Yesterday Paul Krugman, the Times columnist, Princeton professor and Nobel laureate, wrote a column about Romney peeling off wealthy backers from Obama and said they were leaving Obama because of his economic policies:
according to them, it’s because he “demonizes” business — or as Mitt Romney put it earlier this week, he “attacks success.” …
Needless to say, this is crazy….
they also insist that their perception that Mr. Obama doesn’t like them is at the root of our economic problems. Businesses aren’t investing, they say, because business leaders don’t feel valued…This, too, is crazy
But one issue that is separating Obama from some former backers, including Daniel Loeb, who held a big Romney fundraiser with Ron Perelman two weeks back, is his perceived hostility to Israel. Loeb now funds the Emergency Committee for Israel, which bashes Obama all the time.
That is the reason Romney is holding a fundraiser in Jerusalem next week: he is demonstrating his Israel bona fides, and trying to light a fire under Obama donors. As the Wall Street Journal put it a year ago:
Jewish donors and fund-raisers are warning the Obama re-election campaign that the president is at risk of losing financial support because of concerns about his handling of Israel.
Or as John Heilemann of New York Magazine said on Hardball, Obama has alienated “a lot of Jewish donors,” because of his Israel policy. ”It is a real problem,” Heilemann said. “[B]ack in 2008… the core of his support of the financial community, the core of his support in terms of fundraising was Wall Street donors… He can’t afford to lose any major bundler support…”
Israel is obviously a factor in the big-money defections. How large a factor I don’t know. This is surely one reason Jewish Democrats are trying to position Obama to Romney’s right on the issue– because rich Jews who donate on the basis of Israel are so conservative. Krugman has the ability to call some of these folks; but he won’t go near the subject. Why not? Because he would have to open the door on the role in our politics of inflexible Jewish support for Israel’s inflexible policies.
Krugman explained it himself back in April in a mild defense of Peter Beinart (emphasis mine):
The truth is that like many liberal American Jews — and most American Jews are still liberal — I basically avoid thinking about where Israel is going. It seems obvious from here that the narrow-minded policies of the current government are basically a gradual, long-run form of national suicide — and that’s bad for Jews everywhere, not to mention the world. But I have other battles to fight, and to say anything to that effect is to bring yourself under intense attack from organized groups that try to make any criticism of Israeli policies tantamount to anti-Semitism.
So he obfuscates.
Jewish money or no Jewish money, at some point the United States of Israel is going to upset folks back in the USofA.
There is a line that can be walked only so far until there is a backlash. It is stupid for the Democrats to be positioning themselves a hairsbreadth to the left of the Republican Party.
To position themselves to the right of the Republican party leaves them open to being the one to take the fall when the hits the fan.
Who knows – maybe there will be unintended consequences. Perhaps the Republican Party will go so completely wingy that they will alienate themselves. Or perhaps the majority of Americans will fail to notice or even worse be truly represented? Or perhaps the US will continue its slide into authoritarian “democracy” with no recourse for the majority of the population.
It is also stupid for mainstream Jewish groups to continue to pray towards Jerusalem. There may be a backlash against recognized Jewish groups as well over the creation of the United States of Israel. There’s a reason that separation of church and state is so important.
Edwin wrote:
“Jewish money or no Jewish money, at some point the United States of Israel is going to upset folks back in the USofA.”
Please don’t write about “Jewish money”. There is nothing immoral about people having money. Judaism is a good religion. Just as good and honorable as Sunni-sim, Buddhism, Zorastrianism, Shia-ism, Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity or Sufi-ism. Every religion has money and power, not just Judaism. Many countries have powerful lobbies in the US. China, Brazil, Israel, Mexico, UK, India, Turkey, France, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea and Singapore. This is a good thing. There is nothing wrong with Israel also having a lobby in the US. The Israeli lobby isn’t that powerful. Not as powerful as Silicon Hills in Texas, Microsoft, China, Corn farmers, the Mexican lobby or other powerful American lobbies.
Israel is quite a bit poorer than Hong Kong or Singapore per capita. In many ways Israel is similar to Taiwan or South Korea. Similar stage of economic development, similarly advanced military industry (South Korea is more advanced than Israel or Taiwan), similar large military budgets (altough the South Korean and Taiwanese militaries are probably higher quality than the IDF), similar strenght in high technology and venture capital. Similarly strong education system (arguably Israel is slightly behind South Korea and Taiwan in education.) Exaggerating Israel’s importance serves no purpose.
“There is a line that can be walked only so far until there is a backlash. It is stupid for the Democrats to be positioning themselves a hairsbreadth to the left of the Republican Party.”
What do you mean by left or right regarding Israel? Many Americans on the right want to end US aid to Israel. I think Israel should beat them to the punch and voluntarily renounce receiving any future aid from US taxpayers.
Israel has kicked America around several times. So have many other countries around the world. How is Israel any different from any other normal country?
Among the things Israel has done to America include:
1) Giving F-16 technology to China (J-10 4.5 gen fighter) in contravention of commitments to the US
2) Giving advanced radar tech to China in contravention of commitments to the US
3) Selling other advanced equipment to China
4) Sending advanced military equipment to Serbia right before the 1999 NATO Kosovo war [Israel and Serbia have an alliance of sorts . . . part of it is their shared fight against Naziism]
5) Repeatedly walking all over Obama’s line in the sand
6) Repeatedly walking all over papa Bush regarding settlements in the early 1990s
7) Not helping America during the Vietnam War, Gulf War I, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
8) Keeping close relations with the USSR and Russia . . . despite quite a bit of disapproval on America’s part. Russia remains one of Israel’s closest allies.
All of this is true. However, similar things can be said for many other countries around the world.
“To position themselves to the right of the Republican party leaves them open to being the one to take the fall when the hits the fan.” What does this mean? Israel isn’t that right wing. Many of Israel’s economic policies are socialist. Significantly to the left of American Democrats and Republicans.
“Who knows – maybe there will be unintended consequences. Perhaps the Republican Party will go so completely wingy that they will alienate themselves. Or perhaps the majority of Americans will fail to notice or even worse be truly represented?” Why do you think the Republicans will go socialist?
“Or perhaps the US will continue its slide into authoritarian “democracy” with no recourse for the majority of the population.” What does that even mean? The US is as free now as it has ever been. Most countries around the world are now free democracies too. America has played a valuable role along with the rest of the free world in facilitating this.
Interesting, because the pro-Israel crowd is complaining about Obama in similar terms. They can’t put their finger on any particular anti-Israel policy or decision, but they feel that Obama “doesn’t love Israel” and are convinced that this has a real impact on Israel’s welfare. So they’re transferring their support to a candidate who “values” them.
Shmuel- Please.
Obama’s heart was revealed in his speech in Cairo. All the compromising that he’s done since is not of his heart, it is of necessity and practicality.
In my case, I am pleased by the heart revealed in Cairo. (Although it revealed an amateurish practical side.) That is because I believe change is necessary and the sooner the better. Those who are opposed to change in the status quo are right to oppose Obama. They don’t need proof beyond the Cairo speech. That’s his heart and it ain’t on the side of the status quo-niks.
Or the speech was an attempt at a new kind of diplomacy with the Arab world, after the disaster that was George W. Bush, and his subsequent actions have been far more representative of what’s in his heart. Or maybe he doesn’t have a heart at all and just does whatever seems most expedient at the moment. It’s not easy to tell when a politician is lying and making promises he never intends to keep, and when he is revealing his true inner self – especially a smooth operator like Barack Obama.
On the one hand you have the middle-namers and the birthers sowing just enough doubt and, on the other hand, you have the his-hands-are-tied we-know-the-second-term-will-be-better folks sowing just enough hope (or fear, depending on your perspective).
The fact is that Obama has been at least as friendly to Israel and business as any of his predecessors or rivals, and without the birther-Hussein crap and associated hysteria, the Cairo speech probably would have been long forgotten.
And his second term (if he gets one) will be more of the same, because even if he really is the reincarnation of Ayatollah Khomeini and Josef Stalin all rolled into one, his party and all the other interested parties will never let him harm a hair on Little Satan or Big Business’s head.
Shmuel-
” Or maybe he doesn’t have a heart at all and just does whatever seems most expedient at the moment.”
I’ll go with this analysis. Obama rode a populist wave to the WH but he’s led as a heartless pragmatist who lacks passionate empathy and courage. After making some noise about halting settlemant construction, healthcare reform and banking reform, he then beat a retreat. Did he believe that by comprimising on Israel, healthcare and no strings attatched bank bail outs that he’d be winning the support of moderates and people on the right? It’s not clear to me what his strategy is about but it certainly hasn’t won him any support in terms of campaign financing or votes. Once he revealed his agenda to his opponenets he wasn’t going to win back their sympathy by “meeting them halfway.” He would have had more success using his bully pulpit to take his case to American voters with a clear description of the facts. He has yet to use his bully pulpit. The scarecrow’s refrain comes to mind – “If I only had a heart”
The scarecrow’s refrain comes to mind – “If I only had a heart”
It was the Tin Man who was missing a heart (but was OK as long as there was someone there to “grease” his joints). George W. was more of the Scarecrow (“If I only had a brain”) type. So who’s the cowardly lion, and how the hell do we get back to Kansas?
I think he started his term as a kind of liberal Zionist in the mold of Rabbi Wolf, his Chicago mentor on these issues. He seemed to have a sincere (though not passionate) interest in Israeli culture, from a mildly lefty perspective — he mentioned, for instance, that he enjoyed the novels of David Grossman. This POV was certainly compatible with his Cairo speech and his desire to open dialog with the Arab world (in part, to renew the I/P peace process). It wasn’t however, compatible with the near Islamophobia now required to be a friend of the Jews. And it wasn’t so different from Clinton’s outlook. Were Clinton president in the past 10 years he too would have a contentious relationship with Israeli politicians and their American backers.
Obama came to realize there was nothing to be gained from pursuing Arnold Wolf’s dreams and much to lose. So he backed off. Wisely. And I doubt he still reads David Grossman.
Evets, we disagree. I don’t know what zionism means by the way.
Most Americans and the leaders of the Republican party (GW Bush, McCain, Lugar, Hagel, Powell, Papa Bush, Gates, Condi, Ashcroft, Tom Ridge) are not islamophobes. Compared to them, the hard academic left in Europe and America are much more islamophobic. Probably due to Atheism and a general anger against all organized religions. [They probably represent less than 5% of Americans and less than 20% of all Europeans.]
GW Bush said in public that muslims pray to the same God. Said similar things about Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.
OK, GW Bush wasn’t that smart. But he isn’t as dumb as many people imply. Please be polite to him.
dbroncos, why do you dislike Obama so much? OK, he isn’t perfect. Neither was Moses or Abraham. But that doesn’t justify Obama haters and truthers.
He is trying. Give him a chance.
“why do you dislike Obama so much? OK, he isn’t perfect. Neither was Moses or Abraham.”
And unlike Moses and Abraham, Obama has the distinct advantage of not being fictitious.
Moses and Abraham were real people Woody Tanaka. Do you really believe that every Christian, Muslim and Jew in the world is wrong?
Not only were they real people, but they were people of God. Lovers of Gods. Devotees of God. God spoke to them and blessed them. They were holy prophets, saints and good people. They transformed the world. We should all learn from them and their example.
“(but was OK as long as there was someone there to “grease” his joints).”
Hey, that’s happened to me, when I’ve done car repair. It’s not funny, and tastes awful.
I actually agree with yonah, Obama’s heart was revealed in Cairo. That was when he was at the peak of his power, he still believed (foolishly) that by his mere precense, he would turn the situation around.
Remember, this is a guy who was an avid marxist late into his 20s and possibly into his early 30s. He boycotted South Africa in college. And he hung out with prominent Palestinians.
Still, Obama’s cynical side has always won out. The neocons and the likudniks are right to distrust him on the kishkes question.
But they are wrong to think that he will betray them, at least as long as they are powerful.
One of the things Obama left out of his biography is that unlike his version in his book where he was a high-flying lawyer meeting with Asian and European bigshots(which never happened, he toiled in the cramped office with everyone else) and was subject to soft racism(which again never happened, there’s actually a fair amount of blog posts written by people who worked with him in the 80s) is the fact that he worked for the very big businesses that he in his community demonized. In many ways, things haven’t changed.
He represented big business clients when they got sued by poor minorities in what was in a sense pilot programs of the coming subprime mortage scheme which was pioneered in Chicago and a select other cities in the late 80s, early 90s.
So rather than a victim of white racism, Obama made that part up completely because he knew that it would be a much better story to tell (and to sell himself not only as a political healer but a racial healer too, lest we forget that subtext of his speeches).
And the same story is true today. Demonize businesses and Wall St but protect them to the hilt when push comes to shove.
Obama may actually be against them, deep down, which is probably what they feel. The same is true of the Israel lobby. I think they’re right when they don’t really think he has an emotional connection to Israel like, say, Clinton or Bush had. And you might say: “well who cares! He does everything they want to anyway, in the end”.
And that’s true, but he had to pushed hard to get into that position and Obama (still) has a huge ego(although fractured and injured), and he hates Bibi. The lobby, rightly in my opinion, understands that it cannot really trust a guy who is only on their side because of their sheer political power. At one point in the future, who knows when, there might be a moment of weakness. And then they need to rely on his gut, not just his political brain, and in such a scenario, Obama is much more of a wild card.
But my guess is that we’ll not get to such a situation until at least 10 years from now. But the lobby nonetheless worries what message it will send if they let Obama bend them rather than the other way around. The fight against Obama isn’t just about him, it’s about about the people after him.
And finally, the lobby hedges it’s positions well. Although most donors have soured, it’s important not to ailenate the U.S. president. He might just win in November. Alan Dershowitz said as much at the recent J Post convention where Obama was booed by everyone(and then Alan slammed them because he understood that you can’t attack the president too much. You always need a way out for him to take or you’ll force him into a corner).
Krugman gets this wrong. Not only on cowardice, as Phil noted, but also on tactics.
Besides, when Obama made his now notorious “If you got a buisness, you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen” comments, he was off the teleprompter. He’s carefully managed by his aides. When he goes off script he shows a much more hostile side to businessness.
As I read the economic keynesian blogs I frequent, even they were disgusted by Obama’s rant. This wasn’t about rich or poor, this was about entrepreneurship and most seemed to agree that only a man who never ran his own business like Obama could utter such a thing.
And I agree with that.
So I actually don’t think big business nor the lobby are irrational on this. They probably know much more about Obama than we do, what he says off script. If you read the WaPo piece a week ago or so on ‘what went wrong’, (assuming the quotes are correct), Obama does come across as much more arrogant and I-know-this-better-than-you-do. Probably because he was still early on in the term, but if you’ve tried to carefully manage the I/P relations in America for a long time and then this guy comes thundering in, slamming Bush for his ‘wind and nod’, of course you’ll get very worried and even hysterical if he doesn’t back down.
“Remember, this is a guy who was an avid marxist late into his 20s and possibly into his early 30s. He boycotted South Africa in college. And he hung out with prominent Palestinians.”
What makes you think he was an avid Marxist? The fact that he read Saul Alinsky? The two facts you follow this comment with do not demonstrate your point.
G. Seauton, where do you get that kind of gall, or as we used to call it, umitigated temerity? Krauss knows everything, don’t you know that? And he’s willing to share it with us!.
And besides, what more proof do you need, everybody knows that only committed Marxists, dedicated Communists, boycotted South Africa. Yup, scratch a S. Africe boycotter, find a Commie, every time.
Now, for your own good, just lie back and take it front the font of omscience, Krauss.
Who is Seauton? Who is Kraus?
“And besides, what more proof do you need, everybody knows that only committed Marxists, dedicated Communists, boycotted South Africa. Yup, scratch a S. Africe boycotter, find a Commie, every time.” This isn’t true Mooser.
I have never seen any evidence that Obama was ever a marxist. Stop slandering the One. Thank you.
Obama has a good heart. The Truthers should leave him in peace.
Don’t forget the demand for a settlement freeze that the vile Netanyahoo eventually jiu-jitsoed into an Obama humiliation and the alienation of rich Jewish donors.
Many business people in America feel that Obama Messiah doesn’t like them or blames them for America’s problems. This is not true. But some believe this.
Many people feel you are Dick Witty, who had a stroke and forgot he was banned. And if you’re not, hoo-boy, you are something else. Try and deny it!
thing is, romney checks off more boxes for the big biz/finance guys – its a package deal, in my opinion.
DAN CROWTHER- “thing is, romney checks off more boxes for the big biz/finance guys – its a package deal, in my opinion.”
I will be very surprised if the “big biz/ finance guys” don’t come through for Obama. After all, he is Wall Street’s lawyer in the White House who has done more for Wall Street than any other President, and who is uniquely capable of continuing to do more for the dominant elites than Romney. A smooth talking minority Democrat can get away with things that no Republican could. Neoliberalism hits women and minorities first and hardest, but opposition to these policies has been muted due to minority and feminist support for Obama due to fear of Romney and the Republicans. Also, a Democrat can make war far easier than a Republican, just look at all of the wars, assassinations and special operations we are currently involved in. No, Obama is uniquely qualified to facilitate the transition from the American empire to the corporate/financial empire, the culmination of neoliberal globalization. Most of the so called political news is pure political theater designed to scare people into voting for their own demise.
Keith – most of these guys give to both parties, what I am saying is, this time around, the bigger check will go to romney, for numerous reasons- why not make it hard on obama? they dont want the guy having another “mandate”
“Also, a Democrat can make war far easier than a Republican”
Well, the military convinced Obama that with a genius like him in charge, they could make all the Bush anti-terrorism policies work. And the chump fell for it, and now he spends Tuesday afternoon picking drone targets. It’s the only fun he has all week.
Yeah, “terror tuesday” is a great time, 10 cent wings wednesday is still #1 to me
It never occurs to Obama that military elites have almost lifetime careers, and he’s just a temp? Yes sir, I can just here those guys after the Tuesday sessions: ‘We get all the fun, all the money we want, all the toys and guess who will be left holding the bag?’
It is no secret that Romney and Bain are champion out sourcers. Less discussed is that GE, also champion out sourcer and big time non-tax payer, gets to have its CEO as Obama’s jobs creator. The 1% has the Democratic and Republican parties to choose from, leaving nothing for the 99%.
Agreed. And even I am pro-stimulus(the fact that stimulus is now a dirty word is a testament to the lousy political skills of the Democratic party), Obama’s own stimulus outsourced tons of jobs to Europe, Mexico and Asia.
And the outsourced parts of his stimulus numbers in the 7-8 billion range, so Obama is as big of a outsourcer or even bigger than Romney.
Only that Romney did it in the private sector, while Obama spent the taxpayers money(always easier huh).
But neither of them really has a progressive answer to our ails. Obama’s much better than Romney, of course, on the economic side. But as long as he is unwilling to face down the grip of Wall St on his party, which Krugman rightly notes has always been closer to the Democrats than the Republicans, then whatever he proposes has little value.
I actually propose a third party. But people have it the wrong way. You don’t jump in with a month or two left of the campaign. You start locally and build yourselves up. Start in the progressive Northeast and go for local and state first and then slowly get to a three-party system(or more parties). Coalition is good for democracy. It necessarily tempers the ruling parties and allows the crazies in both to get their own (marginal) parties.
Phil, maybe you ought to put together a piece to counter Frank Gaffney’s on the Muslims in our midst, “The Neocon Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within” which is doing so much damage to our American way of life. That ought to put your name in lights among the neocons it would be like when MJay Rosenberg called them Israel firsters, it’ll stir up the hornets nest.
link to nationalinterest.org
Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, an outfit that has specialized in identifying what it sees as American-Muslim agents of influence who are engaging in sedition. This year, it released a series called “The Muslim Brotherhood In America: The Enemy Within” that it terms a course in ten parts presented by Gaffney.
Shmuel wrote:
“[The pro-Israel crowd] can’t put their finger on any particular anti-Israel policy or decision [of Obama's] but….”
Well but they’re right in their … gestalt-ish perception, aren’t they? At least insofar as compared with just how servile to Israel’s interests Romney has appeared to be.
It’s funny too—although not so much to Americans paying attention—since all this seems to have started with them for Obama with his Cairo speech saying America wanted good relations with the arabs and moslems.
I mean, George Bush practically had to put a gun to Bibi’s head to force him to utter the phrase “Two-State Solution,” but Bush got a walk because the Israelis knew that only the version he would support would be ones they supported. In other words, he was seen as trying to do good for *them.* Where Obama starts to provoke drooling hatred is where he begins trying to do good by *Americans* in speaking politely and with respect to arabs and moslems.
So that’s the great divide and the Israeli’s great nightmare: A United States with a good relationship with arabs and muslims. They didn’t achieve dynamiting same way back in the Lavon Affair, but time and 9/11 has helped them immeasurably.
The solution is for Americans to work to delegitimize Likud-Beiteinu. Why do they deserve anyone’s support, except for the crazies? Likud-Beiteinu makes it an either or question, and the solution isn’t to oppose Israel, or do BDS against Israel, but to oppose these right-wing parties as obviously bad for Israel and the United States. De-legitimize their American supporters, too. Grant everyone permission to disagree with Likud-Beiteinu, and to attack its policies. Attack the ADL-CAMERA crowd for what they are – knee-jerk defenders of Likud-Beiteinu, false smearers who defame Jews by equating opposition to stupid right-wing policies as Anti-Semitic. You’re either supporting Likud-Beiteinu or you’re working to defeat them.
Clearly, you are misguided and continue to ignore facts that I had previously brought to your attention, especially facts concerning the faux and non-existent Israeli political left.
Clearly, you are under the misguided impression that this website is run and frequented by naive imbeciles. You’re new here and if you read the archives you would realize how ridiculous your comments are.
While your comment is emblematic of self-styled liberal Zionists, here, the term wolf in sheep’s clothing fits well. And if there is anything I despise more than lies and spin, it is ideology and the ideologues who adhere to it as though it were a religious edict.
Continue to repeat the same mantra about Likud and Yisrael Beitenu at your own peril for you sound like a mindless automaton reading from a script. Stubborn. Unable and unwilling to accept or process any input other than that with which it was programmed.
David Lloyd Dobbler thinks we are stupid. Avi’s K.O. punch speaks for itself – but I have a question, You’re worried about Likud-Beiteinu, but what about Likud-Beiteinu-Shas-National Union-Labor-Kadima (you name it)? All the right does is say publicly what the so called left thinks, at least as far as political parties goes.
I agree. The (real, not the Labor Party) Israeli Left is a handful of courageous individuals at this point, not an organized party that can be appealed to on a governmental level to affect change. The threadbare “Likudnik”, “right wing Israeli government” arguments are better suited for dumbed down I/P forums like the one on the “Democratic Underground” site.
Avi_G
Your post attacks me personally as misguided and ridiculous, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a despicable idealogue, and mindless automaton, stubbornly unable to process input. The only actual input – other than unnecessary personal attacks – you provide is your view that there are facts out there demonstrating the faux and non-existent Israeli political left. I take that to mean that you believe that no such Israeli left exists.
Human nature assures us otherwise. I prefer to appeal to people’s better natures. People become right-wing when they consider themselves facing an existential threat. Likud-Beiteinu and our own Neocons are constantly selling the mantra that Israel faces existential threats. I disagree as to the degree of such danger. I think a lot of realists see the world more clearly, and see that the almost panicky Likud-Beiteinu demand for more aggression is destructive to Israeli security, as well as to American credibility.
Over the years, various Hasbara manuals, one by an organization called Giyus (Hebrew for “recruitment/drafting”) and another from some Zionist American organization were both leaked to the public. The regulars here at Mondoweiss have already dissected, analyzed and discussed both manuals.
One of the key points the Hasbara manual mentions is the repeated use of platitudes, nice words like “peace”, “prosperity”, “children”, “future”, etc..
The other point that the Hasbara manual emphasizes is maintaining a positive and polite tone.
You’re joining the party late and expecting to fool veterans with your newly acquired bag of tricks, like a kid who just learned to ride a bike and is riding around the neighborhood bragging about it. The only hitch is that everyone in the neighborhood is an adult of car-driving age.
I suggest you take your training wheels and go home while you still have a semblance of dignity.
“Human nature assures us otherwise. I prefer to appeal to people’s better natures.”
Say, isn’t that how the Zionists got hold of Palestine in the first place? By appealing to their better natures? Listen pal. I don’t give a rip what political parties in Israel call them selves or say. I just know what Israel, the Zionist State, does. Like AviG says, don’t you think we don’t know what appealing to the Zionists “better natures” gets you?
Yeah, David, time to take your ball and go home brother man – once you’re in the Avi/ Mooser Vice Grip, you’re finished. They’ve vanquished far tougher foes than you
“me personally as misguided and ridiculous, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a despicable idealogue, and mindless automaton, stubbornly unable to process input”
So rarely do we get a commenter willing to project such an honest self-appraisal. I appreciate the effort, and thank you for the key to understanding your posts. There is one question, tho, David. Are you really like that, or is it just a pretense the cover of the Internet allows you? I await your answer with baited breath, so I’ll be sure to catch it.
David,
Israel, its collective voters, its collective politicians, the very ideology that brought it into being, is at the root of all its abhorrent policies since 1948. Likud is but one facet of this. Proclaiming that one shouldn’t oppose Israel, or that BDS isn’t the answer because it’s just right wing politics to blame is naive, if not downright disingenuous. Don’t play those identity politics here. There is very little daylight between Israel’s political left and right.
“There is very little daylight between Israel’s political left and right.”
Has anybody gotten a single lumen out from between the criminal settlers and the IDF? Any room for a ray of sunshine between the settlers, the IDF, and the outside investors in the situation?
But don’t worry, all the nice people in Israel will prevail.
“There is very little daylight between Israel’s political left and right.”
We disagree Exiled At Home.
Do you hold every other country in the world to the same standard you hold Israel?
As far as I can see the Jewish non support of Obama among the revelant Jews comes down to he hasn’t or won’t attack Iran.
Otherwise name me one thing Obama hasn’t given Israel.
As for the ‘business’ community it’s not the business community, it’s the WS community which in reality has also gotten everything wanted from Obama.
The actual ‘business’ community( the producers) don’t know which way to jump…….which is the result of fear of more meltdowns caused by the criminal infrastructure of WS and our Banking systems and the banks sitting on their cash and not investing/loaning ….THAT combined with the very shaky global financials and interconnections that make the US economy also vulnerable is what the business community is afraid of.
Krugman chooses the battles he fights. For or against Zionism in US is NOT one of his central themes. On the other hand, if Obama wins without much of this Jewish money, it will be better in the long run as the non-supporters will have less access to Obama in the future.
RE: “[B]ack in 2008…the core of his [Obama's] support in terms of fundraising was Wall Street donors… He can’t afford to lose any major bundler support…” ~ John Heilemann
MY COMMENT: To hell with Wall Street’s “major bundler support”! No more battered
spousevoter syndrome for me!Jill Stein is the first ever Green Party member, and as of July 1st, the only 2012 progressive presidential candidate, to secure the necessary public support to qualify for federal matching funds!
Dr. Jill Stein has issued a written statement thanking her supporters for making her the first Green Party member to achieve federal matching funds goals. She also took a moment to record a short video expressing her feelings. – link to jillstein.org
• Jill Stein for President - link to jillstein.org
ALSO SEE: “Repressive Democracy: How Not to Waste Your Vote in November”, by Andrew Levine, Counterpunch, 6/20/12
LINK – link to counterpunch.org
One aspect of this is that Obama is fundamentally a coward, and the harder the Israel lobby slams him for not supporting Israel, the more desperately he tries to appease them.
They’d be crazy to tell Obama ‘you’re doing enough — we appreciate your support.’
They get so much more this way.
rather than the demise of the zionist entity israel (not its people) being bad for jews everywhere, not to mention the world, it’ll be good for all jews* as well as being looked upon as a blessing for the world.
*except for jewish israel firsters, some of whom will be prosecuted for having aided and abetted a foreign enemy of the u.s. of a.
I don’think Krugman is afraid of the Israel lobby and this being the reason he stays off the Israel issue – he is afraid of his identity as a Jew. He doesn’t want him being a Jew to become an issue, for others and himself.
“I don’think Krugman is afraid of the Israel lobby and this being the reason he stays off the Israel issue – he is afraid of his identity as a Jew. He doesn’t want him being a Jew to become an issue, for others and himself.”
Very sneaky, Klaus, good going! Krugman is trying to avoid that very issue, conceal that very fact, and you make sure it appears in Mondoweiss that Krugman is Jewish!!! So now they all know, everybody knows! Thanks a lot, I hope you feel good that you’ve outed Krugman.
Although, I must say, your insight into the psychology and motivations of Jews is amazing, so complete, so precise. It’s almost scary! Not that you can’t go teuton your own horn, of course.
“Very sneaky, Klaus …
… your insight into the psychology and motivations of Jews is amazing …”
Thanks Mooser, you are the only one who appreciated my smart comment.
(Although I think Phil got it also, because I got my “insight” from him.)
Honestly Mooser, you work on a wrong assumption concerning me.
—————————
I have been reading Krugman’s comments for years and I just thought of him as an American economist. Only once I thought ‘is he from a Jewish family?’, when he mentioned that his grandmother had said to him “sei a mensch”.
I think he himself also thinks of himself primarily of an American economist, a Keynsian one, but not a ‘Jewish one’. But once he addresses Israeli issues, that will change. People will address him as a Jew and he himself has to defend himself as a Jew and he will have to think about his Jewishness and his loyalties etc. – he doesnt want that. That was my point.
“Thanks Mooser, you are the only one who appreciated my smart comment.”
Oh, please Klaus, use the informal diminutive “Moosie” now that we are soul brothers.
“People will address him as a Jew and he himself has to defend himself as a Jew and he will have to think about his Jewishness and his loyalties etc. – he doesnt want that.”
My gosh, the Nobel economic laureate has long intimate soul-to-soul-with-bonds-of-steel talks with a retired German professor, and he won’t even answer my letters! And me a Jew! It’s not fair somehow.
On the other hand, would I really want to know that Krugman is as craven and cowardly as you have found him? I think not. Some illusions are necessary in this world.
Krugman made his position clear: “It seems obvious from here that the narrow-minded policies of the current government are basically a gradual, long-run form of national suicide “
But he also signals he’ll join in once the momentum gets going, but he won’t step out front.
I don’t think this constitutes a cover-up. He’s not sticking his head in the sand, nor poking it up into the firing line … he’s waiting until it is safe to stand up. Like most poeple.
We can wish for more, but not all brilliant, famous or prominent and important people have the same amount of guts.
“We can wish for more, but not all brilliant, famous or prominent and important people have the same amount of guts.”
And how many make a public pronouncement of their own cowardice, their own hypocritical compromise?
“The truth is that like many liberal American Jews — and most American Jews are still liberal — I basically avoid thinking about where Israel is going. It seems obvious from here that the narrow-minded policies of the current government are basically a gradual, long-run form of national suicide — and that’s bad for Jews everywhere, not to mention the world. But I have other battles to fight, and to say anything to that effect is to bring yourself under intense attack from organized groups that try to make any criticism of Israeli policies tantamount to anti-Semitism.”
Protecting his own back, own position. Been doing it for decades like so many. If ever there were a time when one can come out and take a more solid and honest stand on this based on the facts. The time is now.
Funny, I never realised, before I read Mondoweiss, that there are so many American Jews for whom the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, never took place (except for the Holocaust and founding or Israel, of course.) Amazing what a little affluence can do in America. In my day assimilation wasn’t a choice, it was a necessity. And all I can think is that some people used this affluence to play a hoax on their kids, who after all, won’t know any better (“You were born that way”)
And I should know better than to make unguarded comments. But I will do it.
And sometimes I think “My God, it’s possible Phil has never attended a Bar-Bat Mitzvah or Schul on acid!” From that I can get acid indegestion.
And my freakin’ One Almighty Diety in a Micro-wave Package, the American Jews here who complain about anti-Semetism, as if the African Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Asian Americans deserve what they got!!! It’s flabbergasting! (Notarised pictures of my gasted flabbers are available for inspection, if you doubt it.) What are they, freaking BLIND???
I gotta go practice.