Netanyahu’s warmongering spells high noon for the Israel lobby

Israel/Palestine
on 101 Comments

It’s high noon for the Israel lobby at last. The American establishment is balking at the idea of war with Iran, and calling out the neoconservatives for pushing it; and Netanyahu’s tantrum is allowing liberal American Jews to declare they’re not on his side. There seems a likelihood that the “special relationship” with our closest ally will at last be politicized, or at least that war with Iran will come up in the presidential debates– and Romney forced to say he doesn’t want it either, because Americans don’t want it. 

Joe Klein’s intervention on NBC this morning, saying he’d never seen an ally try to drag us into war (below), is big. He was surely emboldened by the daring Times lead front page piece saying that Netanyahu is injecting himself into the US election in an effort to foment a US war with Iran while he has the most leverage over Obama.

But Obama has defied Netanyahu, and he has support from Joe Klein and David Remnick. Obama is making a bet that American Jews don’t want a war with Iran (a very safe bet indeed) and that he won’t hurt his campaign warchest by failing to do the Israel lobby’s bidding.

I believe we will at last see a breakup of the monolith, with the Likud and anti-Likud voices in the US establishment battling it out openly– Adelson’s Republicans versus Soros’s Democrats. Notice Remnick (below) attacking Netanyahu “neocons”– Remnick’s former allies in the Iraq war push. Maybe he will explain how they took over the US government under Bush.

We can only hope that Netanyahu’s government will fall over this battle. Because just as American Jews don’t like dual loyalty suspicions (and if called on to choose, they’ll side with the U.S.), Israelis don’t like to be alienated from Uncle Sam. Shamir fell after he took on Bush in ’91. The lobby surely overreached with the Iran war push. As it overreached with the devouring of the West Bank.

Does this fight portend a US domestic battle over ethnocracy versus democracy in the one state of Israel and Palestine? Yes. And American establishment condemnations of apartheid…. And liberal media coming home to the principle of one-person-one-vote? Patience my dear, that’s a few years off.

Joe Klein stand, from Paul Mutter at lobelog:

Morning Joe later featured TIME’s Joe Klein on the same show. Responding to [Knesset Deputy Speaker Danny] Danon’s remarks [that it is absolutely time to attack Iran], Klein argued that the Netanyahu government is trying to push the US into a war with Iran that would not serve US or Israeli interests:

“As for Israel, and the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and the Prime Minister, I don’t think I’ve ever, in the forty years I’ve been doing this – and I’m trying to search my mind through history – have heard of another example of an American ally trying to push us into war as blatantly, and trying to influence an American election as blatantly as Bibi Netanyahu and the Likud party in Israel is doing right now. I think it’s absolutely outrageous and disgusting. It’s not a way that friends treat each other. And it is cynical and it is brazen.”

Klein contested Danon’s dismissal of the effectiveness of sanctions and argued that if Iran did make the decision to obtain a nuclear weapon, it would use it as a deterrent and not operationally “unless provoked.”

David Remnick is also outraged, at the New Yorker. He takes on the neoconservatives and Netanyahu with the same shot. “Neocon Gambits.” So neoconservative has become a dirty word at last. I’ve long said that Remnick could bring down the Netanyahu government by solidifying establishment Jewish opinion against him. Well at least now he’s trying:

Netanyahu seems determined, more than ever, to alienate the President of the United States and, as an ally of Mitt Romney’s campaign, to make himself a factor in the 2012 election—one no less pivotal than the most super Super PAC. “Who are you trying to replace?” the opposition leader, Shaul Mofaz, asked of Netanyahu in the Knesset on Wednesday…

Adding to the outrage is the fact that Netanyahu is performing not just for his allies on the Israeli right but for those he perceives as his allies on the American right, including those in the Jewish community. His performance is in the same neocon voice as the one adopted by the Romney campaign

MJ Rosenberg says the lobby operated with intimidation and bribery and that regime is coming to an end:

The only force in the United States that favors war is the Israel lobby (AIPAC and its satellite organizations), neoconservative pundits and some Christian rightists (although the latter are more enthusiastic about going to war against a woman’s right to choose and gay rights than against Iran). War with Iran could destroy Romney’s presidency and he surely knows it.

The bottom line then is that all Netanyahu is accomplishing with his ugly saber-rattling is threatening the survival of the US-Israel relationship.

Don’t kid yourself. No matter what Obama says publicly, he is furious with Netanyahu. Privately, it is hard to imagine that even Republicans like seeing the United States being treated with such contempt by a tiny country we sustain with $3.5 billion a year in aid (exempt from all cuts, unlike every other program) and UN vetoes that make America look like Israel’s satellite. The only thing that keeps them all quiet is intimidation and campaign contributions. That won’t last forever, particularly as younger American Jews have moved toward  indifference to Israel due to the policies it has pursued since an Israeli fanatic killed Yitzhak Rabin.

By the way, here’s the lobby striking back. A state senator in Brooklyn, David Storobin (R-Brooklyn) issued the following statement today after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was denied a meeting with President Obama. A little feckless:

“The Prime Minister of Israel found the time to travel to the United States – but our President refused to meet with him. This is only the most recent example of something American Jews have seen for years. His party’s convention delegation voted down three times a paragraph in the platform that sought to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. President Obama and liberal Democrats are not friends of Israel and are not committed to the defense of the Jewish State. 

“My Democratic challenger endorsed Barack Obama and called on people to vote for liberal Democrats to make sure Obama has a Democratic majority in Congress under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi. Well, this is what he got – a President who ignores the Prime Minister of Israel.”

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

101 Responses

  1. radii
    September 12, 2012, 4:28 pm

    we may be at the historic moment the balance shifts: American public perception is that extremist zionists get American officials killed and israel’s leader is bullying us into a war even their own people don’t want

    • Krauss
      September 12, 2012, 11:56 pm

      But with a caveat: the liberal base. The conservatives will get there, the young are already there. They have seen the devastation of the Iraq war in their families. That’s why Ron Paul got so many votes from young conservatives and why he was the favourite among all veterans among the GOP candidates(some polls even put him as the favourite among veterans regardless of political affiliation, but that seems a bit spectacular).

      Americans are hurting. Just yesterday we got to know that real median income has decline last year too, for the fourth year running. The real unemployment rate is above 10 % once you count the labor force dropouts. The debt to GDP is over 100 %.

      We need to rebuild at home. We don’t need another Israel-directed Middle Eastern war which will crash the world economy and send millions more into poverty and desolation.

      Still, so far, the political establishment among both parties are not forthcoming but this too will change.

      And finally, Phil:

      But Obama has defied Netanyahu, and he has support from Joe Klein and David Remnick.

      You have to be kidding me.
      There are few people more reliable in the media than Remnick when it comes to giving ample space to Israel’s lobbyists to dress up Israeli warmongering arguments as American concerns with a free hand.

      You should know better than this. Remnick’s tactical noises of worry aside, his deeds speak much louder.

      • Kathleen
        September 13, 2012, 12:30 pm

        “you have to be kidding me” Bingo
        And now Klein is taking a bit of a stand now that it has become acceptable. On the other hand guess Phil’s point that those who had chosen to support Israel and the I lobby no matter what was going on is another shift in the winds. The better late than never winds

      • Ellen
        September 14, 2012, 12:42 pm

        Dunno, he took a stand in 2008 and Abe the Foxman came after him. He did not back down and looked like he was willing to loose his job for it.

        Interesting letter from Klein to the ADL

        link to adl.org

        From Klein’s letter to Foxman:

        I am disappointed, but not surprised, by your claim of antisemitism. But that’s what you do for a living, isn’t it? I find your “outrage” particularly galling because the people you defend are constantly spewing canards against those who favor talking to the Palestinians, or who don’t favor witless bellicosity when it comes to Iran. Their campaign of defamation has cost people jobs, damaged reputations and careers. I am very tired of having reasonable people accused of being “soft on terrorism” or “unpatriotic” or favoring “surrender”–Joe Lieberman’s favorite—by Jewish neoconservatives who seem to have a neurotic need to prove their toughness….

      • Mooser
        September 14, 2012, 11:12 am

        “Americans are hurting. Just yesterday we got to know that real median income has decline last year too, for the fourth year running.”

        If I am not mistaken, Romney declared yesterday that a middle-class American income is $200,000 to $250,000.

      • ColinWright
        September 14, 2012, 1:54 pm

        “…Romney defined middle income as $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less…”

        Oh well. One could quibble, but…

  2. iamuglow
    September 12, 2012, 4:53 pm

    It is great that this is playing out in the news and the silent majority is fuming when they see Netenyahu pushing the US to war, but

    “Obama has defied Netanyahu”

    Goes too far. Publically he’s only showed weakness…again. Look at how this story unfolded, it was just like the Jerusalem blowup last week.

    Late Yesterday Netenyahu complains about US reaction to Iran..an Israeli paper claims that Obama won’t see Netenyahu when he visits the UN…for some reason this gets really wide coverage in the news…1K plus sources on Google News. Romney pipes in to say how horrible Obama is not support our great ally…and then late last night the White House rushes out to say that it isn’t true that he wasnt asked to have a meeting with Netenyahu…we have an unbreakable bond with Israel, etc.

    The public and ever so slowly the media are coming around on this, but Obama? I’m not going to hold my breath looking for him to change.

    • Carowhat
      September 12, 2012, 7:38 pm

      You’re right. Obama is defending himself with the wrong argument. Instead of saying that we need to give sanctions more time he should just say flat out that it is not in America’s best interest to start a war with Iran. If Israel wants to have one. Fine, that’s her business. Just leave the US out of it.

      I am so happy we are beginning to have a public discussion of the notion of war with Iran instead of leaving it after the election (or never at all).

      • MRW
        September 14, 2012, 1:40 pm

        Obama is playing poker. And its working. Look at the poll results.
        link to mondoweiss.net

        Netanyahu broadcasts his tells. He’s a freier.

  3. lobewyper
    September 12, 2012, 5:03 pm

    Storobin said,

    “My Democratic challenger endorsed Barack Obama and called on people to vote for liberal Democrats to make sure Obama has a Democratic majority in Congress under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi. Well, this is what he got – a President who ignores the Prime Minister of Israel.”

    OMG, impeach that pretender to the throne immediately!!! Nobody, NOBODY who is an official of the US government should be permitted to ignore a prime minister of Israel without paying for it with their position. Where is Alan Dershowitz when we need him???

    • Carowhat
      September 12, 2012, 8:50 pm

      I emailed Storobin’s office and asked him whose side he was on–America’s or Netanyahu’s. I doubt if he’ll ever see the message (he’s probably being flooded with invitations to speak to pro-war-with-Iran groups) but at least I felt better for sending it.

    • American
      September 12, 2012, 11:46 pm

      Storobin is the guy who had a Israeli working for him doing his fund raising for his campaign. The FBI was investigating him and arrested the Israeli for visa fraud. The celeberity Rabbi (to the stars) claims the Israeli was black mailing him, the Rabbi father in law said the Rabbi was into money laundering..so on and so…haven’t looked lately to see where it all stands.
      But that pretty much tell you what Sorobin is about. The FBI had been looking into Sorobin trips to Israel and Cyprus and foreign campaign money.

  4. radii
    September 12, 2012, 5:06 pm

    ExiledOnline has more on the people behind that film that ostensibly provoked the attacks in Libya and Egypt
    link to exiledonline.com

    • ahhiyawa
      September 14, 2012, 11:28 am

      Klein:

      “…“We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen.”

      I wonder if that statement is enough to charge and prove a ‘criminal intent’ to commit violence?

  5. marc b.
    September 12, 2012, 5:17 pm

    The lobby surely overreached with the Iran war push. As it overreached with the devouring of the West Bank.

    ??!!

  6. bindup
    September 12, 2012, 5:32 pm

    High Noon! … Yep…

    I’m counting on Obama (and the rest of us) to stay as cool as Gary Cooper. Lord knows, it’s a big moment…. A real opportunity to change attitudes, and inform.

  7. quercus
    September 12, 2012, 5:35 pm

    Hooo-weeee, don’t we live in interestin’ times!

  8. Sin Nombre
    September 12, 2012, 5:54 pm

    In general in the U.S. Israel’s power didn’t stem from its popularity, it stemmed from hard-eyed campaign financing, and I don’t see that changing in the future. Indeed I wouldn’t be surprised if we were to now see that effort being redoubled. At the very worst it ain’t all that difficult to take a 100 million or 200 million or whatever it takes off $3.5 billion per year and recycle it back into the U.S. political system.

    There’s a difference between seeing the limits of power, and seeing the end of same.

    • Mooser
      September 14, 2012, 11:16 am

      “At the very worst it ain’t all that difficult to take a 100 million or 200 million or whatever it takes off $3.5 billion per year and recycle it back into the U.S. political system.”

      Now, that’s succinctness like Mother used to make! Never quite thought of it that way. No need for American politicians to wait for an emolument in Beulah-land.

  9. eGuard
    September 12, 2012, 6:04 pm

    Maybe Joe Klein and David Remnick are Jewish. Any non-Jewish relevance for the (U.S.) election? Anyway, I hope when the Jewish decision in Iran has been made, we are told.

  10. Ellen
    September 12, 2012, 6:17 pm

    In light of the recent terrible events in Benghazi and Mitt’s Haig’s “I am in control” blunder, his run for presidency looks to be doomed. Even among conservatives.
    This is now what fly over country thinks and this is what all who do and have ever worked for the State Department think:

    Mitt is not a patriot. He took a national tragedy and made it about himself and Not about nation and its sad loss of a faithful national servant, the Ambassador to Libya.

    From that embassy: “Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry.”

    This is the premise and promise America was built on. They were defending principles. This is what we all work for.

    Mitt twisted these honest words of our servants in peril and in danger of life into something else . He lied to the American people.

    Mitt, you should be placing blame on the “small and savage group” responsible for the attack, not looking to blame President Obama, and by association, our Secretary of State.

    To condemn our president for something so violent and random, but not under his direct control despite how you wish to paint it, is unpatriotic. It is a disgrace to our nation. And you except to be our elected leader?

    You shame the United States, but you shame yourself more.

    • Mooser
      September 14, 2012, 11:20 am

      “This is the premise and promise America was built on.”

      And I thought America was built on the premise that if the colonists defied the Crown and dispossessed the Indians, they could separate Britain’s trouble with France from themselves on their own, no Indians needed.
      But I learn something new every day.

      • Ellen
        September 14, 2012, 12:35 pm

        Well, yeah that too!

  11. ToivoS
    September 12, 2012, 6:23 pm

    I think Phil is right about this. Over the last month or so Bibi has appeared unhinged, not just his normal calculated extreme fanaticism. What seems missing is rational calculation.

    I think what has happened is that he genuinely believed that he could force the US into war with Iran. He certainly rallied his forces inside the US to do everything in their power to bring that about. Part of the process was absolute threats that Israel would do the war by itself if needed. He promised that over and over again. But now all this work seems to have been wasted and Obama has out played him. He is standing there, stark naked, on the big stage and everyone is pointing and laughing.

    I disagree with one thing. The Israeli public will simply see him as a victim of the evil Obama and hail him yet again and King Bibi. I do not think Israelis have enough pride in themselves to even see how Bibi has humiliated the whole country.

    • W.Jones
      September 12, 2012, 6:59 pm

      I agree with you when you say: “I disagree with one thing. The Israeli public will simply see him as a victim of the evil Obama and hail him yet again and King Bibi. I do not think Israelis have enough pride in themselves to even see how Bibi has humiliated the whole country.”

      Except it’s not really about pride. All the young people practically serve in the military, and such a big portion are involved as basically doing guard duty over an occupied population. Please correct me if I am exaggerating because I would prefer it if I were. Compared with such an experience, doesn’t it seem like conflicts over Iran would seem to them like peanuts? Well, maybe a bag of green peppers. Whatever.

      • yourstruly
        September 13, 2012, 4:12 pm

        as phil states in his post, should the actions of an israeli government threaten the u.s.-israel special relationship there’s already a precedent for that government’s falling from power; namely, yitzhak shamir’s fall when he took on president bush the elder in ’91. israelis may bluster about their invincibility, superiority, etc., but if there’s one thing that panics them, it’s being faced with the possibility of actually having to go it alone.

      • ToivoS
        September 13, 2012, 7:08 pm

        yourstruly — In 1956 and 1990 that was certainly true but a lot has changed in Israel in the last 20 years. I think the Israeli people are losing touch with reality. I know when I met my first Israelis in the early 60s they were some of the most politically astute and aware people I had ever met. In recent years I do not get that impression. And then looking at polling information inside Israel there seems to be something definitely off. They are, in short, in a perfect psychological position to cut off their nose to spite their face.

      • W.Jones
        September 13, 2012, 7:35 pm

        You could be right.

      • ritzl
        September 13, 2012, 11:55 pm

        Well said, yt. As you say, “panics them most” and the increasingly hysterical (to the point now of ignoring in the US), pulling out all the stops is about – going it or not going it alone – as a credible political (again US) threat.

        There’s going to be hell to pay in Israeli politics for this overreach.

        That’s what all the increasing, hair-afire, hand waving is about.

        Yes “Attack Iran”™ is an obfuscation for other things like what Annie posted today – increasing colonization, but it’s also a very visible public political play (not ploy, as ploy would be behind the scenes, imo). It has to work or it becomes future-ignorable.

      • Mooser
        September 14, 2012, 11:25 am

        “Except it’s not really about pride. All the young people…”

        This is nice. I feel like I just saw a man fall to earth, get up, shake his head, blink his eyes a few times, look around, and begin to ask some questions. And as he says, he’s already preparing himself for the fact that he may not like the answers. Good work.

  12. Citizen
    September 12, 2012, 6:35 pm

    Nicely done, Phil.

  13. DICKERSON3870
    September 12, 2012, 7:15 pm

    RE: “As for Israel, and the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and the Prime Minister, I don’t think I’ve ever, in the forty years I’ve been doing this – and I’m trying to search my mind through history – have heard of another example of an American ally trying to push us into war as blatantly” ~ Joe Klein

    MY COMMENT: Let’s not forget about “Merry Old England”!

    WELL MORE THAN FORTY YEARS AGO, BUT SEE: “Inaction as Action: How Churchill Sank the Lusitania”, by Adam Lipkin, Emory U., Fall 1993 –

    (excerpt) . . . Christopher Hitchens, who wrote a brilliant book on the history of Anglo-American relations entitled “Blood, Class, and Nostalgia” talks about is the sinking of the Lusitania, which he solidly proves is the responsibility of the British head of naval intelligence, Sir Winston Churchill.
    Churchill played a strong part in both the sinking of the ship and the controversy that ensued later.
    That there was such a large cache of arms on the ship (over 1,248 cases of shells) that it sunk after being hit by only one torpedo was not a surprise, nor was it uncommon; there was a sizable number of American citizens who supported the British war effort, supplying arms on almost every cruise ship between the nations. What was a surprise was the lack of protection given to the warship. Churchill had been warned that there were German submarines in the area (which had, in fact, already sunk several other British ships), and failed either to warn the ship or send any escort ships into the area.
    Tempting as it is to simply attribute this to negligence on Churchill’s part (warning the ships was solidly his responsibility), the odds of Churchill failing to do his duty were astronomically low. It would have taken a period of over ten days of negligence, according to Hitchens, for the sinking to occur.
    Churchill, one of the most efficient people in British government, could not reasonably have been so negligent; he could, however, have suppressed the information without effort. Had he wanted intelligence suppressed, the King himself could not have found anything out.
    Churchill didn’t stop there, however. After letting the ship (and most of the civilians on board) go down, he started an insidious publicity campaign and ran the investigation that “discovered” that there had been more than one torpedo, and he was responsible for the spread of a rumor that the Germans had created a Lusitania medal honoring soldiers who killed civilians. These propaganda moves helped shift public opinion in the United States to the British side…

    SOURCE – link to english.emory.edu

    P.S. FROM “What Really Caused World War 1?”, ThreeWorldWars.com, (UNDATED):

    {EXCERPTS] . . . On May 7, 1915, the Lusitania was sunk off the coast of County Cork, Ireland by a U-boat after it had slowed to await the arrival of the English escort vessel, the Juno, which was intended to escort it into the English port. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, issued orders that the Juno was to return to port, and the Lusitania sat alone in the channel. Because Churchill knew of the presence of three U-boats in the vicinity, it is reasonable to presume that he had planned for the Lusitania to be sunk, and it was…

    SOURCE – link to threeworldwars.com

    • DICKERSON3870
      September 12, 2012, 7:24 pm

      P.P.S. FROM WIKIPEDIA [Iran]:

      (excerpt). . . In 1951, after the assassination of prime minister Ali Razmara, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister by a parliamentary vote which was then ratified by the Shah. As prime minister, Mosaddegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran’s petroleum industry and oil reserves. In response, the British government, headed by Winston Churchill, embargoed Iranian oil and successfully enlisted the United States to join in a plot to depose the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh. In 1953 US President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mosaddegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civilian government.[82]
      After Operation Ajax, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s rule became increasingly autocratic. With American support, the Shah was able to rapidly modernize Iranian infrastructure, but he simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. . .

      SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

      • DICKERSON3870
        September 12, 2012, 7:36 pm

        P.P.P.S. FROM CRAIG HIGGINS, 5/20/12:

        [EXCERPT] . . . [Bibi] Netanyahu, a man who keeps a picture of Winston Churchill on a shelf behind his desk, is now eyeing his role as “a defining figure in Israeli history and a significant player on the world stage”. . .

        SOURCE – link to mondoweiss.net

    • MHughes976
      September 13, 2012, 4:20 pm

      Churchill wasn’t an intelligence chief, though he was indeed First Lord of the Admiralty.
      The sinking of the Lusitania was an attack on neutral passengers and the Germans do have to take some responsibility for it, even if Churchill deliberately did little to stop them (of which I’m not sure).
      United States entry into WW1 was not the immediate result of the 1915 Lusitania incident of but the German decision of January 1917 to reinstate ‘unrestricted submarine warfare’. Woodrow Wilson helped rightly or wrongly to massage American opinion, of course. I think he didn’t want to lose the Russian counterweight to Japan. And of course Jewish opinion was influenced by hopes of British help with the Zionist project and was helpful to Wilson in this respect.

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2012, 12:43 am

        @ MHughes976

        Benjamin Freedman (Woodbury Soap Company), for one, had a much stronger take on the Zionist influence on getting Wilson to change his tune and get the USA into WW1 and keep England from accepting Germany’s offer of peace when Britain was suffering greatly in 1916 and Russia was about to explode in revolution. After much work on it for many months, the quid pro quo for the Zionists appeared the following year in the finalized 1917 Balfour Declaration. link to theunjustmedia.com

      • ColinWright
        September 14, 2012, 2:51 am

        Citizen says: “…Benjamin Freedman (Woodbury Soap Company), for one, had a much stronger take on the Zionist influence on getting Wilson to change his tune and get the USA into WW1 and keep England from accepting Germany’s offer of peace when Britain was suffering greatly in 1916…”

        I think if you look at the terms Germany had in mind, you might not view Britain’s unwillingness to entertain her proposals so unsympathetically. However, it is certainly true that she could have at least opened talks. Indeed, there were some impulses in that direction — but paradoxically, the rising butcher’s bills meant that the thought of anything less than total victory in exchange became increasingly intolerable. The respective parties grew more — not less — intransigent as the casualty figures mounted.

        In any case, by the time we began moving towards war, Lloyd George was Prime Minister, and there wasn’t a ghost of a chance Britain was going to make peace. Again, I don’t think this had anything to do with our entry into the war.

      • ColinWright
        September 14, 2012, 4:17 am

        Citizen says: “Benjamin Freedman (Woodbury Soap Company), for one, had a much stronger take on the Zionist influence on getting Wilson to change his tune …”

        Yeah — but scanning a few links makes it clear that Benjamin Freedman was an anti-semitic nut job.

        I even allowed for the possibility that he’d merely been labeled an anti-semitic nutjob. I looked at some of his writing. He was an anti-semitic nut job.

      • Citizen
        September 18, 2012, 1:35 pm

        Gee, ColinWright, what an objective fellow you are!

      • ColinWright
        September 14, 2012, 2:35 am

        These arguments fail on several points.

        First, Wilson was hardly eager to enter the war. He was basically forced into it by the Zimmerman Telegram and by repeated torpedoings of American ships in early 1917.

        Second, the US entered the war six months before the Balfour Declaration was made. I don’t think there had been much indication that the British would help with the Zionist project before then.

        Third, an astronomically small number of American Jews were Zionists — and those that were had almost no funds. Zionists could have had almost no influence on American public opinion at that time.

        Also, I think that these arguments are anachronistic in that they look forward to the Third Reich and take as a starting point the assumption that Jews would be friendly to the Allied powers rather than to Germany and Austro-Hungary. Indeed, the Balfour Declaration was made partly precisely in order to forestall German overtures to the Zionists — although as has been pointed out, at the time not very many Jews were Zionists in the first place.

        Really, our entry into the war had nothing to do with Palestine and nothing to do with any rejected peace offers. Germany realized that if she resumed unrestricted submarine warfare, she would very likely bring us into the war very quickly. However, she calculated that she could bring England to her knees and win the war before we could intervene. This helps to explain the Zimmerman Telegram, as Germany took our intervention as a given and hoped to distract us by somehow getting Mexico to do something.

        Of course, that only helped to ensure we would enter the war.

        However, the point is that it was Germany that chose to precipitate our intervention in the war, and in all probability, it was her own desperation that drove her to it. Germany was literally starving — the thought of indefinitely prolonging the war must have been intolerable. She seems to have found the prospect of winning quickly — whatever the odds — irresistible.

      • MHughes976
        September 16, 2012, 4:26 pm

        It’s possible that Brandeis, the leading Zionist of the time in what was an anti-Zionist American atmosphere, exercised some influence on Wilson in the direction of war, though I don’t think that the prospect of Jewish support mattered that much to Wilson in all the circumstances. There is talk of blackmail but I think that Wislon had the kind of character that made him open to influence by people skilled in intellectual argument.

      • Citizen
        September 18, 2012, 2:47 pm

        Then again, Ben Freedman was in many relevant high places at the time in question, knew many of the power players, and nobody commenting here was even alive back then. Even though Wiki identifies Freedman first and foremost as an anti-semite (with footnotes to a few books), we all know how that charge of anti-semitism is abused to shut inconvenient folks up, and nobody of historical record questions Freedman was an avid anti-Zionist (and as well, anti-Communist). So, here’s Ben Freedman himself speaking in 1961 on what brought about WW1 & also US entry into that war, and Versailles, which lead to WW2 in Europe, and resulting trek toward WW3–and oh yes, even on the charge of anti-semitism: link to wideeyecinema.com

      • YoungMassJew
        September 19, 2012, 10:05 pm

        Citizen,
        Freedman is a an anti-Semitic nutjob. He lumps all Jews in with the Zionist Jewish financiers. It’s clearly evident from the speech. He uses the words “The Jews” which is lumping them all together and justifies Jewish persecution. I can’t believe you went there when you must know that this violates the forum rules. Cut it out! And that’s using nice words when I shouldn’t.

      • Philip Weiss
        September 20, 2012, 9:02 am

        thanks ymj

  14. Carowhat
    September 12, 2012, 7:33 pm

    The people commenting on the NY Time’s story today on Netanyahu’s pressure on the US to promise to bomb Iran are surprisingly supportive of Obama (and the US). I would say that 75% of the people posting comments are openly dubious of the notion that the US should go fight a war with Iran for the benefit of Israel.

    This fills my heart with joy. If even the comment writers to the NY Times support America first I expect the people in people in fly-over country to be triple and quadruply supportive of the notion that America should put its own interests before those of Israel.

    • lobewyper
      September 13, 2012, 3:14 pm

      Carowhat,

      Thanks for this info–it is indeed encouraging!

      • Mooser
        September 14, 2012, 11:31 am

        If I remember aright, the sentiment against the Bush War on Iraq was very high, and even precipitated several massive and orderly anti-war demonstrations.
        The effectiveness and efficiency of modern weapons, and the lack of conscription, makes it always possible to start a war with whatever or whoever is on hand.

      • Dan Crowther
        September 14, 2012, 11:52 am

        I’m with Mooser. And if the so called left re-elects Obama, he will feel less restrained – he could go either way, but if he is re-elected, the so called left will be completely neutered. Probably increases the chances for war, imo

  15. DICKERSON3870
    September 12, 2012, 7:50 pm

    RE: “Netanyahu’s tantrum” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: I suspect that Netanyahu is a narcissist* who is very susceptible to ‘narcissistic rage’.

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Narcissism]:

    (EXCERPT) . . . Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an “awkward” or “difficult” person [or perhaps an "anti-Semite" ~ J.L.D.]. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage. . .

    SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

    *P.S. “[Bibi] Netanyahu, a man who keeps a picture of Winston Churchill on a shelf behind his desk, is now eyeing his role as ‘a defining figure in Israeli history and a significant player on the world stage’.” ~ Craig Higgins
    SOURCE – link to mondoweiss.net

  16. atime forpeace
    September 12, 2012, 8:45 pm

    Just watched Ari Fleisher tear up Anderson Cooper, if you think the Neocons are just going to accept their fate think again, these m&f’r’s will go down swinging and swinging a big bat.

    escalate.

  17. yonah fredman
    September 12, 2012, 9:47 pm

    The Israeli public’s support for Bibi is related to his no nonsense attitude towards the Palestinians and his no nonsense attitude towards giving the Golan to Assad. His attitudes on those two issues is in tune with the majority of the voters in Israel.

    Iran and a blow up with the US are definitely important issues, but they will not be enough to get Israel to vote for someone whom they view as giving away too much on the Palestinian front nor on the Syrian front. Of course the actual bombing of Iran by israel against the US wishes would cause more serious consequences than mere headlines of bluster and that could result in electoral consequences in Israel.

    • ColinWright
      September 13, 2012, 2:27 am

      yonah fredman says: “Iran and a blow up with the US are definitely important issues, but they will not be enough to get Israel to vote for someone whom they view as giving away too much on the Palestinian front nor on the Syrian front.”

      That’s reassuring to hear. I, for one, definitely want Israel to stick with Netanyahu — especially now that he’s making such an impression on Americans.

      Lieberman or Yishai would be even nicer — but there’s no way either could become premier.

      • Mooser
        September 14, 2012, 11:35 am

        Ah yes, Colin, it is indeed a marvel to consider what “yonah fredman” considers a “no-nonsense” attitude towards the Palestinians.
        Like I’ve said, “yonah” used to be a “Wondering Jew”, but he ain’t wondering no more, now he knows.
        Oh well, can’t blame a guy for defending the old family homestead, the little house on the settlement.

  18. RoHa
    September 12, 2012, 9:51 pm

    “As for Israel, and the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and the Prime Minister, I don’t think I’ve ever, in the forty years I’ve been doing this – and I’m trying to search my mind through history – have heard of another example of an American ally trying to push us into war as blatantly,”

    Of course, Israel isn’t an American ally. But, unless Klein is restricting his history to the last forty years, he should surely remember Churchill trying to involve the US in WW2.

  19. piotr
    September 12, 2012, 9:53 pm

    At least Storobin’s Brooklyn constituents are not terribly dependent on the price of gasoline.

    In general, the way I see purposes of Iranian government is to make a gigantic mouse trap for Israel. The trap is in plain sight, by still, a nice piece of cheese inside. Can Israel resist?

  20. Ctwosides
    September 12, 2012, 9:54 pm

    I sure am hopeful that you’re right that the Lobby and its associates strangle hold are coming to an end. Thing is that out in the multitudinous sites with forums there are plenty of AIPAC self appointed watchdogs shutting down any and all criticism of Israel and AIPAC’s efforts for Israel. Recently a site RealJock expunged a member RLD who dared to bring up Jewish writers criticism like here on Mondoweiss, Haaretz News and the Jewish Daily Forward. The Site’s last straw appeared to be when this RLD dared to say that the apparent LIL’AIPAC volunteer watchdogs were just labeling criticism as Anti Semitism and Jew Hatred to shut down criticism. It didn’t matter that most criticism had come for fellow Jewish site’s and writers.

    From my own experience in the last few days on a site WND many are the commenters who seem more defensive of Netanyahu and his desired war than they are of the idea of our young men and women dying for such a war. With few exceptions these folks will refer to ‘New Testament’ prophecy regarding how we are directed by god to ‘Bless Israel’ for our nation to ‘blessed by God’.

    I fear this is going to be a long road in getting our country out of subservience to AIPAC bill writers and media freedom to speak up against Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians. The charges of Anti Semitism and Jew Hatred are everywhere, if the delicate subjects come up you don’t have to be a genius to figure out that most won’t touch the subjects for fear of those charges. Media personel, teachers and Professors as well as politicians meet with a blunt wall and loss of jobs and influence if they dare speak up. WE NEED OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM THIS GROUP CONTROLING FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

    • Mooser
      September 14, 2012, 11:37 am

      Anybody who has been accused of Jew-hatred or anti-Semitism should send me $500, and I will certify they like Jews a lot.

      • seanmcbride
        September 14, 2012, 11:46 am

        Funny. :) But it goes deep. You are describing an actual racket.

      • Mooser
        September 14, 2012, 12:18 pm

        “Funny. :) But it goes deep. You are describing an actual racket”

        If that’s a nice way of telling me I’m a day late and a dollar short, I appreciate the thoughtfulness, thanks. Not much room left in that field, huh? Oh well, maybe I can think of something else. As long as it doesn’t involve work, I’m game.

      • LeaNder
        September 14, 2012, 12:20 pm

        Moose, I am a bit melancholic, strictly “Prof. Ellis”, I would prefer Marc, but his meditatios on Cage and Zen triggered my times with musicians and their perception of all the noises around as the huge universe of sounds. I realize the rest of the record may not be that good.

    • Chu
      September 14, 2012, 12:40 pm

      The charges of Antisemitism are often over-used and abused today.
      Those who cast these assertions (against, well, let’s say peace activists)
      are really shooting themselves in the foot. Israel is a failing enterprise
      and the entire world is aware of it Spartan policies.

    • Ohm
      September 14, 2012, 2:19 pm

      “The charges of Anti Semitism and Jew Hatred are everywhere, if the delicate subjects come up you don’t have to be a genius to figure out that most won’t touch the subjects for fear of those charges. Media personel, teachers and Professors as well as politicians meet with a blunt wall and loss of jobs and influence if they dare speak up. WE NEED OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM THIS GROUP CONTROLING FREEDOM OF SPEECH.”

      And yet Romney framed his criticism of Obama as an apology for “American Values” and anchored it as a free speech issue.

      His argument seems to have legs in that regard, and was only seen as disasterous in its misapplication to the chronology, and bad timing.

      I’m just mentioning it as it seems to me that there should be room to pivot; and triangulate the charges of Jew Hate and Anti-Semitism toward critiques of Zionism and Israel … just as Romney did, as a wholesale attack on American Values.

      The constraint on speech is of course twofold.

      The first is weathering the blistering attacks waged on anyone who dares to publicly challenge the wishes of the Lobby, or the mythology of the Zionist narative, and the second is a deterent effect in how the punishment exacted becomes an example and warning to others … the possible cost to their personal reputation, their associations, future employent and livlihoods.

      I know it restrains me as I fear discussing my true feelings with a whole host of people … my lawyer, my dentist, my Jewish friends.

  21. ColinWright
    September 12, 2012, 10:56 pm

    I draw considerable satisfaction from a bit in one of the Times’
    articles on this:

    “…But many cautioned against intervening in American politics. Israel sees the bipartisan support it has long enjoyed in the United States as one of its greatest assets. Associates of Mr. Netanyahu’s say that he understands that as much as anyone…”

    Netanyahu may understand it, but he’s throwing it away fast.

    From sometime in the 1990′s until a few weeks ago, Israel-love was a bipartisan thing alright. It had gotten to be like motherhood: you could only argue about who loved Israel the bestest.

    Now, Netanyahu has pretty much branded Israel as a Republican cause. People still make noise, but it’s like the Republicans saying they’re for better schools too. Yeah, yeah — but if you actually care about schools, you vote Democrat — and now, if you really love Israel, you’ll vote Republican.

    The Israelis themselves have forced this change — from here out, they’ll get the kind of support from Democrats that schools get from Republicans…and the Republicans will be able to take the Israelis for granted.

    The Israelis should have stuck with motherhood. Now they’re screwed.

    • chinese box
      September 13, 2012, 9:24 am

      @Colin

      I think you’re being overly optimistic. These events will sway some (maybe a lot of) the Dem voters, but I think the Democratic political establishment is (and always has been) more dependent on the Lobby for support and cash than the Republicans have been. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

      • ColinWright
        September 13, 2012, 2:58 pm

        chinese box say: “@Colin

        I think you’re being overly optimistic…”

        Probably. One always starts hoping this is the top of the hill…but the shift always turns out to be so incremental as to be imperceptible.

        …but then, when turns around and looks at how unquestioned Israel’s legitimacy used to be, what her international status used to be like, one realizes what a long way we’ve come, and how the battle really is at least half-won.

  22. ColinWright
    September 12, 2012, 11:49 pm

    “…His party’s convention delegation voted down three times a paragraph in the platform that sought to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel…”

    It’s nice to see that somebody noticed that vote. Actually, I’m realizing a lot of people did. It goes far to explain the sudden iron in Obama and Clinton’s respective spines.

    Buy low…sell high. Israel should have taken the Saudi Peace Initiative as a starting point and cashed out about 2005. Now, they can forget it.

  23. Kathleen
    September 12, 2012, 11:56 pm

    “and if called upon will side with the U.S.” Such a generalization. Don’t agree at all

  24. Kathleen
    September 12, 2012, 11:59 pm

    Joe Klein usually rolls over. A real change and better late than never

    • seethelight
      September 13, 2012, 5:51 pm

      Disagree on Joe Klein. He was one of the first major MSM journalists to publicly criticize US policy in the Middle East, and Israeli policy, going back about 2-3 years. We all held our breath (as I’m sure he did) when the Lobby attacked. Did not lose his job; wasn’t even suspended for a week.

      His vent on NBC was straight from the heart. He noted that his son is a diplomat, which I interpret to mean his son is in the US foreign service. His criticism of Netanyahu’s warmongering has become personal.

      We can only hope his bold statements on NBC will help grow a spine on a few other MSM PEP journalists. Come out, come out, wherever you are.

  25. American
    September 13, 2012, 12:10 am

    I spent a couple of hours this pm looking all around at comments on NYT comment boards and others msm net sites……On Israel..99% thumbs down. Lot of outrage at the way Netanyahu is throwing his weight around in the US, lots of we are tired of Israel, lots of cut off the US billions, lots of why we are we supporting that country….so on.

    The comment I saved below from the NYT isn’t all that outstanding but I selected it because I think it shows that there have been a lot of average Americans holding back on really pubically criticizing Israel because of the anti semitism slur even though their resentment has been simmering underneath for a long time….. I think Israel in this presidential campaign and Netanyahu have opened the floodgates in the sense that I-First is now so blatant you can’t ‘not’ say something about it.

    densil
    mountain view, california
    Flag

    I think I am not the only citizen who, fearful of being labelled an anti-semite, has been reluctant to more vocally criticize Israel all the while believing that our blind support of that nation has contributed to the anger toward us that empowered the assassins who created this day of remembrance.””

    Read more:

    • ColinWright
      September 13, 2012, 2:59 am

      American says: “I spent a couple of hours this pm looking all around at comments on NYT comment boards and others msm net sites……On Israel..99% thumbs down. Lot of outrage at the way Netanyahu is throwing his weight around in the US, lots of we are tired of Israel, lots of cut off the US billions, lots of why we are we supporting that country….so on…”

      Yeah. What’s interesting is how the media seems to conspire to keep us from realizing just how few of us want war. I ran a search on the wording in the Chicago Council of Global Affairs poll that showed 70% of Americans oppose an attack on Iran — no hits from any major news outlet that I noticed.

      • Les
        September 13, 2012, 11:22 am

        Try and come up with a single example of our major media outlets, both print and broadcast, that aren’t members of the Lobby. As for Lobby members, for starters there are the NY Times, NPR, and CNN.

      • ColinWright
        September 14, 2012, 4:27 am

        Les says: “Try and come up with a single example of our major media outlets, both print and broadcast, that aren’t members of the Lobby. As for Lobby members, for starters there are the NY Times, NPR, and CNN.”

        I think a lot of that has to do with the ferocious and concerted flak each of them will get if they dare step out of line. It’s not a massive media conspiracy so much as the Israel lobby being good at their job.

        The bombardment is going to have an effect. If everyone in the room goes nuts every time you open a stick of gum, pretty soon you stop chewing gum. If you’re ‘news organ x’ you know you can write something supportive of Israel, and at most you’ll get a few polite critiques plus one or two crank calls. Say something critical of Israel, and you better have a bomb shelter handy.

        Now, I know so and so owns the New York Times, etc. — but I really think the ‘cringe’ factor is more important.

  26. ColinWright
    September 13, 2012, 1:00 am

    The rats seem to leaving the sinking ship…

    “U.S. lawmaker lashes out at Netanyahu for attacking Obama on Israel
    Senator Boxer writes the Israeli PM, expressing her ‘deep disappointment’ for questioning U.S. support of Israel and its commitment to the Iran issue.

    Barbara Boxer, a top Jewish U.S. senator and the sponsor of major pro-Israel legislation, blasted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for lashing out at President Obama on Iran…”

    Now, had somebody else done this, it might have merely been a display of integrity. But when a weathervane like Boxer does it — well, it shows which way the wind’s blowing, doesn’t it?

    • American
      September 14, 2012, 11:17 am

      @ Colin

      I’m not so sure Boxer is turning around on Israel…..more like she is trying to keep Bibi from destroying the Dem support for Israel with his very public attacks on Obama. The smarter zios were warning on not making Israel so public and not losing the ‘bipartisan” hold on both parties. Bibi has blown that.

  27. ColinWright
    September 13, 2012, 1:01 am

    Presumably, the sirens are blaring and it’s condition red at Hasbara Central…fun to see what they decide to do…

    • amigo
      September 13, 2012, 6:56 am

      “Presumably, the sirens are blaring and it’s condition red at Hasbara Central”.

      More like “Bonzai” for these modern day Kamakaze pilots.

      Zionism going down in flames.

      • Mooser
        September 14, 2012, 11:48 am

        ““Presumably, the sirens are blaring and it’s condition red at Hasbara Central”.

        Oh, I’m sure Hophmi will be by to explain it all to us. I just can’t understand why he wouldn’t be eager to set us right on all the important developments.

  28. ColinWright
    September 13, 2012, 1:16 am

    The biggest mistake Netanyahu has made is to align Israel with Romney.

    There goes every PEP supporter of Israel in the room — and probably for good.

    • dbroncos
      September 13, 2012, 11:43 pm

      Colin,

      I agree with you that going forward we’ll see Zionists flocking to the Republican party. Republicans have no concern for Palestinian political rights, something they’re eager to advertise so they can win a bigger chunk of Zionist campaign funding- a natural fit for Zionists. Democrats who are not Zionists are souring on Israel. The Jewish State’s long history of human rights abuses and its descent further and further into fascism is finally being recognized by Democratic voters if not office holders. In addition, seeing Americas first black, Democratic President prostrating himself before Israel’s PM is a stomach turning spectacle to behold for people who had high hopes for Obama. Liberal Zionists who continue to take Israel’s side at the expense of America’s interests and values will become more and more ostracized within the Democratic Party. They’ll have to decide whether they want to keep their liberal values as Democrats or their Zionism as Republicans.

  29. seafoid
    September 13, 2012, 6:29 am

    “Does this fight portend a US domestic battle over ethnocracy versus democracy in the one state of Israel and Palestine? ”

    No. The Palestinians will be shafted again as the Jews make peace over Iran.

    • American
      September 13, 2012, 11:44 am

      @seafoid

      Yes…Israel marches right on over Palestine.

      Israel seeks court permission to expand 40 West Bank settlements
      You +1′d this publicly. Undo
      Haaretz-6 hours ago
      The government is working to enable new construction and has retroactively approved existing construction on private Palestinian land in more …

      • Annie Robbins
        September 13, 2012, 3:00 pm

        thanks american, i actually started a draft on that when i got a press release from Hila Aloni spokesperson for yesh din this morning. then i got so waylaid in the threads i spaced out. should be up sometime soon.

      • seafoid
        September 14, 2012, 4:12 am

        “approved existing construction on private Palestinian land”

        It’s all JEWISH Land in Erez Israel Hashlemah*

        (*Until TSHTF)

    • YoungMassJew
      September 13, 2012, 10:36 pm

      @ seafoid
      Agreed. Sociopaths don’t give up power even when exposed. Just like the fascist States of old, they left a trail of destruction that killed millions before being hung at Nuremberg. Zionism is the same thing. Of course, I pray I’m wrong, but history says otherwise.

      • seafoid
        September 14, 2012, 12:25 pm

        YMJ

        It is really sad. I have met many Israelis and have had many enjoyable conversations with certain individuals but the abuses of human decency that are required to ensure they can have a comfortable life and the group dynamic that turns their country into a monster is very disturbing.

  30. DICKERSON3870
    September 13, 2012, 6:46 am

    RE: “We can only hope that Netanyahu’s government will fall over this battle. Because . . . Israelis don’t like to be alienated from Uncle Sam. Shamir fell after he took on Bush in ’91.” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: I’m afraid that the Israel of today is considerably different from the Israel of 1991!

  31. Sin Nombre
    September 13, 2012, 9:07 am

    yonah freedman wrote:

    “Iran and a blow up with the US are definitely important issues, but they will not be enough to get Israel to vote for someone whom they view as giving away too much on the Palestinian front nor on the Syrian front.”

    This sounds very much like the voice of considered opinion, and as such deserves a second thought for its importance.

    After all as I see it, albeit roughly speaking, what is it saying but that to the average Israeli the keeping of the West Bank and the Golan is worth endangering Israel’s relationship with the U.S.

    To a great degree of course it just reveals the sham the average Israeli has wanted to perpetrate on the U.S.: I.e., pretending to be willing to negotiate away those things in one of the U.S.’s perpetual (and perpetually failed) “peace processes.”

    Even more significant however … just think about it: The attachment to that additional land has come to be regarded as so holy in Israel that it would even risk losing what it gets from the U.S. for same. Risk, indeed, even its existential existence and going it solely alone for those territories.

    The closer yonah’s judgment is to the truth translates directly into the equation of just how far away we are from ever seeing any resolution to things over there, and then also just how cataclysmic things are going to have to get to see that resolution.

    Funny: I can see the ultimate end-game that the arabs/moslems may come to hold given as this becomes ever more evident–essentially the destruction of Israel.

    But what is *Israel’s* end-game? How can *they* hope to ever win this thing? Beating the arabs in war after war hasn’t helped. Indeed it can seem to have hurt. So how do they see this ever ending happily? Or are they content with the idea of war never-ending?

    • Mooser
      September 14, 2012, 11:53 am

      “So how do they see this ever ending happily?”

      Isn’t Israel on its third generation? A generation who will have been thoroughly indoctrinated? You’ve seen some of them here. Don’t let the old anti-Semitic canard that one Jew will not hurt another influence your thinking.

  32. Les
    September 13, 2012, 11:29 am

    Add that this story line, however false, now has credibility, made so by the public efforts of the Israel Lobby.

    “Mr. Bacile said he raised $5 million from about 100 Jewish donors, whom he declined to identify.”

    If it turns out that even one Jew — the name Sheldon Adelson somehow pops into my mind — bankrolled some or all of the now infamous film, the message is falling on ground made fertile by the Lobby.

    • Citizen
      September 13, 2012, 1:58 pm

      Lots of crap being thrown up in the air about Mr Bacile, all of it trying to dilute how he originally self-identified himself to two news sources as a dual citizen Israeli-American who’s project (Have U seen any of it? Worse than a Julius Streicher product.) was funded by a bunch of Jewish Americans.

      Did you watch Morning Joe on MSNBC this morning? Brzezinski laid out the raw reality.

      • ColinWright
        September 13, 2012, 3:13 pm

        Citizen says: “Lots of crap being thrown up in the air about Mr Bacile, all of it trying to dilute how he originally self-identified himself to two news sources as a dual citizen Israeli-American…”

        That is interesting. Why did Bacile-the-Israeli-American-who-probably-doesn’t-exist disappear? And equally important, why did he appear in the first place?

        Maybe (1) Klein was seeking to confer some legitimacy on his project, then (2) his backers warned him the last thing they wanted was an Israeli connection.

        Certainly almost ever since all and sundry have been furiously pushing the ‘no connection with Jews or Israel at all’ angle.

        At a guess, somebody’s nervous as hell. The US has already figured out that (1) the attack in Benghazi wasn’t a ‘mob attack’ and that (2) whoever did it had extensive inside information. Right now, the official story is ‘they suspect there’s a 9/11 anniversary connection’ — but I bet that’s not their only working theory.

        We’re going to wind up with four levels on this. 1. Whatever actually happened. 2. What the US can prove happened. 3. What the US thinks happened. 4. What US is willing to publicly say about what happened. It’ll be like Jonathan Pollard or the Liberty.

  33. Kathleen
    September 13, 2012, 12:32 pm

    It has been written that President Obama actually reads some blogs. Wondering if this is one of them? Hey Prez we like that you are standing up to Israel and the I lobby a bit…at the same time supporting Israel based on the 67 border.

    • Mooser
      September 14, 2012, 11:56 am

      “Wondering if this is one of them?”

      That White House has made it clear to the editors that Obama will not read any blog which is not certified free of large palmate-antlered ungulates. This is, after all, an election year.

  34. yourstruly
    September 13, 2012, 4:20 pm

    Netanyahu’s falling from power on account of Obama’s nailing him on his bluff to go it alone against iran + the simultaneous disgrace of the Israel lobby for its members being exposed as dual loyalist traitors = the beginning of the end (ie delegitimization) of the Zionist entity. Confirmation once again that the truth can free us all.

  35. seethelight
    September 13, 2012, 5:42 pm

    The rats seem to be leaving the sinking ship …

    ColinWright: absolutely correct. When an experienced pol like Boxer, who has been a dependable ally for Israel, chooses to rebuke Netanyahu in writing — he is a head of state, no less — something is going on within the Lobby’s political guard. If Chuck Schumer, “Israel’s protector”, doesn’t confront Boxer over her letter, then we’ll know something is REALLY going on.

  36. Mac
    September 14, 2012, 9:20 am

    Has anyone looked at the comments section of this NYT editorial???

    1047 comments and 99% of them are critical of Netanyahu and Israel. The Congressmen and Senators who are falling over themselves to wave the Israeli flag better wake up and smell the Hummus. :-)

  37. Blake
    September 14, 2012, 9:48 am

    Alan Hart gives your article a mention in his latest piece:

    Are Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby now a threat to the survival of the US-Israel relationship?

    Excerpt: “Today I allowed my optimism to be re-inforced (a little) by a most interesting piece written by Philip Weiss for his web site Mondoweiss. The headline over the piece is Netanyahu’s warmongering spells high noon for the Israel lobby.

    Weiss is an influential Jewish-American journalist who describes himself as an “anti-Zionist” and his web site has been described as “a nucleus of anti-Zionist writing.” He said recently that he was particularly gratified to see a growing number of Jews moving in his direction. “I think there’s going to be a big anti-Zionist moment in American Jewish life. I just think it’s inevitable.”

    The opening paragraph of his latest piece is this:

    It’s high noon for the Israel lobby at last. The American establishment is balking at the idea of war with Iran, and calling out the neoconservatives for pushing it; and Netanyahu’s tantrum is allowing liberal American Jews to declare they’re not on his side.

    There seems a likelihood that the “special relationship” with our closest ally will at last be politicized, or at least that war with Iran will come up in the presidential debates – and Romney forced to say he doesn’t want it either, because Americans don’t want it.

    Weiss foresees “a breakup of the monolith” (the Zionist not Israeli lobby, I say) “with the Likud and anti-Likud voices in the US establishment battling it out openly – Adelson’s Republicans versus Soros’s Democrats.” ”
    link to veteranstoday.com

    • Mooser
      September 14, 2012, 12:00 pm

      “I think there’s going to be a big anti-Zionist moment in American Jewish life. I just think it’s inevitable.”

      Oh crap. I’m way too old to change my opinions, even for the best of reasons. I’ll just have to keep it under wraps. You know, club, member, acceptance.

    • American
      September 14, 2012, 12:16 pm

      “”It’s high noon for the Israel lobby at last. The American establishment is balking at the idea of war with Iran, and calling out the neoconservatives for pushing it; and Netanyahu’s tantrum is allowing liberal American Jews to declare they’re not on his side.””……quoting Phil…Blake

      Before this Netanyahu thing I tended to think Phil was doing some wishful thinking on Jewish awakening…..but…when I read thru the comments on NYT the other day I did see many comments by posters identifying themselves as Jews saying this is it!, it’s gone too far, Israel should stay out of US business and elections.
      So maybe Netanyahu has done us a huge favor….hope he keeps it up. I am convinced that if US Jews were ever put in a situation where they had no option but “to choose’ between the US and Israel they would pull back from supporting any kind of political lobbying for Israel….they might not like it, but I think that’s what most of them would do.

      • Philip Weiss
        September 14, 2012, 2:33 pm

        they would do that; and the NYT put them in that position by putting the piece up at the top right of the front page.
        so there’s been a break. whether it’s all inside baseball, who knows

Leave a Reply