed. Hell, a lot of Americans are. And maybe taking two powerful lobbies head-on is just something that her fledgling campaign is not yet strong enough to do?

  23. weindeb says:

    Methinks AIPAC doth make cowards of us all.