Obama allowed Zionists to feel cool again

Israel/Palestine
on 90 Comments

Obama’s visit to Israel was annoying – especially with all the excessive yukking over nothing in particular – but there were a few things about it that are worth highlighting.

I was a little surprised at the level of frothy excitement projected by liberal Zionists into the public realm. Their virtual palpitations on Twitter seemed a little over the top – and I was honestly baffled by the reception. But after a while it became clear that the public enthusiasm was an outward manifestation of the insecurity those people feel. Being a Zionist is all about waiting for the next anti-Semitic catastrophe, and a visit by Obama may have allayed some of the tittering nervousness that people like Abraham Foxman express on a regular basis. Attachment theory offers more insight into the relationship Zionists have with American leaders; it may also help explain Israeli aggression and anti-social behaviors. A related and more superficial explanation may be that Obama made Zionists feel cool (like they used to, before celebrities began to distance themselves). That’s not something to be understated.  

The second point goes to Obama’s speech to Jewish-Israelis in Jerusalem. Apparently, the guy who wrote it is a young American with a Jewish parent. He imbued the address with more truth than I would have expected (and a whole lot of the usual origin-myth mendacity):

It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of her own, and lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements of her parents every single day. It is not just when settler violence against Palestinians goes unpunished. It is not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands; to restrict a student’s ability to move around the West Bank; or to displace Palestinian families from their home. Neither occupation nor expulsion is the answer.

That could be an indication of generational differences in what powerful people in Washington are willing to recognize as legitimate Palestinian grievances. But there’s really no way to know right now.

Finally, it’s hard to overstate how dumb people sound when they use the mommy-talkish “Bibi” all the time. That’s true for Obama and everyone else. 

About Ahmed Moor

Ahmed Moor is a Palestinian-American who was born in the Gaza Strip. He is a PD Soros Fellow, co-editor of After Zionism and co-founder and CEO of liwwa.com. Twitter: @ahmedmoor

Other posts by .


Posted In:

90 Responses

  1. gingershot
    March 28, 2013, 10:02 am

    It’s as if the Israelis see a glimmer of hope that they will be able to pull off Apartheid, without isolation from civilized international society, rather than their dawning realization that they have already abused the pooch

    If Israel feels cool or ‘legitimized’ for a month or few days before reality sets back in, reality like Erdogan quickly coming back and telling Israelis he doesn’t care what their words are any more, because who would trust them, that it would be only their actions as judged by others than themselves that will change things – it will be back to the bad parts of being an Israeli these days

    I remember ‘Bibi’ informing us that Isarel could not apologize for the Mavi Marmara because it would ‘demoralize’ the Israeli people – if not he himself and Avigdor Lieberman. It sounded nuts and at the time it could just be taken as a cynical yet ridiculous excuse for not doing it, but I think he actually spoke the truth for what it is like to be an Israeli Zionist, which means never having to say you’re sorry, which gloats at all displays of viciousness as long as it is Israel that is the bully

    That Obama on one level didn’t deflate Zionist triumphalism, but seemed rather to do the opposite, just gives Zionists of Bibi’s generation an little extra bit of denial to make themselves irrelevant as current realities continue to overtake Israel. I think many of the younger generation heard something else beyond the overlay of flowery words

    For the ones who are deadender Zionists like Bibi, in some weird way Obama was like a mother who says or pretends to her son to ‘love’ her son even though he has been sent to prison for a capital offense, though actually grateful he’s getting locked up so he can’t inflict his mayhem on her and other family members. Kind of dysfunctionally paternalistic.

    If this is what Israelis use these day to keep the Zionist hot air balloon afloat for a few more miles – they are going to need Obama to be visiting pretty regularly because the holes in their balloon just keep getting bigger

  2. Justpassingby
    March 28, 2013, 10:29 am

    Quote:
    “That could be an indication of generational differences in what powerful people in Washington are willing to recognize as legitimate Palestinian grievances.”

    No. U.S. have said the same thing for decades.
    Its time to stop being fooled by these statements. These statements have NEVER been followed upon. Aslong as some of us are letting us to be fooled by this rhetoric on Palestine by the US and West in general, palestinians will never get their state.

  3. Chu
    March 28, 2013, 10:46 am

    ‘ Being a Zionist is all about waiting for the next anti-Semitic catastrophe’
    -hell yeah it is. I think it’s ‘the boogeyman in the darkness’ that keeps their
    wheels turning and it’s what motivates tehm. We’re better & smarter and
    fraternizing with the ‘others’ will soften you resolve. Fear society, we must,
    and remain as mini tribes with a strong network.
    Even the liberals are cliquey, as they try so hard to be inclusive with others.
    They need their borscht belt or something to latch onto, just like young males
    bond over baseball stats.

    • American
      March 28, 2013, 11:27 am

      “Chu says:

      ‘ Being a Zionist is all about waiting for the next anti-Semitic catastrophe’
      -hell yeah it is.
      >>>>>

      I don’t think it’s all about waiting for the next holocaust for Zionist leaders—-I don’t think they are worried about anti semtism at all. The anti Semitism fear is just what they use and ‘promote’ among their followers to get tribal support for Israel.
      Zionism is all about ‘ offensive domination”–not a ‘defense’ to anti Semitism.

      • pabelmont
        March 28, 2013, 3:02 pm

        American — you are distinguishing the sociopathic Zionist leaders of today — not so different on that score from a lot of politicians I’d guess, such as Bush and his Iraq-a-teers not all of them primarily Zionists — from their followers, who permit themselves to be reminded that they are scared and have a right to be scared and should always be scared and who — based rather illogically on that premise — conclude that they have a right to steal and murder and dispossess and ruin (etc. ad naus) the Palestinian people, the Lebanese people, and anyone else who gets in their way.

        The difference between the sociopathic leaders and the not-very-logical-or-ethical followers is that the leaders are manipulating their (willing) followers. I really don’t believe that it is the other way around. But the followers know the history well enough, about 1947-50, and they assume ownership of what was taken.

        So maybe you are right and it is a distinction without any important difference. As you say, “Zionism is all about ‘ offensive domination”–not a ‘defense’ to anti Semitism.” and that goes for leaders and followers (and supporters in USA).

  4. Citizen
    March 28, 2013, 10:53 am

    Baby Bibi needs a bib
    His Zionist drooling’s wearing thin,
    Obamarama’s too, it keeps Justice askew,
    Makes us think neither’s the right fever
    To show the Zionist virus is behind us.

    Bibi’s got a bib, a big faux lib bib,
    And Obama’s stitched it up,
    Ditched human health in stealth
    Sufficient for Dick and Jane
    To keep the US high on Ziocaine.

    Bibi’s got a bib, made in US ivy schools,
    And this is why, America’s “easily moved,”
    Why GI Joe dies, that hillbilly dies,
    Why PNAC has the knack to rack up
    Dollars for Israeli Jews, but not for your momma.

  5. Annie Robbins
    March 28, 2013, 10:56 am

    Finally, it’s hard to overstate how dumb people sound when they use the mommy-talkish “Bibi” all the time. That’s true for Obama and everyone else.

    i agree, i think commenters who are too lazy to spell out netanyahu or shorten it to ‘net’ should have their comments cleared,or let them wait for 24 hrs, i’m fed up with it. but then i don’t make the rules.

    • lysias
      March 28, 2013, 12:24 pm

      There’s a premium on space in headlines, or in the subject lines of forums like dkos.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 28, 2013, 2:41 pm

        commenters don’t have headlines. besides, spielberg has one less letter than netanyahu, and people don’t shorten his name.

        • W.Jones
          March 28, 2013, 4:00 pm

          Due to premiums on space, Mussolini is now called “Musy”, Pinochet is “Pino”, and Iran’s president is now called “ol’ boy Ahmy” in cool liberal Zio. circles.

          Completely neutral meanings of course, just like those on:

          List of Nicknames Used by George W Bush
          link to en.wikipedia.org

          Because highschool jargon is absolutely neutral.

        • Hostage
          March 28, 2013, 5:49 pm

          besides, spielberg has one less letter than netanyahu, and people don’t shorten his name.

          While we’re on the subject then, Netanyahu isn’t his real name either. People don’t realize how much satisfaction it gives these Zionist fakes when others buy-into their personal mythology.

        • flyod
          March 28, 2013, 8:31 pm

          yes, the polish mileikowsky just doesn’t cut it when one wants to sever links with a legitimate past, and instead create the myth of being a descendant from an imagined past. fittingly, netanyahu translates in hebrew as”gods gift” .
          “bibi mileikowsky”, the great leader of the israelites. how will that fly?

      • W.Jones
        March 28, 2013, 4:09 pm

        “Bibi’s Da Bomb”
        link to israellycool.com

        • W.Jones
          March 28, 2013, 4:20 pm

          Isreallycool thinks Obama’s speech portrayed it that way.

          To me, President Barack Obama came across as someone who seems to genuinely care about Israel and her people. His warm words seemed to contain less teleprompt-and-circumstance than usual, and they also contained some very important elements. In his impassioned speech aimed directly at the Israeli people, Obama recognized Israel as a Jewish state and he called for the palestinians to do so too. It is no wonder the palestinians got their kaffiyehs in a knot over it.

          link to israellycool.com

          Question: wouldn’t it be considered offensive if someone wrote in a similar style “It is no wonder the Israelis got their [religious garb] in a knot over it.”?

    • Ellen
      March 28, 2013, 5:31 pm

      Annie, acknowledged. Ok, in am among the guilty having refered to him as “Netty.” That was a play on words and sounds for speakers of German.

      While no excuse, I think English speakers simply have a hard time with the phonetics of the essentially neohebrew name.

      • W.Jones
        March 28, 2013, 7:28 pm

        I don’t think that’s the reason- if it were, they would be referring to Iran’s president on a first name basis too, because his last name is far harder to pronounce.

    • thankgodimatheist
      March 28, 2013, 10:51 pm

      How about those who refer to Israel as “she” and “her”?
      Vomit..

    • Blake
      March 29, 2013, 12:10 pm

      “Bibi” means “my sewage” in Hebrew.

      • W.Jones
        April 1, 2013, 3:48 pm

        It’s one of those dual meaning words. LOL. And that can have two meanings too.

    • W.Jones
      April 1, 2013, 3:49 pm

      Bibi is a last name for an Arab family originally from Jafa (Palestine/Israel). As a result of the 1948 war, a large member of the family have immigrated to neighboring countries ( mainly Jordan and Lebanon ) .Members of the family can now found in North America ,Europe and New Zealand and to Syria
      -Wikipedia

  6. Bumblebye
    March 28, 2013, 10:59 am

    Ethno-supremacist ideologies can never be cool. ‘Liberal’ zionism does not exist in practice, in Israel. No such thing as ‘zio-lite’. There, it’s all hard-core annihilation of another nation:
    link to imemc.org

    “In documents released on Thursday to the High Court of Justice, the Israeli government has admitted what Palestinians have been saying for decades: that the Israeli government has taken over 99.3% of the West Bank, allocating most of the land to illegal Israeli ‘Jewish only’ settlements.”

    Here in the UK, there has been a win against zio attempts to rule the discourse over BDS:
    link to electronicintifada.net

    The case has been dismissed, the ruling using excoriating language:

    ““Political end by litigious means”

    In the 49-page ruling, the three-person tribunal comprehensively considered the 10 points of the detailed complaint, brought on behalf of Fraser by high-profile pro-Israel lawyer Anthony Julius.

    After dismissing each one of them in detail (“without substance … devoid of any merit … palpably groundless … untenable … obviously hopeless”), the document appears to foreclose the possibility of another such “lawfare” attack ever being brought to court again (at least using UK Tribunals).”

    • David Doppler
      March 29, 2013, 1:28 am

      Thanks for the link Bumblebee. I always enjoy the language British judges and parliamentarians use, and this seems to be an important victory for common sense and free speech. And a proper response to chutzpah.

  7. American
    March 28, 2013, 12:37 pm

    “”But after a while it became clear that the public enthusiasm was an outward manifestation of the insecurity those people feel. Being a Zionist is all about waiting for the next anti-Semitic catastrophe, and a visit by Obama may have allayed some of the tittering nervousness that people like Abraham Foxman express on a regular basis. Attachment theory offers more insight into the relationship Zionists have with American leaders; it may also help explain Israeli aggression and anti-social behaviors. ”

    “Attachment theory’? Zionist, Jews, Israelis are “babies” who need to bond with their Mommy/US caregiver to feel ‘secure’.

    Well once upon a time, true story btw, in my childhood, a friend of my father
    rescued a abused monkey from a animal show. This man treated this monkey like his own child and gave the monkey anything he wanted, all he had to was point and chatter and it was his. The whole town made exceptions for the monkey, letting the man take him into store and restaurants where pets weren’t normally allowed because they were so taken with the story of his rescue and the man’s devotion to him.
    Then one day my father mentioned he thought the monkey was becoming dangerous. The man had brought the monkey into his office and the monkey went wild, jumping on people, tearing things up and the man had no control over him, didn’t even try to discipline him.
    Sometime after that the man ended up in the hospital with his eye almost out, half his ear torn off and hundreds of stitches. He had taught the monkey to fetch things and to help himself to whatever he wanted around the house. So one day, sitting on his porch, he told the monkey to go bring them cokes from the fridge. The monkey came back with two cokes but he didn’t want to hand one over to the man and when the man tried to take it from him the monkey attacked him.

    This is where the US ‘caregiver’ and indeed the world is now with the Zionist Israel ‘babies’.

    • Sumud
      March 28, 2013, 9:52 pm

      The monkey story, haha.

      Israel reminds me of a terribly spoilt child. That, or a bullying younger sibling that runs and hides behind an older brother or sister after they do something wrong so, they don’t have to pay the consequences.

      Stop the US use of the UN SC veto and Israel’s behaviour will change for the better in an instant.

      • kalithea
        March 29, 2013, 7:06 pm

        More like the bad seed that beats the farmer, spits on priests, tortures and kills children and plays with nukes instead of dolls.

    • W.Jones
      March 30, 2013, 2:26 am

      I note that in this case the man did not give the monkey whatever he wanted:
      “The monkey came back with two cokes but he didn’t want to hand one over to the man and when the man tried to take it from him the monkey attacked him.”

      In this case the monkey wanted to keep the two coke cans and the man physically intervened to take away what the monkey wanted.

      I am not sure what to make of this. My understanding of humanitarian psychology is that people should not use physical violence or hitting. However they also have to be firm when things happen. They also should explain the reasons why they are doing something and should not accept violence against themselves either.

      Obviously this is all a challenging task and in this case the person has to deal with being a trainer or zookeeper to an abused animal that has serious power to injure. Indeed, considering the animal was abused it is not completely unsurprising it went kookoo this way. Yet other creatures, including humans, that have been abused can be extremely protective of their caretakers or guardians who have taken them in. Finally they have found someone who cares about them.

      • American
        March 30, 2013, 10:29 am

        “However they also have to be firm when things happen. “…W Jones

        That was the point to the monkey story. The man spoiled the monkey and never corrected his behavior or set limits for him even when he saw the monkey was becoming threatening and more aggressive around people.
        This is what the US has done with Israel.

  8. kalithea
    March 28, 2013, 1:51 pm

    If you notice Obama’s speech written by a Zionist no doubt cleverly begins with Jewish tradition and outlining righteous principles of Judaism and then it goes into Jewish historical experience to connect the necessity for Zionism to FEAR. So right there is where Zionists negate faith because they use fear as an excuse to deny freedom, justice and dignity for others in order to secure it for themselves.

    He does EXACTLY what Zionists do; he links the profane: “you have the opportunity to be the generation that permanently secures THE ZIONIST DREAM”, a dream based on ethnic cleansing and oppression to Judaic principles and the Jewish experience to LEGITIMIZE and try to make “cool” what is essentially a crime against freedom, justice and dignity for others.

    From there he then bridges through FEAR the Jewish experience of the past to the present: using Hezbollah and Iran as the excuse when Israel is a nuclear-weaponized state with the 4th largest military in the world. And later he even resorts to the tired hasbara meme: “Of course, Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with anyone who is dedicated to its destruction.” Why doesn’t he ask: Can Palestinians be expected to negotiate with those who are ethnically cleansing them and dedicated to the destruction of their future?

    Finally he addresses what he no doubt considers the biggest threat of all to Zionism: growing Palestinians demographics by first indulging that racist Zionist meme: the threat of Palestinian demographics and goes on to equate peace and justice with a non-existent, evaporated and delusional solution: the two-state solution.

    So Obama in fact legitimizes Zionism (or tries to make it “cool”) first by merging it with Judaism and Jewish tradition when in fact this merger creates obvious contradiction and hypocrisy and then justifying it AND ALL ITS INHERENT INJUSTICE with the same FEAR that Zionists repeatedly use to brainwash the masses; while sustaining the illusion of a viable Palestinian state.
    Finally he ends on cue with his usual delusional platitudes and kumbaya moment. Obama was in Israel to sprinkle some of his coolness on Zionism; but Zionism is still a dirty word in global vernacular and he fooled only some of the people.

    Bowing at the tomb of Zionism and bowing to Apartheid isn’t “COOL” and never will be!

    • W.Jones
      March 28, 2013, 3:49 pm

      Insightful, Kalithea. Can you imagine what the “brainstorming”, “thesis”, and “outlining” stages of the speech must have looked like?

      • kalithea
        March 29, 2013, 6:04 pm

        Thank-u.

        Yes, no doubt the cool and calculating “creative” effort channeled some of the twisted, cold-blooded sentiment from the Wannsee Conference.

    • Chu
      March 28, 2013, 4:21 pm

      But it’s cool to Zionists and their lam-o club of squatters. Obama went to the crazy circus tent of Zion and tried to cool the nutty fanatics with overtones of love. This rekindling exhibits that he needed to appease those who keep him in power.

      The first thing he does after reelection is to go to apartheid Israel and offer his love to a state and his leader that has been grossly offensive during his first term. In a normal world, this would be strange. But it’s Israel, the Rules are Different. They are special! say it! special!! SPECIAL!!!

    • hophmi
      March 28, 2013, 4:44 pm

      “Finally he addresses what he no doubt considers the biggest threat of all to Zionism: growing Palestinians demographics by first indulging that racist Zionist meme: the threat of Palestinian demographics and goes on to equate peace and justice with a non-existent, evaporated and delusional solution: the two-state solution.”

      What was the reason the Palestinians were against Jewish emigration to Palestine? Oh yes. Demographics.

      • W.Jones
        March 28, 2013, 7:25 pm

        “What was the reason the Palestinians were against Jewish emigration to Palestine? Oh yes. Demographics.”
        Would it have to do with the latter’s desire to create a nation-state over them, or the process of buying up large swathes of land?

      • Sumud
        March 28, 2013, 9:55 pm

        What was the reason the Palestinians were against Jewish emigration to Palestine? Oh yes. Demographics.

        It’s not “Demographics” if they are foreigners violating your borders with the stated intent of taking it over.

        Palestinians refugees are not foreigners to Palestine. European jews intent on a land heist are.

        You do understand the difference , right?

      • thankgodimatheist
        March 28, 2013, 10:54 pm

        “What was the reason the Palestinians were against Jewish emigration to Palestine? Oh yes. Demographics.”
        Maybe you can tell us why they should have conceded their lands to Eastern European colonists.

      • Taxi
        March 29, 2013, 12:48 am

        The Palestinians instinctively understood that euro jews were converts hellbent on stealing Palestinian homes and fields in the holy land. Aggressively so!

        • W.Jones
          March 30, 2013, 2:31 am

          Did you hear the Israeli rendition of “This land is my land?” It goes alot like the one the US army used in the Indian wars.

        • W.Jones
          March 30, 2013, 2:40 am

          They didn’t need to rely on “instincts.”

          Wasn’t the Zionist movement an ideology of democracy with one man one vote? Why should millions of Palestinians be afraid of a smaller number of people setting up a state with such a good idea as that? Doesn’t it all make sense that it will work out democratically and equal for everyone as long as the Palestinians accept it?

      • kalithea
        March 29, 2013, 6:18 pm

        Uh…the creation of a “Jewish” STATE on more than half of Palestine without the Palestinians prior approval…Hello! Oh yeah, and Irgun left a few nasty “calling cards”, before that state was shoved down the Palestinians’ throat!

        And why didn’t Americans welcome those demographics and forfeit their own land instead of sacrificing someone else’s land to these Eastern European bloc citizens to wash their hands of the problem?

        • American
          March 30, 2013, 11:26 am

          ”And why didn’t Americans welcome those demographics and forfeit their own land instead of sacrificing someone else’s land to these Eastern European bloc citizens to wash their hands of the problem?”..kalithea

          Can you imagine what would have happened if Texas or Rhode Island for instance had been awarded to the Zionist by the UN in 1948 and the Israelis had tried the same thing here they did in Palestine?
          Israel would have been the shortest footnote in history.

    • MHughes976
      March 28, 2013, 5:56 pm

      The status quo and the 2ss are simply different (in some respects quite similar) versions of minority rule from river to sea, don’t you think?
      Fear is indeed used, as kalithea says, to excite public opinion but the heart of Zionism is surely, contra Moor, not fear of future calamities but an unshakable sense of entitlement based on unique birthright to sovereignty in the Holy Land.

      • kalithea
        March 29, 2013, 6:24 pm

        Yes, it’s most definitely a sense of entitlement and SUPERIORITY, but emotional blackmail and the ace victim card works better.

  9. HarryLaw
    March 28, 2013, 2:37 pm

    Hello Benjamin, you don’t mind me calling you Benjamin? “no”
    ok Ben, you don’t mind me calling you Ben? “no”
    Thank you, Bibi,you don’t mind me calling you Bibi? “Not at all”
    That’s fine, well Bibi baby, stop, don’t call me Bibi baby.
    From the Monty Python sketch ” Don’t call me Eddie baby.

  10. MK_Ultra
    March 28, 2013, 4:57 pm

    I wonder if the matching outfits worn by Bibi and Barry helped to enhance the overall feeling of joy the Zionists felt…in addition to the new cash infusion, of course.

  11. Shingo
    March 28, 2013, 5:00 pm

    Neither occupation nor expulsion is the answer

    I keep reading this sentence and I am disturbed by how trivial this makes expulsion – a crime against humanity – sound. He doesn’t even say it should be condemned, only that it’s not a good option.

    Can you imagine if Obama were to say that about Jews in a speech to Arabs?

    • Djinn
      March 28, 2013, 10:04 pm

      I was struck by that line too, and more so that I haven’t seen one mainstream report on the speech comment on it.

      • Philip Weiss
        March 29, 2013, 11:29 am

        Thanks for pointing that out, I agree; it’s the opposite of damning with faint praise– Endorsing with faint condemnation.

        • lysias
          March 29, 2013, 5:52 pm

          Up to 1941, Himmler said extermination was not the answer to the Jewish problem, because it was Bolshevist and un-German.

      • James Canning
        March 29, 2013, 2:28 pm

        Can we hope Obama was in fact warning Israel not to think it can keep the West Bank permanently, by achieving the expulsion of non-Jews?

    • Donald
      March 29, 2013, 3:39 pm

      “I keep reading this sentence and I am disturbed by how trivial this makes expulsion – a crime against humanity – sound. He doesn’t even say it should be condemned, only that it’s not a good option.

      Can you imagine if Obama were to say that about Jews in a speech to Arabs?”

      Good point. In fact, great point. It’d be comparable to him telling a Palestinian audience that suicide bombing isn’t the answer. People here and in Israel would go ballistic. It’s yet another demonstration that the US can’t be an honest broker.

    • kalithea
      March 29, 2013, 6:33 pm

      He also expressed it this way: “It is not right…to displace Palestinians from their home”.

      It’s “not right” to ethnically cleanse Palestinians??? What are these Zionists, 1st graders with nuclear warheads??? It’s not right to be mean to Palestinians…but I won’t send you to the corner, cause your parents line my campaign coffers!

      It’s A CRIME…AGAINST HUMANITY, Mr. President, civil rights attorney!

    • ToivoS
      March 29, 2013, 7:10 pm

      Shingo that term “expulsion” also caught my attention. I have a different take on it than you do. I did not expect Obama to make any significant policy statements with respect to the plight of the Palestinians on this recent visit. However, that one word (expulsion) was significant. Even though it was dropped almost casually without any clarification it rang loud.

      I think Obama was trying to communicate to the Palestinians that he is aware that ‘expulsion’, ‘transfer’ or ‘ethnic cleansings’ is part of Israel’s plans for the WB Palestinians. I think it is also clear that these are actions that the civilized people will not tolerate. The radical point in Obama’s speech is that he put out on the table for all to see who wanted to see what underlay Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.

      What I think is significant about this statement is that Obama is letting the whole world know what lies behind the thinking of the Israeli leadership. This is significant. If Obama wanted to support Israel in its transfer ambitions, he most certainly would be publicizing them to the whole world. If he were no more than a Lobby plant that was conspiring with the Zionist to expel the Zionist the last thing he would be doing would be publicizing their plans.

      It is true that very few news sources inside the US noticed this point but that does not mean that his message has reached many ‘influentials’ throughout the world.

      In short, Obama’s statement was so understated reflects the fact that it is a fairly radical admission on the part of the US. To state it more explicitly would bring down the whole lobby on his head inside the US. He has already learned that that is battle he cannot win.

      • Castellio
        March 31, 2013, 3:26 pm

        I find your assessment strange. Obama commits yet more money to Israel, commits yet more military support, commits the promise of eternal ties, ignores past crimes and rampant racism, seriously trivializes the occupation (usual) and expulsion (unusual) and yet you somehow think progress has been made.

        Your evidence? That using the word expulsion ‘is a fairly radical admission on the part of the U.S.”

        When there is another major expulsion (small ones continue all the time) it will be condoned and paid for by the American government and labelled a timely population transfer. That is the message the “many influentials throughout the world” actually took away.

        It is business as usual, with more resources and political cover to do it.

  12. Dan Crowther
    March 28, 2013, 5:07 pm

    I’d say the use of “diaspora” is worse than someone using “bibi”

  13. DICKERSON3870
    March 28, 2013, 5:20 pm

    RE: “I was a little surprised at the level of frothy excitement projected by liberal Zionists into the public realm. . . But after a while it became clear that the public enthusiasm was an outward manifestation of the insecurity those people feel. Being a Zionist is all about waiting for the next anti-Semitic catastrophe, and a visit by Obama may have allayed some of the tittering nervousness . . .” ~ Ahmed Moor

    OR PERHAPS THE INSECURITY HAS MORE TO DO WITH THIS:
    “New Study Shows Yeshiva University Researcher, Others Appear To Have Cooked The Genetic Books To ‘Prove’ Middle Eastern Origin Of The Jewish People When One May Not Really Exist”, by Shmarya Rosenberg, FailedMessiah.com, 12/29/12

    “My research refutes 40 years of genetic studies, all of which have assumed that the Jews constitute a group that is genetically isolated from other nations,” Dr. Eran Elhaik says.
    That’s because Jews were never genetically isolated
    , making those other studies fatally flawed and very often contradictory.
    Now Elhaik, in a study that is being called more profound than all of those that came before his combined, has exposed that fatal flaw and is the first to propose a viable way resolve those contradictions, Ha’aretz reports.
    The answer to the origin of the Jewish people Elhaik found is startling – for most of us, our Jewish origins really do begin with the Khazars, the Medieval central Asian people whose ruling elite (and perhaps its merchant class, as well) converted to Judaism.
    The 32-year-old does his work at the School of Public Health of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. His study was published earlier this month as, “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses”, in the prestigious journal, ‘Genome Biology and Evolution’, which is published by Oxford University Press. This study is based on a complete analysis of the comprehensive genetic data published in preceding studies.

    P.S. “Oopsy daisey, we dispossessed the wrong people in the wrong area (our ‘homeland’ is actually in central Asia and in Mesopotamia before that, not in ancient Israel)”.

    • DICKERSON3870
      March 28, 2013, 5:39 pm

      CORRECTED VERSION OF THE ABOVE POST

      RE: “I was a little surprised at the level of frothy excitement projected by liberal Zionists into the public realm. . . But after a while it became clear that the public enthusiasm was an outward manifestation of the insecurity those people feel. Being a Zionist is all about waiting for the next anti-Semitic catastrophe, and a visit by Obama may have allayed some of the tittering nervousness . . .” ~ Ahmed Moor

      OR PERHAPS THE INSECURITY HAS MORE TO DO WITH THIS:
      “New Study Shows Yeshiva University Researcher, Others Appear To Have Cooked The Genetic Books To ‘Prove’ Middle Eastern Origin Of The Jewish People When One May Not Really Exist”, by Shmarya Rosenberg, FailedMessiah.com, 12/29/12

      “My research refutes 40 years of genetic studies, all of which have assumed that the Jews constitute a group that is genetically isolated from other nations,” Dr. Eran Elhaik says.
      That’s because Jews were never genetically isolated
      , making those other studies fatally flawed and very often contradictory.
      Now Elhaik, in a study that is being called more profound than all of those that came before his combined, has exposed that fatal flaw and is the first to propose a viable way resolve those contradictions, Ha’aretz reports.
      The answer to the origin of the Jewish people Elhaik found is startling – for most of us, our Jewish origins really do begin with the Khazars, the Medieval central Asian people whose ruling elite (and perhaps its merchant class, as well) converted to Judaism.
      The 32-year-old does his work at the School of Public Health of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. His study was published earlier this month as, “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses”, in the prestigious journal, ‘Genome Biology and Evolution’, which is published by Oxford University Press. This study is based on a complete analysis of the comprehensive genetic data published in preceding studies.
      But in the absence of genetic data for the long-lost Khazars themselves, Elhaik uses a procedure often used by researchers in his field – he used data from populations that are genetically similar to the Khazars, including Georgians, Armenians and Caucasians, populations that Elhaik says have all come from the same genetic soup.
      When doing so Elhaik discovered what he calls the Khazar component of European Jewry.
      According to his study’s findings, the dominant element in the genetic makeup of European Jews is Khazar. Among Central European Jews, this makes up the largest part of their genome, 38%. For East European Jews it does the same, at 30%.
      Elhaik found that European Jews genome is mostly Western European.
      “[They are] primarily of Western European origin, which is rooted in the Roman Empire, and Middle Eastern origin, whose source is probably Mesopotamia
      [a name for the area of the Tigris–Euphrates river system, corresponding to modern-day Iraq, the northeastern section of Syria and to a lesser extent southeastern Turkey and smaller parts of southwestern Iran - J.L.D.], although it is possible that part of that component can be attributed to Israeli Jews,” he told Ha’aretz by phone from Maryland.
      That possibility is important because, if it turns out to be true, it could connect European Jews to Israel. However, even if it is true, that connection is only a tiny part of the overall genome, a percentage so small that it would reportedly not be statistically significant enough to show that the origin of the Jews is the Kingdom of Judah in the biblical Land of Israel. . . . .

      SOURCE – link to failedmessiah.typepad.com

      P.S. “Oopsy daisey, we dispossessed the wrong people in the wrong area! Our ‘homeland’ is actually in central Asia and in Mesopotamia before that, not in Israel.”

      • MRW
        March 29, 2013, 1:18 pm

        “[They are] primarily of Western European origin, which is rooted in the Roman Empire, and Middle Eastern origin, whose source is probably Mesopotamia [a name for the area of the Tigris–Euphrates river system, corresponding to modern-day Iraq, the northeastern section of Syria and to a lesser extent southeastern Turkey and smaller parts of southwestern Iran]

        An area, if I remember correctly, known as the Persian Empire in those times, the people Israelis now want to kill. Their own.
        link to wall-maps.com
        OR
        link to wwnorton.com

  14. Avi_G.
    March 28, 2013, 7:18 pm

    Ahmed Moor,

    Thank you for this article. You hit the nail on the head with your analyses of the so-called liberal Zionist mindset, whether it’s the insecurity or the overcompensation.

  15. biorabbi
    March 28, 2013, 7:42 pm

    Nice Dickerson. Does the Khazar stuff ever get old. Does the playbook ever get old, or is just recycling garbage ad nauseam. Using your logic, Israel be ‘ok’ if its Jews were really Jews and semites and not Khazars?

    • RoHa
      March 28, 2013, 9:34 pm

      “Does the Khazar stuff ever get old.”

      Not while we still get people claiming that Jews are mostly descendants of ancient Palestinians.

      [Would] “Israel be ‘ok’ if its Jews were really Jews and semites and not Khazars?”

      No.

    • sardelapasti
      March 28, 2013, 9:35 pm

      biorabbi – You don’t have to talk through your hat. Of course Zionism is not justifiable any which way anytime, but repeating that the most likely origin of the Osthyiddish is the Khazar kingdom just knocks off any possible basis, even messianic, for your insensate “right of *return” and even crazier “law of *return”, even without personal papers and even over 21 centuries. By the way, it’s extremely hard to see any alternative explanation that can carry water…

    • Cliff
      March 28, 2013, 9:37 pm

      bio

      the Khazar stuff isn’t old

      it isn’t a conspiracy

      and DNA studies do not matter

      except Zionist Jews claim to be ‘returning’ and claim to be direct descendants (well, that’s certainly the implication)

      regardless of DNA studies there is no such thing as a Jewish nation

      and Israel has no right to exist, along with ever other country that has ever existed

      and the Holocaust is not a justification for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the resultant Judaization – tied directly to the ghettoization of the indigenous population your fellow cult members drove out

    • Shingo
      March 28, 2013, 9:52 pm

      Does the Khazar stuff ever get old.

      No, and nor does the stuff about the Earth being round.

      • MRW
        March 29, 2013, 1:21 pm

        “nor does the stuff about the Earth being round”

        ;-)

    • Djinn
      March 28, 2013, 10:19 pm

      People wouldn’t bring it up at all if the constant references to the ‘historic homeland’ nonsense by Zionists would cease.

      Personally I agree that it’s irrelevant. My ‘historic homelands’ includes Ireland, Norway and the East African Rift Valley. It doesn’t mean I have a right to take any of that land by force & kill, expel & oppress those currently living there. The reality or otherwise of the homeland myth also ignores the blatantly obvious historical fact that people lived in the land between the Jordan River & the sea long before Judaism was ever conceived and have continued to do so ever since. It also ignores the similarly obvious fact that some people who were Jews eventually became Christians and/or Muslims.

      The Khazar thing is an irrelevant distraction but if Zionists don’t like hearing it they should stop throwing in their specious & irrelevant stories.

    • Taxi
      March 29, 2013, 12:53 am

      “Does the Khazar stuff ever get old”

      Do truths fade in your mind? To be replaced by Mickey Mouse myths?

    • Ellen
      March 29, 2013, 3:11 am

      biorabbi, The point is that myths of a people, purity of race and origins is the old story. It is used by nationalst movements from kingdoms of what is northern Italy to Ayrianism, on and on.

      This is the nonsence (remember the Cohen gene?) that never gets old and the perverse motivations behind it.

    • Avi_G.
      March 29, 2013, 5:35 am

      Dickerson referenced research conducted by an Israeli Jewish geneticist, Dr. Eran Elhaik.

      The Israeli doctor’s article is entitled: The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses.

      For more reading about his research methodology, see the US National Library of Medicine at the NIH:

      link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    • Ecru
      March 29, 2013, 7:42 am

      Since Zionists keep going on and on and on and on about ancient mythology (the Exodus for example – never happened) and ancient “links to the land” in order to justify their theft of Palestinian lands, their cruelty and sadism in oppressing the Palestinian people, then it’s perfectly valid to point out that these supposed ties are also mythical.

    • marc b.
      March 29, 2013, 9:10 am

      Does the Khazar stuff ever get old. Does the playbook ever get old, or is just recycling garbage ad nauseam. Using your logic, Israel be ‘ok’ if its Jews were really Jews and semites and not Khazars?

      that’s not his logic. the genetic origins of the jewish people would be an esoteric topic, important to half-a-handful of academic types, if not for the serially regurgitated historico-biological, Zionist rationale for the jewish state. nice try though, your ham-handed re-working of the ‘why are you so obsessed with the jews’ insinuation of anti-Semitism.

    • Chu
      March 29, 2013, 9:23 am

      Aren’t the Khazar’s, early Turkish nomads that converted to Judaism, for political reason, and then migrated into Europe? Suggesting the Khazar past, undermines the right-of-return and since they were never inhabitants of the former land of Israel, they have no right to be there.

      But even without the Khazars, no one has the right to reclaim lands where people are already living. It was the greatest Jewish blunder of the past century and all the weapons and fortress mentality of the new Israel is proving that it is a failure. (Clean Break strategy did not work and the chances of the US going to war with Iran is not likely.) Israelis are cracking under the pressure. There only supposed ally is an ocean away and even we grow tired of the false bromides politicians use to ‘bind’ us indefinitely. A mile wide and a foot deep. Your nation should make every effort to make nice with the Palestinians at this point in history.

    • MRW
      March 29, 2013, 1:22 pm

      “Does the Khazar stuff ever get old”

      Not if it’s accurate. A Russian Jewish archeological team a couple of years ago discovered pottery shards with Jewish text on them in Khazaria that proved there was a connection, or don’t you know that? Google it.

  16. eGuard
    March 28, 2013, 8:03 pm

    Ahmed Moor, title: Obama allowed Zionists to feel cool again

    Without “liberal Zionists” this would not happen.

    • marc b.
      March 29, 2013, 3:04 pm

      Ahmed Moor, title: Obama allowed Zionists to feel cool again

      Without “liberal Zionists” this would not happen.

      exactly. the enablers. see Nathan Englander’s vomitricious ‘what we talk about when we . . . .’ can’t stop talking about ourselves. this review notes Englander’s departure from an ‘intensely orthodox milieu in brooklyn’, yet . . . .

      THE OTHER WAY in which Englander’s fiction is Jewish is in its themes, and this is the prevalent mode of his new collection, much to its detriment. Of the eight stories, three center on a preoccupation with the Holocaust, one on the related subject of anti-Semitism, and another on the also related subject of the loss of dear ones in the Israeli-Arab conflict. The problem with this explicit addressing of Jewish themes—all, of course, involving victimhood—is its didactic insistence, which leads to contrivance or to sensationalism.

      The title story is a case in point. Two middle-aged Jewish couples, who grew up together in a modern Orthodox setting, meet in the Miami home of one of them. That couple has become secular, whereas the other couple, settled in Israel, is now ultra-Orthodox. The four get drunk, then uncover a stash of pot belonging to the teenage son of the Miami couple, and they proceed to get very high. This scene has been admired by critics for its startling incongruity, but there is nothing either profound or funny about it: it is merely bizarre. Englander has too often gotten artistic credit simply for bizarre and improbable inventions. The couples, in their extreme inebriation, begin to talk about Anne Frank, and the Miami wife announces that “in the event of an American Holocaust, we sometimes talk about which of our Christian friends would hide us.” This twisted fantasy is then translated into a role-playing game in which one spouse is supposed to play the hunted Jew and the other the Gentile neighbor. The story ends when the Orthodox wife comes to suspect that her husband would not hide her.

      I had looked forward to the book, but never got past the first two short stories. the ‘hip’ maryjane-smoking mini-portrait of the settlers in the first reads like a 1960s TV police procedural depiction of ‘hippies’. and the propaganda peddled is just as subtle, fear of the gentiles matched only by paranoia over race traitors, the ubiquitous, treasonous ‘self-haters’.

      yeah, liberal Zionists, earthy crunchy on the outside, something else in the chewy center.

  17. susan1
    March 28, 2013, 9:41 pm

    ‘Anti-Zionist chic’….. Hmm… I think

    • MK_Ultra
      March 29, 2013, 10:04 pm

      Oh, heavens! Look who’s back…and talking to herself again. Another day, another shekel for trolling for AIPAC.

      • susan1
        March 31, 2013, 2:27 pm

        Mk- Ultra , If you care to peruse my commenter profile page , you will observe that I susan1 since 16 march 2013 I have successfully posted 34 comments on MW to date , and IN RESPONSE I have racked up 227 replies to those 34 comments. I looked at your commenter profile page, what did I find , a blank page. So , as usual you are spouting gibberish it is hardly the case that I “an talking to myself…” Incidentally, I am not a Zionist , nor an ardent supporter of Israel , nor AIPAC. It suits you to believe those crocks of sh1t because you are unable to deal with the concept that others can ( like me ) THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Unlike you who prefers to be spoon- fed clichéd anti Israel propaganda by Uncle Philly and Auntie Annie. You are an” ANTI ZIONIST BOT ” it is the likes of you and others who are guilty of robotic arguments and thinking.

        • Annie Robbins
          March 31, 2013, 2:34 pm

          omg i can’t stop laughing.

        • Cliff
          March 31, 2013, 3:19 pm

          susan

          you are a crazy Zionist troll

          you cant even separate your paragraphs so that people can read your comments without their eyes bleeding

          everything you say is unintentionally hilarious though

          so keep commenting!

        • susan1
          March 31, 2013, 5:44 pm

          Oh Annie, Annie, Annie , Annie ! Cackle out loud in a crazed fashion all you like my dear, but anti Israel Zealots like you are a teeny, weeny , tiny , tiny , teensy , weensy , minority in the West ,who matter very, very little!! Which is why you like to delete comments posted by those who can think for themselves, so you can maintain the ” chattering classes ” bubble you live in , and never have to confront the fact that your zealous Anti – Israeli stance is merely a minority interest. The vast majority of folks in the West could care less about Israel / Palestine. For most in the secular West the I/ P region is a backwater. Anyway, continue to cackle yourself silly! Happy Easter! ( what’s left of it )

  18. yonah fredman
    March 29, 2013, 3:40 am

    At times, Phil Weiss has expressed the opinion that liberal Zionists may/could/should play an important part in opening the door to the weakening of the pro Likud lobby.

    This is not the direction of my thinking and it could be that a gathering such as this web site personifies, should be dismissive towards liberal Zionists.

    I do not find the attitudes of the early Zionists relevant to my thinking beyond a point. the first real sin of the zionists in my book is the nakba, and that the refusal to allow the refugees back rather than the kicking out in the first place. Obviously actions have precedents in thoughts and the thought to kick them out occurred before the fact of the refusal to allow them to return. the simplification of life accomplished by the refusal to allow them to return is so manifest that it defies common sense to expect anything else. i come from people who watched the 1881 to 1948 saga largely on the sidelines vis a vis zionism but on the front lines vis a vis YKW (you know what) the khurban. I also come from the bourgeois thinkers/rabbis rather than from the working class preachers or the gangster doers. the gangsters created a fait accomplis, well not just the gangsters, but the nations of europe plus the gangsters presented the rabbi/thinkers with a fait accomplis.

    hanna arendt, detached from the jewish people before during and after the khurban saw things rather clearly. she ain’t no rabbi and she wasn’t reflecting from the point of view of the loyalist clerics, but the swing of history and she got that right and the tendency of israel is dependence on super power, on military power plus a few other prophecies she got right.

    it would have required real philosophical purity (yeshaya leibowitz comes to mind) to really see and speak about the danger of the occupation and the settlement enterprise.

    i was on the ground a mere five years after the occupation began and witnessed men of stature who made a serious error regarding the range of possibilities of the century ahead, but only considered the immediate emotional/religious satisfaction of playing with the ideas of god and history.

    by range of possibilities i mean that beyond peace and war (the only two possibilities the rabbis of the yeshiva in gush etzion considered) there is a third possibility and that is occupation and let me clarify that a military occupation is “kosher” in my book. it makes no sense today to give control over turf to people who will elect a morsi or worse to lead them. and if israel had had the foresight to nip the settlement enterprise in the bud, then there would have been israel where (the nakba goes unrequited) but arabs and jews vote and rule as citizens and a west bank where a jewish army fills the vacuum of power. but instead because of the settlements (besides the points of friction increasing manifold) the existence of citizen next door to those who have no vote creates an intolerable situation from the point of view of democracy and thus the settlement enterprise is a royal mess up.

    I accept the history of 1948. it contains too much pain inflicted on the palestinians, but i feel i must accept it. i accept the history of 1967 as well, including the kotel and the jewish quarter in the old city. I do not accept the history of the settlement enterprise.

    my lack of action vis a vis my rejection of the settlement enterprise makes me an observer rather than an activist and observers are vulnerable to the slings and arrows of activists.

    • Inanna
      March 29, 2013, 7:34 pm

      yonha, as a member of the group that is the oppressor, and one who benefits from the history of 1948 and 1967, it’s not really your place to ‘accept’ the history if acceptance means that Palestinians cannot return to their homes and must settle for less than 22% of Palestine.

      • eljay
        March 30, 2013, 10:43 am

        >> … it’s not really your place to ‘accept’ the history …

        He appears to accept it in much the same way another “liberal Zionist” and “humanist” – RW – accepted it:

        The nakba that occurred in 1948 was accompanied by the independence, the liberation, of the Jewish community. So, I primarily celebrate …

        • Donald
          March 30, 2013, 12:04 pm

          “He appears to accept it in much the same way another “liberal Zionist” and “humanist” – RW – accepted it:”

          I don’t think that’s correct. I couldn’t quite follow some of what Yonah wrote, but he’s not the denialist that RW was/is. RW still can’t bring himself to admit there definitely was ethnic cleansing against Palestinians in 48–he was fudging on that at “Open Zion” recently.

          Yonah strikes me as someone stuck between liberal Zionism and post-Zionism. Very very ambivalent. I’ll take that over most of what I see on this subject from most self-described liberal Zionists.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 30, 2013, 10:20 am

      let me clarify that a military occupation is “kosher” in my book. it makes no sense today to give control over turf to people who will elect a morsi or worse to lead them…..my lack of action …makes me an observer rather than an activist

      not really. you do more than observe, you participate here. therefore your presence is that of an activist.

      the entire preface of your comment is that of distancing yourself of culpability, the purpose of that distancing is to ‘set up’ your opinion as one of an observer. but i’m not buying it.

      shorter yonah, ‘the past happened, move on, the occupation is justifiable but i don’t agree with the settlements. ‘

      the promotion of your opinion is your participation, your activism. and i don’t care that you don’t agree with the settlements. it doesn’t ‘soften’ you excusing the past and present nakba. this is your activism, own it:

      the simplification of life accomplished by the refusal to allow them to return is so manifest that it defies common sense to expect anything else.

      excuses excuses excuses

    • American
      March 30, 2013, 11:13 am

      “it would have required real philosophical purity (yeshaya leibowitz comes to mind) to really see and speak about the danger of the occupation and the settlement enterprise.”…Yonah

      Are you kidding? It would have required one working brain cell to recognize the danger, much less the wrongness, of a invasion and occupation of others land.
      Every invader, conquer since the beginning of time has understood at the outset the danger of the conquered/oppressed rising up against them to retake their land or country.
      So you’re saying they were stupid……well o.k..

      • Donald
        March 30, 2013, 12:06 pm

        “So you’re saying they were stupid”

        Living inside a particular culture is likely to make one stupid on certain subjects. People often start believing their own propaganda. Look at the US in 2002-2003– it was like living inside an insane asylum.

        • American
          March 30, 2013, 2:57 pm

          @ Donald

          “People often start believing their own propaganda. Look at the US in 2002-2003– it was like living inside an insane asylum.”

          People who are governed by their ‘emotions’ fell for it.
          I will say among most people I know no one fell for the Iraq propaganda.
          I don’t remember the ‘polls’ but seem to remember a lot of the country didn’t fall for it either.
          But yes it was like a insane asylum..to those who saw, knew what was going on.
          I said to the first person who called me the morning of 911 that Bush going to take the US to a big war and bankrupt us….and that’s exactly what happened.
          The stupid will always be with us I guess…lol

  19. RoHa
    March 29, 2013, 9:27 pm

    “I do not find the attitudes of the early Zionists relevant to my thinking beyond a point….Obviously actions have precedents in thoughts”

    And the thoughts of the early Zionists were evil.

    “the first real sin of the zionists in my book is the nakba,”

    So the refusal to become part of Palestinian society and the discrimination practiced against the Arabs are not real sins? Your moral sense is faulty.

    “and that the refusal to allow the refugees back rather than the kicking out in the first place. ”

    So if they had let them back, you wouldn’t mind them being thrown out?

    ” the simplification of life accomplished by the refusal to allow them to return is so manifest that it defies common sense to expect anything else.”

    Yep. It defies common sense to expect anything resembling morality from Zionists.

Leave a Reply