(Updated) Senator Chuck Schumer promises more Iran sanctions, vows to ‘defeat’ Arab world and Palestinians

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 129 Comments

New York Senator Chuck Schumer was his usual hawkish self on Sunday evening.  In an address to the OHEL Children’s Home and Family Services gala, Schumer railed against the deal the Obama administration struck with Iran and vowed that Democrats and Republicans would work to pile on more economic pressure on the country.

“Democrats and Republicans are going to work together to see that we don’t let up on these sanctions…until Iran gives up not only its nuclear weapons, but all nuclear weapon capability, all enriched uranium,” Schumer said.  “Every time the Arab world, the Palestinians, have risen against us, we have risen to defeat them.  The one existential threat to Israel’s existence is a nuclear Iran.”

The Democratic Senator made the remarks to attendees at a fundraiser for OHEL Children’s Home and Family Services, an Orthodox Jewish welfare organization. Video of Schumer’s remarks were uploaded by Jacob Kornbluh, a New York-based reporter.

Schumer’s speech was a preview of the potential difficulties the Obama administration will have in convincing the most hawkish Senators and Representatives that sanctions should be held off.

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were successful in pressuring Congress to hold off on new sanctions before last weekend’s Geneva negotiations.  During the talks, Kerry reportedly warned that new sanctions would be coming down the pike if no deal was struck to pressure Iran.

But a deal was struck, and now the Obama administration has to watch out for new Congressional efforts to sanction Iran–which would scuttle the deal reached to curb Iran’s enrichment program in exchange for some relief from economic pressure.

In a previous statement, Schumer said that the “disproportionality of this agreement makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December.” Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid called the Iran deal an “important first step” but did not fully close off the possibility that new sanctions would be enacted before the six-month deal with Iran is up.

Some Democrats, like the hawkish Rep. Eliot Engel, said that while he doesn’t trust Iran, the deal should be tested.  A more likely scenario than immediate sanctions–which Obama could veto–are new sanctions that would go into effect in six months, which would up the pressure on the Obama administration to reach a far-reaching deal with Iran.

Update: The Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s Ron Kampeas fills in more of the Iran sanctions picture.  What emerges from his report is that Congressional hawks will indeed push for new sanctions legislation. But the legislation–if it passes–will only go into affect if Iran cheats or if Iran hasn’t “dismantled” its nuclear program in six months.

Kampeas also reports that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee will be drafting new sanctions legislation after Thanksgiving that will “will condition the environment for a final deal.”

About Alex Kane

Alex Kane is a freelance journalist and graduate student at New York University's Near East Studies and Journalism programs. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

129 Responses

  1. W.Jones
    November 25, 2013, 11:10 am

    “Democrats and Republicans are going to work together to see that we don’t let up on these sanctions…until Iran gives up not only its nuclear weapons

    News alert by Scumer: Iran has nukes.

    Isn’t that happened with Iraq? Bush gave Iraq a countdown I saw on TV for Saddam to give up his WMDs. The problem for Iraq in fulfilling this demand was that Iraq did not have any.

  2. Krauss
    November 25, 2013, 11:16 am

    Chuck Shumer, who never fails to note that his last name means Shomer or “Guardian” in Hewbrew, has repeatedly stated that his basic priority is to advance Israel’s interest. He is not alone.

    Mark Kirk went even further. He said his entire reason for being in Congress is to advance the cause of Israel.

    Let AIPAC and its political whores – for that is what they are – do their work.
    We saw in Syria what happened. They want a war but can’t get one. So they will try to destroy Iran with sanctions, make it more extreme and scuttle any deal by any chance. They could well succeed.

    But the days when the lobby operated in secret without any media coverage is over.
    Steve Rosen called it a night flower. When sunlight reaches it; it dies.

    The MSM failed to act on AIPAC in the run-up to the Iraq war. They learned their lesson with Syria. Now comes the grand prize for the lobby; Iran. It was always about Iran. This is where the lobby is the strongest. If it can be defeated here, it would be an almost-fatal blow to its political credibility.

    Just imagine how fast it went from the Hagel hearings, where it demonstrated its political muscle, to playing defence on a core issue like Iran, all within the same year. Things are changing, fast.

    The lobby was right to fear Obama. And he would never forgive them for what they made him endure during his first term.
    Now he is out for their throat, going for the arteries.

    • seafoid
      November 25, 2013, 11:43 am

      Sanctions on a country with massive oil reserves are ridiculous when oil supply is so tight.
      The bots are going to have to live with Iran.
      It’s not like Israel can supply an additional 3m barrels per day or anything.

      • American
        November 25, 2013, 12:09 pm

        @ seafoid

        This will interest you. ..oil supply not short…but some countries have reason to fear Iran oil coming back because oil price will drop and they might not be able to meet their budgets….Saudi particulary depends on a certain world market price for their oil to keep up their kingdom.

        Iran sanctions deal to unleash oil supply but Saudi wild card looms

        link to telegraph.co.uk

      • seafoid
        November 25, 2013, 3:11 pm

        If saudi needs a price of $97 to balance the budget it must be vulnerable . There is a lot of geopolitical risk in the global energy mix and Israel has nothing to offer.

      • SQ Debris
        November 26, 2013, 5:05 pm

        It’s not just “some countries” that have reason to fear an open market for Iranian oil. The combined crunch of Iraqi and Iranian oil being offline for so long meant billions for American oil producers whose production costs were unaffected, but whose profit margin went through the roof. Exxon and the rest of the multinational energy corps, as well as oil producing states, have strong financial incentives for a continuation of sanctions on Iran. It will be interesting to watch which states’ reps and senators holler the loudest for increasing them. I have to wonder how much the Schumer campaign get’s from big oil.

    • Citizen
      November 25, 2013, 2:15 pm

      @ Krauss
      MJRosenberg says, on his blog, that Schumer could care less about Israel, once said in his younger days he “doesn’t get Israel,” but he sure does “get” Wall Street. Further, that Schumer is as religious “as a ham sandwich.” Says Schumer just always wants to raise money through appeals to donors to save Israel.

      • Krauss
        November 25, 2013, 6:01 pm

        Sorry, but MJ is wrong on that one.

        He isn’t religious? So isn’t Dershowitz and we all know how crazy he is on Israel.
        He follows the money? Wall Street primarily cares about banking. And if Schumer was mostly interested in cash he could diverisify to look after other industries, the health care lobby, the farm lobby and so on and so on.

        If cash is what you want, the possibilites to get it in Washington are literally endless.
        The last thing he lacks is choice.

        MJ has a tendency to reduce these argument to these lazy conclusions, my guess is that he’s uncomfortable with the situation. It’s the same instinct that Chomsky has when he tries to pretend that Israel occupies the Palestinians because, er, capitalism! Both ignore the ideological foundation present in both cases, which forces them to deal with Jewish fanaticism and nationalism. In MJ Rosenberg’s case he’s still a 2SS Zionist, despite that it is buried, more or less, and that green-line Israel is hardly a democracy to begin with anyway.
        So we shouldn’t overestimate his moral and democratic fiber. Nor should we underestimate his urge to draw attention away from Zionism as an ideology and instead blame capitalism/money/random greed instead. Remember, as a Zionist, MJ is not objective in this debate.

        Also, as Annie has showed multiple times, MJ has a tendency to just make random statements without showing any proof of it.
        Schumer is a fanatic on Israel, just Steve Israel is, who is also super secular. Neither needs the lobby’s money, both are in safe seats and both are seculars.
        They support Zionism because of ideology.

      • piotr
        November 25, 2013, 9:48 pm

        ” In MJ Rosenberg’s case he’s still a 2SS Zionist, despite that it is buried, more or less, and that green-line Israel is hardly a democracy to begin with anyway.
        So we shouldn’t overestimate his moral and democratic fiber. ”

        This is an unjustified conclusion. There is no inherent immorality in Zionism or 2SS position. While majority of Zionists are oblivious to the logic in inter-ethnic morality and the majority of “2SS supporters” are in fact apologists for apartheid policies, this is not inherent and those are not MJ’s positions.

        The second question is if Schumer is a genuine Israeli fanatic or a phony. A true test would be if we could show a case of Schumer taking a “pro-Israel position” that would cost him some money or some votes. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut could be an example (he surely lost some votes). Thus we are left with arguments based on indirect evidence. MJ argues that “pro-Israel” positions are phony because the proponents simply accept AIPAC talking points with no regard of actual interest of the State of Israel. I know how to argue otherwise, but the bottom line is that our liberal politicians are typically phony (in that sense, taking convenient positions that improve their cash balance and security of re-election with no regard on actual consequences) on every single issue and it is a good thing to harass them from that angle.

        In fact, the mere fact of being elected politician in a large state is an almost certain predictor of phoniness. Try to find a genuine reason for non-Jewish non-religious former radical leftist De Blasio developing such a high regard for the late Ovadia Josef? (Schumer at least took a pass on that eulogy.)

        It is not like Schumer is out there offending dairy lobby, health care lobby, etc. I guess that his main cash cow is financial industry, and you have to consider how many in that industry are Zionists, friends of Zionists or are genuinely concerned with peace and justice for all.

      • Krauss
        November 26, 2013, 2:13 am

        There is no inherent immorality in Zionism

        Do you really believe this piotr? Ethnic cleansing, racial supremacy was a foundational stone in Zionism.

        Remember, it began way before the Holocaust. It was shaped by late 1800s in Europe, which was the peak of racial discourse in Europe. After all, as Europe had risen to dominate the globe, essentially, you had to grasp for an explanation and race was part of it. It’s also a highly convenient explanation. Herzl did suffer from anti-Semitism, but as much as he suffered, he was also permanently imprinted with the racism of the times.

        He wrote in his diaries how the Arabs would be “spirited away” and how Israel would be a “ramparts of civilization against the hordes of Asia”.

        I mean, this is essentially classic colonial racism. It’s racial supremacy.

        Try to find a genuine reason for non-Jewish non-religious former radical leftist De Blasio developing such a high regard for the late Ovadia Josef? (Schumer at least took a pass on that eulogy.)

        It is not like Schumer is out there offending dairy lobby, health care lobby, etc. I guess that his main cash cow is financial industry, and you have to consider how many in that industry are Zionists, friends of Zionists or are genuinely concerned with peace and justice for all.

        Re: Ovadia Josef. Yes, de Blasio took that support out of electorial considerations.
        But this misses my point. de Blasio was running for election. He was painted as a dangerous radical leftist and a pro-Cuban socialist. Essentially the white version of what happened to Obama in early 2008.

        Schumer on the other hand is, as I said, already in a safe seat. He doesn’t need to have the profile that he has if he doesn’t want to, on these issues.
        And while you’re correct to note that a lot of Wall Street guys like Loeb, Singer and Einhorn are pretty fanatically Zionist, money/banks/pro-Wall st policies are still the main issue for them.

        If you’re sufficiently Zionist, they’ll let you off the hook. There are many Jewish senators in Congress who take a far less strident approach on Israel than Schumer does, and remember that while Wall Street is more focused on New York, that state has only a few small amount of senators. You need broad support of Wall Street from every corner of the country to keep the concensus. The Israel Lobby understands this too, but it also understand that it needs to focus on people who are not Jewish and don’t come to this naturally.
        This is why Mark Kirk/Robert Menendez are popular with AIPAC. They’re political whores. They can be bought. Schumer doesn’t need to be bought. The only guy who frankly outdid him was Joe Lieberman in his slavishness for Zionism but now he’s gone.

        My point is that while there are financial rewards for taking a militaristic Zionist line, it’s not really electorically necessary for a guy like Schumer who isn’t going anywhere. Now, if he went all One Person, One Vote on their asses, it’d be a different story. But almost nobody in Congress is taking that position.

        He takes it because he believes it. He’s over 60 years old. He grew up in a very Zionist household. Zionism was enforced at every stage of his life. And even if he didn’t care personally that much, he is a Jew who is close to his community. And the Jewish community is overwhelmingly Zionist and quite stridently so, at least in his generation. So there are all kinds of cultural re-inforcement mechanisms which were deployed at every stage of his life and still are.

        Finally, tell me, if he didn’t care about these issues, why was he giving a speech to OLEH, an ultra-Orthodox organization?
        Are the ultra-Orthodox flux with cash? Not really. What about votes? Voting 2-1 for GOP. And Schumer, as I said many times, is in a safe seat anyway. He doesn’t need the Haredi vote and he will lose it anyway. So why is he giving a speech there? Because he is a highly ethnocentric guy. Zionism comes with the mother’s milk if you’re Jewish, anywhere you live, basically.
        And if that reaches fertile ground already, high ethnocentrism, then it turns into fanaticism.
        You don’t speak with that kind of passion that Schumer does in that speech, that hatred of Arabs, unless it wasn’t visceral, if it wasn’t by instinct and complete conviction.

        Sorry, but the “let’s blame capitalism/greed/oops” reflects an anxiety of people who want to divert attention away from these deep-seated issues.
        It makes MJ Rosenberg, Chomsky and Finkelstein uncomfortable, all people in their 60s and above. It apparently makes you queasy too.

      • piotr
        November 26, 2013, 9:33 am

        Schumer also voted to approve Hagel and led the counter-attack defending that nomination, and this was a marker for fanatic supporter of Israel.

        I perceive the forming of the same coalition that enabled Hagel’s nomination. The leading Jewish commentators like Roger Cohen and Tom Friedman defend accord with Iran, and of course the liberal and progressive Jewish organization. I expect AIPAC, presidents of the major Jewish organization and right wing Jewish commentators to be against, and then the time will come for Democrats to show some party discipline, something that Schumer is actually good at. I do not expect him to do Joe Lieberman.

  3. American
    November 25, 2013, 11:28 am

    Obama has leeway on Iran, despite U.S. lawmakers’ concerns link to reuters.com

    snip….

    ”Members of Congress tend to be more hawkish about Iran than the Obama administration. Legislation condemning Iran, supporting Israel and proposing stiff sanctions generally passes with strong support among both Democrats and Republicans.”

    ”But a few lawmakers believed the Israeli lobbying push to halt the emerging Iran deal may have gone too far this time.”

    ”A person who attended a briefing last week for members of the House of Representatives by Israel’s ambassador, Ron Dermer, said some members showed concern at the “vocal and public” way Israel had lobbied the American public and Congress.”

    ”Another person who has attended White House meetings on the issue said administration officials were furious.”Trying to get the Senate to do something that would thwart a major initiative of the administration – that’s crossing a line,” according to the source, who requested anonymity ‘.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    So, is this true? Are some of the congressperps getting nervous about how this has exposed the disloyalty to the US of many in congress?

    • American
      November 25, 2013, 11:31 am

      P.S.
      MJ bombs away! Heheheh

      link to mjayrosenberg.com
      Iran Agreement is Clearest Test Ever Of Loyalty to US or Israel
      25 Nov
      Forgot Congress, their loyalty is to getting campaign money from AIPAC. They are just whores.

      As for everyone else.

      American interests are unambiguous: achieving the success of US-Isran deal.

      Netanyahu’s interests: killing the deal to achieve war with Iran, preferably by US forces.

      Having read 100% of the comments on the deal this weekend, it is clear that exactly 100% of its supporters are driven by US interests as well as the belief that the deal protects the people of Israel and Iran.

      100% of the people opposing the deal oppose it because they have their marching orders from Netanyahu. They accept his word that the deal is bad for Israel.

      So it’s a zero sum game. Are you loyal to the US interests or Netanyahu’s

      It is that simple. Watch the usual suspects line up behind Bibi with utter disregard for the country they choose to live in.

      Or, in fact, for the people of Israel who they would be happy to see fleeing to bomb shelters so long as it helps Netanyahu and his coalition of settlers and religious fanatics.

      Watch all the talking heads (politicians, pundits, law professors, “pro-Israel” organizational hacks). Which side are they on? Or more precisely: whose side.

    • Chu
      November 25, 2013, 12:09 pm

      ‘Are some of the congress getting nervous about how this has exposed the disloyalty to the US of many in congress?’

      Good question. AIPAC can buy off a few in congress, but in the future they can’t buy off the entire lot of congress – they don’t have the money. And once the debate about engaging in more military action in the middle east continues to bubble to the surface in the minds of United States citizens, it will be too late for AIPAC to strong arm the congress.

      AIPAC must be smart enough to realize this house of cards they constructed can easily be toppled because of 1. US self interests don’t align with Israel 2. US citizens are becoming more aware of the deception 3. Israel arrogance with AIPAC is right beneath the surface.

      Some smart republicans must be thinking they need to reconsider fighting the president at every step of the way when it comes to middle east policy. Their image will begin to sour when their electorate know they are getting greased by a foreign lobby. It seems like the wheels are coming off the AIPAC caravan every month that passes by.

      • Erasmus
        November 25, 2013, 3:28 pm

        Re Chu: ….And once the debate about engaging in more military action in the middle east continues to bubble to the surface in the minds of United States citizens, it will be too late for AIPAC to strong arm the congress…

        Moreover, once it dawns on potential congress- or senator-candidates that campaign moneys from AIPAC -sources meanwhile have become a liability, compromising their chances to get elected, then the AIPAC $-bondage has evaporated. Puff…….

        The souvereign, the USA- electorate has matured and increasingly considers honest and bondage-free candidates better representatives to have as Congressmen + Senators.

  4. HarryLaw
    November 25, 2013, 11:45 am

    This speech by Senator Chuck Schumar [Likud] are the blatherings of an imbecile, “Iran must give up it’s nuclear weapons” What nuclear weapons? Hopefully the US electorate will remind these Senators and other members of Congress [like they did on the Syrian question] why they do not want any more 6 Trillion dollar wars [ Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government estimate for combined projected costs of Iraq and Afghanistan wars] for no reason, and why they will not vote for Representatives who advocate them.

  5. Chu
    November 25, 2013, 11:49 am

    It’s been said that when Harry Reid leaves his post Chuck Shumer will be the next Senate Majority leader. Do you think this is possible to become majority leader when he is on record going behind the president’s back – of his own party nonetheless?

    That’s not a sign of resounding party loyalty.

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 25, 2013, 12:28 pm

      “That’s not a sign of resounding party loyalty.”

      He has loyalty to a country other than to the US. You expect his to have loyalty to his party?

  6. seafoid
    November 25, 2013, 11:57 am

    link to progressive.org

    “Fighting Bob La Follette, the great Senator from Wisconsin and the founder of this magazine, warned throughout his career about the looming threat posed by corporate power. When he ran for President in 1924, he said: “Democracy cannot live side by side with the control of government by private monopoly. We must choose, on the one hand, between representative government, with its guarantee of peace, liberty, and economic freedom and prosperity for all the people, and on the other, war, tyranny, and the impoverishment of the many for the enrichment of the favored few.”

    And the Jewish state is on the side of the impoverishers. And that is so dangerous.

  7. pabelmont
    November 25, 2013, 12:04 pm

    Obama has lots of troubles. No-one ever told him (how) to hire qualified computer professionals to roll-out Obamacare. So — trouble #1.

    Now he has the usual suspects (Israel Firsters) out to scuttle his deal with Iran. If he gets scuttled, that’s #2.

    (However, Larry Derfner at +972 tells us that Israel’s intelligence folks like the deal:

    But there are some other extremely powerful Israelis who don’t think the agreement is so bad, and who certainly prefer it to the no-agreement that Bibi and AIPAC were driving toward – and these Israelis make up the country’s military-intelligence establishment.

    So things may not be so bad as all that.)

    If Obama goes in the can, he becomes liberated. He still rules the State department and his ambassador at the UNSC. He could abandon all pretence to be the leaders of the Dems and, instead, start doing statesman stuff — and I’d like him to start by forcing a roll-back of the settlements. He cannot do that if he is “leader of the Democratic Party” or any sort of fund-raiser. Leave that to others, leave it to Israel Firsters, and make for world peace instead. (Always remembering what happened to JFK and watching his back, of course.)

  8. amigo
    November 25, 2013, 12:14 pm

    “vows to ‘defeat’ Arab world and Palestinians”shumer.

    Vile contemptible sleeze.

  9. Justpassingby
    November 25, 2013, 12:16 pm

    You are free to leave America for Israel Schumer, I would pay for the ticket.

  10. Woody Tanaka
    November 25, 2013, 12:27 pm

    “Every time the Arab world, the Palestinians, have risen against us, we have risen to defeat them.”

    By this statement, Shumer demonstrates that his loyalty is not exclusively with the US. He should lose any security clearance he has and never be trusted with any US secrets. He is clearly an agent for an alien power and should be treated as such.

    • Citizen
      November 25, 2013, 2:24 pm

      @ Woody Tanaka
      Smart catch. As Bill Clinton would say, “It all depends on who ‘us’ is.” When did the Palestinians rise up against America? How many Arab states have done the same? Of those who fought us, weren’t they defending their homeland?

    • just
      November 25, 2013, 8:14 pm

      That’s the quote that caught my attention.

      Since when have the Palestinians “risen against” the US?

      Never. So his loyalty is to Israel and his remarks are racist to the core…….. he needs to be kicked out of Congress. When have Arabs “risen against” us? When we bomb them? Aren’t they allowed to fight back?

      He’s a drone and shill for Israel and his bank account. He represents only a part of his constituency.

    • Sammar
      November 26, 2013, 1:08 am

      ” ”Every time the Arab world, the Palestinians, have risen against us, we have risen to defeat them. The one existential threat to Israel’s existence is a nuclear Iran.”

      Who does he mean by “us” in this statement? It would seem that he sees Israel as “us” in that context. Does he have dual nationality – US and Israel? If so, maybe he should be a member of the Knesset instead of the US Congress? If not, why is he speaking for Israel instead of speaking for US interests? Which are clearly served better by improving relations with Iran. And as far as Arabs and Palestinians are concerned, they have risen up against Israel in response to its land theft and brutal occupation and support for those Israeli actions have never been in US interest either.

    • piotr
      November 26, 2013, 6:36 pm

      I wish it was so simple. I was explained that “security clearance” and “top secret” do not mean much in actuality. At least, they should not. True secrets have lists of people who may see them. For example, the secret negotiations with Iran most probably had very short lists.

      It is amazing how much stuff Manning and Snowden could get, and it suggests that the organization of the data management violated a number of principles. Nevertheless, I suspect that members of intelligence committees of Congress do not know too much.

  11. marc b.
    November 25, 2013, 12:28 pm

    Schumer’s speech was a preview of the potential difficulties the Obama administration will have in convincing the most hawkish Senators and Representatives that sanctions should be held off.

    oil prices just went down in response to news of the agreement. congressional approval ratings at 9%. the Syrian war mongers ‘voted’ down. schumer should just shut up and nod, ‘yes, mr. president.’ nuclear weapons my ass.

    • Citizen
      November 25, 2013, 2:28 pm

      @ maect b
      Wonder if I will see the oil price cut when I get gas; where I live, the price has gone up per gallon for regular by 30 cents per gallon in last few weeks. How’s Schumer’s Big Gulp Ban doing? How about his Civilian Arms Ban Proposal?

  12. EUR1069
    November 25, 2013, 12:30 pm

    Chuck, you can’t pull the same trick over & over again, ad infinitum. Your speech by all standards was a swan song of the AIPAC’s farewell tour.

  13. David Doppler
    November 25, 2013, 12:37 pm

    Netanyahu has certainly picked this public fight, let him lose it with bloodied nose. He deserves to be run from office in disgrace. Let the MSM start reporting other voices from Israel, including its stock market!

    • Citizen
      November 25, 2013, 2:31 pm

      @ David Doppler
      So far, I see no evidence on the MSM’s TV news infotainment shows that Bibi has lost any clout. MSNBC, Fox, CNN–the hasbara brats are spouting it’s a bad deal like crazy. MSNBC, at least, always supports Obama, but not this time around, even though they’ve been given all the ammo they need from Kerry himself on this deal with Iran.

    • Abierno
      November 25, 2013, 4:42 pm

      If Netanyahu were run out of office, those who would fill his place are worse:
      Most probably Naftali Bennett (of the suitcase bomb quote) or Avigdor Lieberman
      (of the threat to bomb the Aswan dam, among others). The insolvable political
      issue in Israel is the fusion of the settlers and the orthodox, all to the detriment
      of the average middle class Israeli, as well as non Jewish Israelis and Palestinians. The coalition approach as well as not allowing voting for particular individuals (the party makes up the roster of Knesset participants), simply gives powerful special interests a choke hold on the government. A more extreme government could be expected to be far more aggressive with neighboring countries, worry little about WWIII and to accelerate the expulsion of the non Jewish from both Israel and the
      territories.

  14. richb
    November 25, 2013, 12:51 pm

    AIPAC is losing their mojo. First the Syria debacle and now the normally pro-Israel Daily Kos had the following on the rec list over the weekend:

    link to dailykos.com

  15. MichaelRivero
    November 25, 2013, 12:56 pm

    Okay Chuck, if you really feel that way; here’s your rifle, here’s your parachute, we ran out of the desert camo but here is a bright day-glo orange jumpsuit left over from Abu Ghraib. Watch your head climbing into that transport, and we’ll call Iran and tell them you are on your way to kick their butts all by yourself. But given that Iran has not invaded another country in a war of aggression in over 200 years, standing in stark contrast to both Israel and the US, which cannot seem to go six months without attacking someone, you will forgive the American people if we decide that enough of our children have already been killed and crippled in wars on Israel’s enemies and we sit this one out. Let Israel take care of Israel’s enemies, or better still, learn how to get along with the rest of the civilized world.

    • Citizen
      November 25, 2013, 2:37 pm

      @ MichaelRivero
      I was at the VA hospital in Bay Pines Florida today, and an RN (in introduction banter), was jocularly painting Iran as the problem with all ailments. I countered by saying the average Iranian has more historical right to diss us, than visa-versa, for example, how we installed the Shah. She responded by saying she doesn’t read history. Pretty funny, typical (in my experience), and tragic in a real way.

  16. LanceThruster
    November 25, 2013, 1:21 pm

    Great link, richb. I’m surprised the Great Orange Satan has any non-Z-teamers left to counter the Hasbara since their Zionist rapid response team (they actually have mods setup to do just that) purged so many of them over the years.

  17. Philip Munger
    November 25, 2013, 1:23 pm

    Every time the Arab world, the Palestinians, have risen against us, we have risen to defeat them.

    Which “us” is the Senator from New York state referring to? The “us” that will be seeing fuel prices going down another ten to twenty cents just before the holidays? The majority of Israelis who support this interim agreement?

    And, to answer a question posed above by Chu, Chuck is on the short list to succeed Reid.

    • Citizen
      November 25, 2013, 2:40 pm

      @ Philip Munger
      Really depressing that Schumer is on the short list to replace Reid. But thanks for that added information; I will watch it, as usual the way I alway do, watching the news–one step from chucking my shoe at the TV pundits spin on breaking news concerning the ME.

  18. joer
    November 25, 2013, 1:36 pm

    “The one existential threat to Israel’s existence is a nuclear Iran.”

    I think Strunk and White would have a fit if they saw this quote. The word ” existential” is redundant and unnesseray. Israel supporters like to use that word a lot I notice, probably because they think it makes them sound smart. I guess it works though, because they keep inserting it wherever they can.

    • Dutch
      November 25, 2013, 2:04 pm

      Yep. And by repeating it over and over again, they have become the existential threat themselves.

      • Citizen
        November 25, 2013, 2:43 pm

        @ Dutch
        Pithy comment!

  19. robertsgt40
    November 25, 2013, 2:06 pm

    ”Every time the Arab world, the Palestinians, have risen against us, we have risen to defeat them.====We? You mean the U.S. and NATO I assume.

  20. Citizen
    November 25, 2013, 4:57 pm

    Schumer’s screaming for America to take another Big Gulp of Hasbara. But, as the Zionist and fake American copycat folk song crooner sang, “The Times, They Are A Changing.”
    Time to take out the Neighborhood Bully.

    Palestinians keep singing Dylan’s other lyrics, “Blowing In The Wind,” where they sing to be recognized as a man, as fully human.

    Dylan himself has no clue.

  21. EUR1069
    November 25, 2013, 5:03 pm

    “the American Israel Public Affairs Committee will be drafting new sanctions legislation”

    Since when is it in the AIPAC jurisdiction to “draft… sanctions legislation”?? Is anyone there to cut them down to size & stop them from interfering in the business of the US government?

  22. Stateless American
    November 25, 2013, 5:15 pm

    I think it’s inaccurate and misleading to describe Israel-firsters simply as “hawks.” It’s like attributing Israel’s policies to the country’s right wing politicians. Is the despicable Shimon Peres a right winger? Is Tom Harkin a hawk? It’s much more pervasive than that.

  23. Mayhem
    November 25, 2013, 6:08 pm

    Alex Kane, the proverbial fly on the wall. Never a report from the
    inner circle of the pro-Palestinian camp, who seem to be exempt from
    scrutiny with whatever they say.
    With no focus on the rhetoric coming from the other side the balance
    of thinking on MW is way lop-sided. Iran can be trusted and is touted as the poor victim of Zionism and American imperialism, avoiding any judicious criticism.
    Consider link to bicom.org.uk where there
    is some analysis of deliberate Palestinian incitement, but this
    doesn’t seem to concern MW. It is too subtle it seems. Nobody has the
    incisiveness or even plain honesty to recognise how Abbas “… never
    says ‘the Jewish people’. In this speech, he was talking about a
    culture of peace between the Israeli people, and the Palestinian
    people. For him, there is no Jewish people; there is only an Israeli
    people. All of Israel’s citizens are the Israeli people. By that, he
    avoids saying that there is something called ‘the Jewish people’, because in his mind there is no such thing.”
    If those strident voices around here really wanted a decent solution
    to this conflict they would not be ignoring deeply inciteful remarks
    like Abbas’ and not be concentrating solely on the words of pro-Israel supporters.

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 25, 2013, 6:38 pm

      “It is too subtle it seems. Nobody has the
      incisiveness or even plain honesty to recognise how Abbas “… never
      says ‘the Jewish people’. In this speech, he was talking about a
      culture of peace between the Israeli people, and the Palestinian
      people”

      LMAO. Yeah, you zios have a history of declaring that there is no such thing as the Palestinian nation and Abbas’s statements are somehow a problem?? The entity he’s dealing with is israel, so “israeli people” is proper. (And linking to a propaganda outfit like bicom?? What a joke.)

    • talknic
      November 25, 2013, 7:28 pm

      @ Mayhem “Never a report from the inner circle of the pro-Palestinian camp, who seem to be exempt from scrutiny with whatever they say.”

      [email protected] Go for it…

      “Consider bicom.org.uk where there is some analysis of deliberate Palestinian incitement”

      It omits the fact that Palestinians have been occupied for 65 yrs by the Jewish state link to mfa.gov.il A state in breach of laws link to wp.me that were adopted in large part because of the treatment of Jews by the Nazis. Israel’s behaviour is quite naziesque. Israel illegally acquires Palestinian territory, dispossesses Palestinians. Illegally annexes and illegally settles Israeli citizens in Palestinian territory. Do you really expect roses in return?

      “Nobody has the incisiveness or even plain honesty to recognise how Abbas “… never says ‘the Jewish people’. In this speech, he was talking about a culture of peace between the Israeli people, and the Palestinian people. “

      You want him to dishonestly conflate Jews with Israel. Why?

      “For him, there is no Jewish people; there is only an Israeli
      people. All of Israel’s citizens are the Israeli people. By that, he
      avoids saying that there is something called ‘the Jewish people’, because in his mind…..”

      Mind reading your forte? BTW All of Israel’s citizens are the Israeli people.

      “If those strident voices around here really wanted a decent solution
      to this conflict they would not be ignoring deeply inciteful remarks
      like Abbas’ and not be concentrating solely on the words of pro-Israel supporters”

      If Israel really wanted a decent solution to this conflict it would have long ago adhered to the laws it and you ignore

    • RoHa
      November 25, 2013, 8:33 pm

      “By that, he avoids saying that there is something called ‘the Jewish people’, because in his mind there is no such thing.”

      Or because his concern is not with ‘the Jewish people’ but with Israel.

      • ErsatzYisrael
        November 27, 2013, 5:01 am

        RoHa says:
        November 25, 2013 at 8:33 pm

        “Or because his concern is not with ‘the Jewish people’ but with Israel..”

        Or because he realizes that the phrase is a Zionist construct and propaganda weapon.

        There is something called ‘the Jewish people’, like there’s something called The People under the Stairs.

        The correct word is Jews, not preceded by a definite article.

    • Dutch
      November 25, 2013, 9:19 pm

      @ Mayhem

      You sound like Schumer, who demanded that ‘Iran must recognize Israel as a Jewish state’ just two weeks ago. The poor chap mixed up Iran and Abbas. Like you mix op Israeli’s and Jews.

      I call the Israeli people what they are: the Israeli people. Just like Abbas. Many of them are not Jewish, you know. BTW, once the one state solution comes along and the refugees return home, Jews will be a minority.

      As for a ‘Jewish people’ (I rather use community), I guess we can agree that half of that people live outside Israel. That’s another reason why Abbas was right.

      But the most important reason to deny those ugly slogans is because they are meant to discriminate, ethnically cleanse and steal more land. As such, everybody should refrain from them.

      • Mayhem
        November 26, 2013, 12:46 am

        Four replies to my suggestion about the totally lop sided nature of MW with one facetious response exhorting me to make a submission to set
        the balance. Now seriously …
        As I suggested the way that Abbas’ speaks without acknowledging the
        entity of the Jewish people is what one might expect from a joker who did his Ph.D in Holocaust denial. He is operating in the same vein today, this time with ‘Jewish people denial’.
        Who is he really negotiating with when it comes to resolving the I/P conflict? Not the 20% Arab population who probably think he is a half wit. Of course with the Jews, who both in Israel and in the diaspora are the ones that have a vested interest in the fate of their country Israel.
        This is the discussion point I have raised and anybody who mentions
        stuff about Israel being the occupying power etc etc is merely deflecting from the point I have made. Of course the Israeli people exist as such, but in terms of the negotiations and the conflict the argument is between the Palestinian people, many of whom are Israeli, and the Jewish people. If Abbas might ever mention the Jewish people, the cat would be out of the bag and Abbas would be a goner. It was bad enough when he surrendered ground on the issue of the right of return.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 26, 2013, 1:03 am

        anybody who mentions stuff about Israel being the occupying power etc etc is merely deflecting from the point I have made.

        ah, is that how it works? you come onto a post and drop your myopic diversion (without acknowledging the entity of the Jewish people) into the thread and then claim any counter argument is a diversion?

        it may behoove you to consider “acknowledging …Jewish people” is not a prerequisite for any or every discussion. lack of it doesn’t constitute ‘Jewish people denial’.

        whereas, any discussion of the conflict which ignores Israel as the occupying power is…worthless.

        btw, abbas is not the elected representative of the palestinian people you know. what does this even have to do with alex’s post, or what schumer says? you’re just spamming the thread leaping off with your proverbial fly on the wall. ad homimen attack on alex and then launching into Never a report from the bla bla bla (fill in anything)

        we report from the inner circle of the pro palestinian camp all the time. but our idea of ‘inner circle’ is just different than yours. i’m surprised your spamming made it thru moderation.

      • talknic
        November 26, 2013, 2:28 am

        @ Mayhem s “Four replies to my suggestion about the totally lop sided nature of MW with one facetious response exhorting me to make a submission to set the balance. Now seriously …”

        Uh? There’s nothing facetious about encouraging you to write a submission. Far better than clogging up a thread with off topic what aboutery.

        “As I suggested the way that Abbas’ speaks without acknowledging the
        entity of the Jewish people “

        Problem. The State of Israel is the party in breach on hundreds of UNSC resolutions, denying the Palestinian state its rightful independence as it illegally acquires. illegally annexes and illegally settles its citizens in non-Israeli territory. Not the Jewish people, some half of whom are not citizens of the State of Israel.

        “Who is he really negotiating with when it comes to resolving the I/P conflict?”

        A rogue state, the State of Israel. The state in breach of International Law, the UN Charter. The state that covets territory that is not its own. Quite twisted that the Jewish state disregards one of the basic tenets of Judaism. No?

        ” Not the 20% Arab population …” … who’re represented by the representatives of State of Israel

        “Of course with the Jews, who both in Israel … “ … who’re represented by the representatives of State of Israel

        “.. and in the diaspora .. “ … negotiations aren’t with non-Israelis. They’ re represented by the representatives of their respective countries.

        “This is the discussion point I have raised “

        The point you have raised is off topic

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 26, 2013, 7:33 am

        “Four replies to my suggestion about the totally lop sided nature of MW with one facetious response exhorting me to make a submission to set
        the balance. Now seriously …”

        I know. Your idiotic statement didn’t even merit that.

        “As I suggested the way that Abbas’ speaks without acknowledging the
        entity of the Jewish people…”

        LMAO. I’m sure one the “entity of the Jewish people” recognize the State of Palestine, as most of the world has, then he would do likewise.

        “…a joker who did his Ph.D in Holocaust denial. He is operating in the same vein today, this time with ‘Jewish people denial’.”

        LOL. Compared to the statements various israelis have said about Palestinians through the years, Abbas’s book was a kiss on the cheek.

        “Who is he really negotiating with when it comes to resolving the I/P conflict? ”

        The zionist entity.

        “Not the 20% Arab population who probably think he is a half wit.”

        Nor with the 80% Jewish population (which probably wish to genocide or ethnically cleanse him and all other Palestinians.) He is negotiating with a political entity.

        “Of course with the Jews, who both in Israel and in the diaspora are the ones that have a vested interest in the fate of their country Israel.”

        Interesting. It’s usually termed antisemitic to lump in all the world’s Jews with the israelis, simply because the former are Jews. I guess now it’s okay to hold Jews in, say, South America or Europe responsible for the acts of the israelis, because, after all, they’re one and the same according to you??

        “This is the discussion point I have raised and anybody who mentions
        stuff about Israel being the occupying power etc etc is merely deflecting from the point I have made.”

        No, they’re demonstrating the substantive void in the point you made.

        “Of course the Israeli people exist as such, but in terms of the negotiations and the conflict the argument is between the Palestinian people, many of whom are Israeli, and the Jewish people.”

        Nope. False. The conflict is between two state entities.

        “If Abbas might ever mention the Jewish people, the cat would be out of the bag and Abbas would be a goner. It was bad enough when he surrendered ground on the issue of the right of return.”

        Yawn. More anti-Arab libels from you.

      • Citizen
        November 26, 2013, 3:32 pm

        @ WoodyT
        Israeli leaders always claim to speak in behalf all jews in the world. The same goes for AIPAC et al. This is why when anyone criticizes Israeli conduct or policy they are called anti-semitic. So that makes any Jew who does not agree with, for example, Bibi Netanyahu–a self-hating jew. And it makes any Gentile anti-semitic. Zionism assumes all Gentiles are anti-Semitic at core, whether living past, present, or future.

      • HarryLaw
        November 26, 2013, 5:13 am

        One of the reasons why Netanyahu insists that everyone call Israel “the Jewish state” could be to link together definitively, Israel and Jewish state, so that any criticism of the state of Israel would ipso facto be anti-Semitism, hey presto, no criticism of Israel.

      • RoHa
        November 26, 2013, 6:38 pm

        “so that any criticism of the state of Israel would ipso facto be anti-Semitism, hey presto, no criticism of Israel.”

        Works the other way round, too. As soon as you say that criticism of the state of Israel is part of anti-Semitism, you face inexorable logic.

        1. Criticism of the state of Israel is morally permissible, and perhaps a moral obligation.
        2. Some anti-Semitism is criticism of the state of Israel.
        3. Therefore, some anti-Semitism is morally permissible, and perhaps a moral obligation.

        Of course, it doesn’t make the other parts of anti-Semitism morally permissible, but it means that the accusation “anti-Semite” loses a lot of force.

      • EUR1069
        November 26, 2013, 7:15 pm

        @HarryLaw: Precisely. Abe Foxman 101

    • eljay
      November 25, 2013, 10:01 pm

      >> Nobody has the incisiveness or even plain honesty to recognise how Abbas “… never says ‘the Jewish people’. In this speech, he was talking about a culture of peace between the Israeli people, and the Palestinian people. For him, there is no Jewish people; there is only an Israeli people. All of Israel’s citizens are the Israeli people. … ”

      Abbas is right to speak of the Israeli people – that’s who the people of Israel are. To speak of the “Jewish people” would be to legitimize supremacist “Jewish State”, and that’s not something Abbas – or anyone else – should be doing.

  24. tombishop
    November 25, 2013, 6:12 pm

    When is Israel going to give up its almost 200 nuclear weapons? It’s the only way to get a fair agreement.

    • miriam6
      November 26, 2013, 3:56 am

      When is Israel going to give up its almost 200 nuclear weapons? It’s the only way to get a fair agreement.

      I dunno tommy – perhaps when America gives up it’s nukes ?

      America ought to lead the way and set the example first!

      That would be fair !

      • amigo
        November 26, 2013, 6:59 am

        No, the question should be ,”When is Israel going to admit inspectors in to to allow them to verify the “Non Existence ” of Israeli Nukes.

      • Walid
        November 26, 2013, 7:04 am

        Miriam puts the importance of what was once described by a French diplomat as a “shitty little state” at par with that of the US. Strange mentality, those Israelis.

      • miriam6
        November 26, 2013, 12:59 pm

        Walid@;

        So Israel is not the world player America is – at least that is something we agree about.
        I shall remember your assertion the next time you or other commenters try to claim – quite bizarrely – that a small country like Israel has greater power than the US and is somehow leading America around by the nose.

        In your comment you are freely admitting that America is the primary power in the world which imposes itself in an predatory and unfair not to say illegal manner on the smaller nations of the world such as Iraq / Afghanistan/ Pakistan / Cuba in a way Israel is unable to do.

        You have also shown that you accept that America’s interests in supporting Israel are not those of a true ally but rather those of a predatory parasitic super – power which uses and abuses the far less powerful Israel as one of it’s client states in the Mid East.

        The recent deal between the US and Iran over Iran’s nuclear project only further undermines the thesis of an all powerful Israel Lobby determining America’s policies in the Mid East.

        Let me ask you this – if Israel was an Arab run country would you still invoke the alleged insult?
        Would you still accept the alleged insult emanating from the French diplomat if it were aimed at an ARAB country?

        Of course not – whether rightly or wrongly Israel identifies itself as Jewish nation – which makes your reference to that washed – up French diplomats vulgar slur of a predominantly Jewish Israel – essentially racist.

        You are also saying that only a superpower bully like America may be allowed access and possession of nuclear weapons.

        Essentially you are crowing over the predatory dominance of one of the most powerful countries in the world over the smaller nations of the world.

        How shameful , reactionary and wrong headed of you.

      • lysias
        November 26, 2013, 4:06 pm

        You are also saying that only a superpower bully like America may be allowed access and possession of nuclear weapons.

        Are the people who object to the idea of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons bullies?

      • miriam6
        November 26, 2013, 4:55 pm

        Lysias@;

        Are the people who object to the idea of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons bullies?

        Do you mean the Israelis and or the Americans/ international community?

        On the face of it no country ought to be denied access to nuclear weapons I suppose – particularly when a superpower like America has them and justifies it or a regional power like Israel. ( allegedly!)

        However it is evidently not a desirable aim to have yet more nations acquire them.
        If Iran wanted and acquired them it would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race in the ME.
        Rather the point is for nations in the ME including Israel to move towards settling the Arab Israeli conflict and in that context Israel’s alleged nuclear arsenal might well be given up.

        Personally I have no problem with Iran developing nuclear energy for themselves.
        If that is all the Iranians are doing I do not see why Israel or anyone else should stop them.

        There is however a good deal of hypocrisy in bashing Israel’s alleged possession of nuclear arms when America’s right to be nuclear armed goes unquestioned.

        Again the fact that America went ahead and cut a deal with the Iranians just shows the myth of the all -powerful Israel lobby to be just that.
        A myth.

        What would Walt and Meirsheimer have to say about the America / Iran deal – I wonder ?

      • piotr
        November 26, 2013, 6:26 pm

        “Would you still accept the alleged insult emanating from the French diplomat if it were aimed at an ARAB country?”

        The list of countries insulted at this or that time by the French is quite long and the only thing it shows is that the French are almost as rude as Israelis. But sorry for being hyperbolic. If rudeness was an Olympic sport, Israel would get gold every time.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 27, 2013, 9:09 am

        If Iran wanted and acquired them it would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race in the ME.

        that role has already been filled, by israel.

      • miriam6
        November 27, 2013, 1:54 pm

        Annie@;

        that role has already been filled, by Israel.

        By definition in order to have an nuclear arms race more than ONE country has to have them – thus setting a nuclear arms race off.
        Only one nation in the Mid East has them ( Israel – allegedly).

        So you are wrong.

      • Taxi
        November 28, 2013, 3:49 am

        Miriam,
        “allegedly”.

        Wacko answer that only the severely brainwashed and demented would give at this stage of the game:
        link to vanunu.com

        PICTURES of israel’s illegal nukes factory included in the link, miss Pinocchio.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 28, 2013, 10:11 pm

        by definition in order to have an nuclear arms race more than ONE country has to have them

        seriously miriam, where do you come up with this stuff? ‘setting off’ a race starts with the first step by the first runner.

      • miriam6
        November 29, 2013, 8:45 am

        Annie@;

        WHERE is the arms race Annie? to date Israel is the only (allegedly) nuclear armed nation in the Mid east.

        So NO arms race!

      • Annie Robbins
        November 29, 2013, 11:45 am

        WHERE is the arms race..? to date Israel is the only (allegedly) nuclear armed nation in the Mid east.

        So NO arms race!

        miriam, 2 nation wouldn’t make a race. it would just be 2 nations w/nukes. or i suppose you would have no issue w/iran having a nuke as long as israel had none.

      • Walid
        November 29, 2013, 1:50 pm

        Miriam, sorry for the late reply; I got used to you not replying, I stopped checking.

        You began by saying that I’d say that Isreal is leading the US by the nose and then you went on and listed all those things I had said that contradicted this assertion. I never believed Israel led the US into anything. On the contrary, I always felt that the US used Israel.

        My snide remark was uncalled for. As to using it to describe an Arab country, I do it myself in so many other words here and you’d see it yourself if you knew how to read between the lines. That slur, BTW, by the French guy had nothing to do with Israel being Jewish but by Israel’s a-hole behaviour that pisses off everyone. You’ll remember Obama and Sarkozy discussing over an open microphone about Netanyahu being a liar and a pain and that too had nothing to do with Jews. The self-pity thing you guys keep carrying is nauseating. I don’t believe any country, big or small should have nuclear arms. You’re right about Hiroshima and Nagasaki; with the war technically over, they were unwarranted and monstrous acts.

      • miriam6
        November 29, 2013, 4:37 pm

        Hi Walid.

        My objection to your snide remark had nothing to do with self pity actually.

        There are good reasons to find the French diplomats remark objectionable. I think the post 9/11 context of the French diplomat’s remark is worth reflecting on.
        Rather than looking honestly at the effects and consequences of the Western nations century long post -WW1 imperialistic meddling in the Mid East and the instability it has caused in the Mid East – the West seems to have preferred to force Israel to shoulder all the blame for Mid East instability and conflict .
        The French diplomats contemptuous remark smacked of that need for a scapegoat I think.

        The French themselves ( along with the British ) bear a great deal of the historic guilt for destabilising the Mid East as a result of the Sykes- Picot agreement of 1916. The Sykes- Picot agreement was an act of astonishing imperialist arrogance which carved up Greater Syria into smaller nations comprising of competing religious and ethnic interests – designed therefore ( the French and British hoped ) to be forever riven and hampered in their development by sectarian strife and therefore easier for the West to control.
        Also – without the carving up of Greater Syrian territory into the separate colonial entities of Iraq / Kuwait / Jordan / Lebanon – and in particular Mandatory Palestine – Zionism could never have conceivably got a foothold in Palestine in the first place.
        Without Sykes – Picot – Israel would surely never have existed.

        Which brings us to the part America has latterly played in intensifying conflict in the Mid East.
        As you said and I agree America has / does use Israel as one of America’s client states particularly during the Cold War era.
        After the end of the Cold War America decided it had far less use of Israel so subsequently America sought through the Oslo Accords to impose a ‘settlement’ ( a containment rather than a solution ) of the I /P conflict on both the Palestinians and the Israelis.
        Oslo was designed to make the partition of Palestine and the separation of Jews and Palestinian Arabs a permanent affair rather than focusing on the goal of bringing Israelis and Palestinians together.
        I think that Oslo accounts for a lot of the nihilistic carnage wrought by both sides after Oslo – suicide bombings / Baruch Goldstein’s terrorism and Cast Lead/ increase in Israeli settlements in the OPT.
        I think both the Israelis and Palestinians – post Oslo – saw the conflict as being of a bloody fight for territory rather than thinking about forms of co-existence.

        America’s cynical need – when ever it suits American interests that is – to ‘contain’ conflicts such as the Arab Israeli I /P conflict – a conflict it was once all too eager to fan the flames of – rather than stepping back and allowing the protagonists to find their own workable solutions – bears a good deal of the responsibility for the present day trap Palestinians and Israelis find them selves in.

      • EUR1069
        November 29, 2013, 5:16 pm

        Miriam is right here: there is indeed no “arms race” per se. What we have instead is the Israeli HEGEMONY on nukes in the ME, which Tel Aviv is hellbent (to the extent of the possibilities) to maintain by preventing any other nation to acquire nuclear technology, even if for peaceful purposes. The customary MO is pitting Uncle “Sucker” Sam against Israel’s “enemy” of the day – in this case Iran.

      • eljay
        November 26, 2013, 7:51 am

        I dunno tommy – perhaps when America gives up it’s nukes ?

        America ought to lead the way and set the example first!

        That would be fair !

        Given that Israel is the country screaming the loudest about Iranian nukes, Israel should be the country setting the example. That would actually be fair.

      • Citizen
        November 26, 2013, 6:26 pm

        @ miriam6
        Actually, JFK tried to prevent Israel from getting nukes–he would have prevailed, but his life was cut short at that moment. America needs to pick up JFK’s vision again, and cut off all aid to Israel, both financial and diplomatic, unless Israel joins the NPT and allows external inspection of its nuclear stockpile. Otherwise, Israel’s stockpile lights the way for a nuke arms race in the ME.

      • miriam6
        November 27, 2013, 2:01 pm

        Citizen@;

        Well – folks can speculate to their hearts content about what JFK might or might not have done had he lived..

        Israel has allegedly been nuclear armed for 4 decades and a nuclear arms race in the Mid East has failed to appear subsequently.

      • Citizen
        November 28, 2013, 3:34 am

        @ miriam6
        JFK left clear evidence of his intention regarding Israel not getting the bomb. No need to speculate at all. Israel has seen to it no other ME country got the bomb–by bombing sites.

      • Citizen
        November 28, 2013, 5:02 am

        Israel bombed an Iraqi reactor in 1981 and a suspected one in Syria five years ago.

      • talknic
        November 28, 2013, 6:17 am

        @ miriam6 “Israel has allegedly been nuclear armed for 4 decades and a nuclear arms race in the Mid East has failed to appear subsequently”

        Strange According to the Israeli dialogue, Iraq was about to get ‘em, Syria had to be bombed and Iran has been one year away from getting ‘em for the last decade

        I guess you haven’t read much news in the last 20 years, too busy gulping down Hasbara BS

      • miriam6
        November 28, 2013, 7:46 am

        talknic@

        Well – most folks on this site swear blind that Iran is not even attempting to acquire them so you are left with no option but to make facetious statements like the above.
        If the issue of nuclear weaponry weren’t so serious I would laugh at Israel’s constant three decade long warnings about Iran acquiring the bomb. Despite which those Iranian nukes apparently still cease to exist.

      • miriam6
        November 28, 2013, 7:56 am

        Citizen@;

        JFK left clear evidence of his intention regarding Israel not getting the bomb.

        Can you provide links evidence about your assertion please?

        Israel has seen to it no other ME country got the bomb–by bombing sites.

        I happen to believe that Israel’s method of preventing other ME nations from acquiring the bomb has been for the good – it prevented a possible nuclear arms race in the ME.

        Also bombing sites to prevent the possible production of nuclear weapons were Israeli actions that had clear and worthwhile tactical and strategic goals vis-à-vis enhancing Israeli security.

        The same cannot be said of Israel’s two assaults on Gaza and Israel’s Lebanon war.
        A top Israeli general later admitted that in politico-military terms, the Lebanon war had served ‘no purpose’.

        Those were pointless bloody onslaughts with no clear strategic aim.

      • Citizen
        November 28, 2013, 2:33 pm

        JFK letter to Israeli PM in 1963:, not long before he was mysteriously killed: link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

      • RoHa
        November 28, 2013, 9:35 pm

        Not mysteriously killed.
        All perfectly clear.
        Lone crazed gunman.
        No conspiracy.
        Nothing mysterious at all.
        No, sir.
        Nothing whatsoever.
        No mystery.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 28, 2013, 10:16 pm

        I happen to believe that Israel’s method of preventing other ME nations from acquiring the bomb has been for the good

        what’s good for the goose is good for the gander miriam. no doubt you would support bombing israel to get rid of their nuke weapons program, and call it “good”.

      • miriam6
        November 29, 2013, 8:52 am

        Annie@;

        I reciprocate that thought by suggesting someone bomb America in order to get rid of AMERICAS nukes!

        May I remind you — YOUR country is the ONLY nation EVER to have dropped nuclear weapons – TWO in fact on another country! indeed it fought in the WW2 as a means of defeating a potential global competitors – including Imperial Japan!

        Plus America nuked Japan in order to keep the politics of global domination a game for white men only!

        The politics of racial hierarchy plus global domination was playing itself out in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

        Let me assure you Annie and taxi the – two of you have no higher moral ground to stand on here given YOUR country’s history!

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 29, 2013, 11:01 am

        “Let me assure you Annie and taxi the – two of you have no higher moral ground to stand on here given YOUR country’s history!”

        What a fundamentally bigoted thing to say. To say that someone’s “moral ground” is affected by the action of someone long dead, simply because the two share some arbitrary grouping is identical to the “reasoning” of a racist.

      • talknic
        November 29, 2013, 11:13 am

        @ miriam6 In typical Hasbara denialist nonsense style … doesn’t answer the question. Instead advocates violence against the USA

        What a winner!! Advocating violence two times to …. nil

      • talknic
        November 29, 2013, 11:24 am

        @ miriam6 ” most folks on this site swear blind that Iran is not even attempting to acquire them”

        There’s no tangible evidence Iran is attempting to acquire nukes. Accusations are not evidence.

        “you are left with no option but to make facetious statements like the above”

        There’s nothing facetious in pointing out the truth of the matter

        “If the issue of nuclear weaponry weren’t so serious I would laugh at Israel’s constant three decade long warnings about Iran acquiring the bomb. Despite which those Iranian nukes apparently still cease to exist”

        For something to ‘cease to exist’, they must have existed. But they haven’t ever existed and; there’s no evidence Iran has ‘em, is developing ‘em or even wants ‘em. In fact the opposite.

        Meanwhile Israel threatens anyone within reach with nukes. Having nukies is a threat to use them otherwise there is no point in having them, a logic that seems to escape Israel’s apologists.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 29, 2013, 12:02 pm

        miriam6 … doesn’t answer the question. Instead advocates violence against the USA

        i’m shocked! yep, in typical hasbarist denial nonsense.

      • American
        November 29, 2013, 12:33 pm

        ”Let me assure you Annie and taxi the – two of you have no higher moral ground to stand on here given YOUR country’s history!’….miram6

        Actually you have a point there….we do have a violent history.
        And in terms of gun murders and crime we are right up there at the top of the list among nations.
        You should let that be a caution to you and Israel and the zionist.
        Do not keep poking the sleeping lion and chipping at the American’s people’s interest.

      • talknic
        November 29, 2013, 12:47 pm

        @miriam6 “May I remind you — YOUR country is the ONLY nation EVER to have dropped nuclear weapons “

        My oh my…. how Israel’s apologists willfully turn on the ONLY friend Israel appears to have. Nothing is too low

      • miriam6
        November 29, 2013, 1:59 pm

        America@:

        MY nation is BRITAIN! Let me assure you we are fully nuclear armed nation right up the wazoo! We have Europe behind us. So go and pick on someone defenceless as you Americans like to do – Cuba perhaps – oh you HAVE been picking on the Cubans! No Pasaran!

        Your so called sleeping lion of a nation is rather shop worn and frayed around the edges nowadays.
        If not for the unlimited credit your nation has gotten over the years from China via the remarkable economic leap the Chinese have achieved these past 25 years your entire economy would have crashed in 2008 and the whole of America would have resembled post industrial Detroit.

        You Americans are far better off making nice with the rest off us in the world whilst you still have the chance rather than fantasising about regaining the sort of status you had around 1969 – the Apollo Landing being the height of your nations achievement ( though aided in part by former Nazi scientists of course)

        Like I said American – lose the arrogant imperialistic attitude and apparent pride you have in America’s violent shameful past and present – and start making nice with the rest of the world because pretty soon you will be eclipsed by China and India. You will need all the ‘friends’ you can get when THAT happens..

      • miriam6
        November 29, 2013, 2:16 pm

        Woody@;

        What a fundamentally bigoted thing to say. To say that someone’s “moral ground” is affected by the action of someone long dead, simply because the two share some arbitrary grouping is identical to the “reasoning” of a racist.

        So reasons the man who regularly dehumanises Israelis by lumping all Israelis together as one singular monolithic mass of people who are all uniformly racist and refuses to recognise that Israelis just like Americans are a collection of individuals.

        You want me to recognise YOUR humanity?

        Then start realising it is perfectly possible to combine valid criticism of Israeli policies with the recognition of the humanity of the Israeli people – for a change.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 29, 2013, 3:26 pm

        “MY nation is BRITAIN!”

        You call that a nation?? We have cornfields in America bigger than that.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 29, 2013, 3:33 pm

        “So reasons the man who regularly dehumanises Israelis by lumping all Israelis together as one singular monolithic mass of people who are all uniformly racist and refuses to recognise that Israelis just like Americans are a collection of individuals.”

        No, bigot, you’re wrong. I make it a practice to note that not all israelis are evil. There are a huge number that are, though, something that you refuse to recognize.

        “You want me to recognise YOUR humanity?”

        I frankly don’t care, bigot. Your thoughts, opinions, values and ideas are wholly and completely inconsequential.

        “Then start realising it is perfectly possible to combine valid criticism of Israeli policies with the recognition of the humanity of the Israeli people – for a change.”

        LMAO. Recognizing their humanity is trivial. What I refuse to do, though, is excuse the evil that they do, simply because they’re Jews, as you do, or for any other reason.

      • EUR1069
        November 29, 2013, 5:23 pm

        Miriam, her’s some weekend reading for you RE: JFK, the Lobby and the Bomb
        link to voltairenet.org

      • EUR1069
        November 29, 2013, 5:30 pm

        “My oh my…. how Israel’s apologists willfully turn on the ONLY friend Israel appears to have. Nothing is too low”

        No kidding. The Zionists will stab America in the back the moment it no longer served their purposes. Like a greedy parasite out of control who will suck the host dry & then die with it. “A selfish bunch” – President Harry Truman, 1948

      • American
        November 29, 2013, 5:45 pm

        miriam6 says:
        November 29, 2013 at 1:59 pm

        America@:

        MY nation is BRITAIN! Let me assure you we are fully nuclear armed nation right up the wazoo! >>>>

        On the contrary, I’m not a bit proud of US violence, ashamed of it actually—-but I am realistic.
        Americans are no better or different than any other people, push them too far and they will strike back.

        As far as Britian and Europe?…..small potatoes honey.
        There are 17,000 nuclear warheads in the world. Of these, some 4,300 warheads are considered operational, of which about 1,950 US and 1,800 Russian warheads are on high alert, ready for use on short notice.
        Out of all the 17,000 warheads operational and in reserve in the world the US has 7,700 and Russia has 8,500–thats 16,200 nuke warheads in their and our hands out of 17,000 world wide.
        In Europe the UK has 225 and France has 300–Israel has 80.
        You and the world do not want to egg the US (or Russia for that matter) into a position and risk having some President like Truman drop the nuke bombs.

        link to fas.org

      • miriam6
        November 29, 2013, 7:07 pm

        Yeah right .. cornfields that your ancestors STOLE from the Native Americans.. Your nation is built on theft ..

        Face it Woody.. your country is FOUNDED on the destruction of it’s rightful owners.
        You and other so called Americans are forever alien interlopers on another’s stolen land..

      • miriam6
        November 29, 2013, 8:49 pm

        EUR1069@:

        You quoted Truman.

        Let me provide the MW readers with an earlier occasion in 1946 in which Truman vented his anger on those ‘Selfish Jews’ and the context in which he made those earlier remarks.

        Race thinking

        Though the Nazi government in Germany took racial thinking much further than anyone had thought possible , those prejudices were hardly unique to the Nazis.
        ‘ I think one man is a good as any other as long as he is not a nigger or a Chinaman’ , the future US President Truman wrote early in his career, ‘He’ ( his uncle Will) :
        does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I . It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion that Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.

        On July 21 1946 Truman used the diary to vent his anger at the former treasury secretary ,Henry Morganthau, who had sought his intervention on behalf of a ship of Jewish refugees who had been denied entry by Britain to what was then Palestine.

        “He’d no business, whatever to call me,” Truman wrote, “The Jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgement on world affairs,”

        In the same diary entry Truman goes on to say:

        “The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvian , Finns , Poles , Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or misplaced as D [isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog.”

        Truman’s predecessor, though known for the executive order that guaranteed Black Servicemen their Civil rights, could also give rise to casual prejudice. Roosevelt discussed the high birth rate in Puerto Rico with his advisor Charles Taussig:

        “I guess the only solution is to use the methods which Hitler used effectively.” He said that it is all very simple and painless – you have people pass through a narrow passage and then there is the brrr of an electrical apparatus. They stay there for twenty seconds and from then on they are sterile.”

        All the same, Roosevelt was often taken aback by his ally Churchill’s choice of words. Frederick Eggleston, Australian Minister, in his diary records that Roosevelt
        ‘said that he had numerous discussions with Winston about China … and he continually referred to the Chinese as “Chinks” and “Chinamen”‘

        Churchill was steeped in racial prejudice and talked about the Soviet Union as a ‘worldwide Communistic state under Jewish domination, ‘the international Soviet Union of the Russian and Polish Jew’, or just ‘these Semitic conspirators’.
        British Minister Harold Macmillan complained in 1943 that Henry Morgenthau
        ‘He had a frightful little Jew – the worst type – Dr White with him’ who had an ‘insulting attitude to the British.’

        The casual prejudices of the time seem surprising, but they were endemic.
        Prejudice is not the same as the systematic racial laws that Hitler introduced in Germany. Still. the prejudices that the Allies shared were also linked to policy. Both Britain and America were societies that had white supremacy woven into their fabric.

        From : ‘An Unpatriotic History of the Second World War’ by James Heartfield.
        Chapter Nine; Race War.
        Pages 89-90.

        *****************************************************************

        So EUR1069 – notice that Truman refers to JEWS not Zionists when he makes his comment about ‘selfish Jews.’

        So – a revealing insight into the racist thinking so prevalent amongst British and American leaders during the WW2 era and shortly after wards.

        That is the context in which Truman’s outbursts about ‘Jews ‘ must be taken.

        So – are you still happy to quote Truman as your prejudiced ‘truth teller’ about ‘Jews’?
        You know – the Truman who was on record in his diaries as full of hatred towards ‘Japs’ and ‘Chinamen’?

        Is Truman still a valid witness despite his view that any man is as good as the other provided they are not ‘Chinamen’ or ‘Niggers’?

      • EUR1069
        November 29, 2013, 10:35 pm

        @miriam6

        How convenient: you have the nukes & don’t have them at the same time. It’s truly for the future history books – having it both ways, or as many ways as possible. Except you forget the maxim: you can’t have your cake & eat it too, in the long run. One day Tel-Aviv will be answerable to IAEA. VERY soon.

      • Taxi
        November 30, 2013, 12:56 am

        “MY nation is BRITAIN!” – (that) miriam.

        Actually it’s GREAT Britain, deary!

        But of course you have more loyalty to that “shitty little country” and you have nicked the “Great” from Britain’s title and added it to your beloved Apartheid state of GREAT(ER) israel.

        Comical what a zio plant you are. Keep trying though, smartypants.

      • Ecru
        November 30, 2013, 2:02 am

        @ Miriam6

        ” indeed it fought in the WW2 as a means of defeating a potential global competitors – including Imperial Japan!”

        Miriam where on earth do you get this stuff? The USA entered WWII AFTER Japan bombed Pearl Harbour and AFTER Germany declared war upon it.

        America nuked Japan in order to keep the politics of global domination a game for white men only

        Uhm. No. It bombed Japan because it wanted to try out its new toy, to make sure Japan fell to the USA and not to the Russians, and, as a side benefit, as a demonstration to the Russians of it’s new abilities – i.e. a warning.

        And answer Annie’s question – if bombing nuke facilities is a good way of getting rid of the bombs would you be OK with someone bombing Israel’s nuke facilities? Yes or No?

      • Ecru
        November 30, 2013, 2:32 am

        @ Miriam6

        Let’s remix your comment a bit shall we?

        Israelis are far better off making nice with the rest off us in the world whilst you still have the chance rather than fantasising about regaining the sort of status you had around 100BC

        See how it cuts both ways? Maybe you should think about that a bit. And let’s not get into the irony of a Brit bemoaning American imperial hubris shall we? Oh btw (just to be cheeky) you do know that the architect of Empire, good old D’Israeli was ethnically Jewish don’t you? Well the name’s a bit of a give-away isn’t it. Empires by their very nature, be they British, American, Persian or Jewish as in Israel are nasty by their very nature. It’s kind of unavoidable.

        But given your apparent dislike of Empire and its running rough-shod over indigenous populations, can I ask how do you deal with the cognitive dissonance (this is MW, I was bound to use the term eventually) of condemning Imperial actions on one hand and then supporting them on the other when it benefits Jews? As in – parcelling out Palestinian lands for example. Surely you have to dismiss all references to Balfour and what the British Govt wanted to do etc. because they had no right to do anything with a territory for which they had no local mandate?

      • Jabberwocky
        November 30, 2013, 3:31 am

        Interesting how the Hasbarist diverts the conversation from the real topic.

        What can be done to impact Schumer?

        Can US citizens initiate an ethics campaign with the Congressional Ethics Office to censure Schumer for breach of his Oath of Office?

        This video clearly shows his allegiance to a foreign power.

      • Citizen
        November 30, 2013, 8:40 am

        @ miriam6
        We don’t even have to talk nukes to question why something spectacularly evil was done by the contemporary good guys (as rendered by contemporary Western media)–remember, e.g., Dresden? That incident questions both the morality of England and America. One thing for sure, the Palestinians can’t be equated with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan–and neither can Iran. Yet the Zionists do it all the time, and often–as if it’s not a giant stretch of logic and fact to do so.

        You do remember Dresden, eh? link to huffingtonpost.com

        Dresden was fire-bombed (with phosphorous bombs) by US and Britain a few weeks AFTER the final spurt of Nazi military power was over, the Battle of the Bulge. It was a totally defenseless city and haven for refugees.

      • EUR1069
        November 30, 2013, 10:18 am

        @miriam6

        Now you’re truly pulling all the strings.. LOL. Time to worry about ‘Japs’ and ‘Chinamen’ & ‘Niggers’, eh?

        Perhaps Truman used the word “Jews”. But then the only Jews he knew were Zionists. Bam! Abe Foxman 101 again.

  25. Talkback
    November 25, 2013, 6:14 pm

    Chuck Schumer is hater – an antisemite hating Palestinians and Arabs in general.

  26. talknic
    November 25, 2013, 6:57 pm

    Schumer said. ”Every time the Arab world, the Palestinians, have risen against us, we have risen to defeat them. The one existential threat to Israel’s existence is a nuclear Iran.”

    Uh? He’s a US senator or an Israeli spokesperson?

    • EUR1069
      November 25, 2013, 7:13 pm

      Right on, talknic. Still hoping for a reporter/interviewer with balls out there in the Twilight media world who would ask Chuck the very same question on live air. The time is ripe for a massive Joseph N. Welch moment.

  27. Sycamores
    November 25, 2013, 8:53 pm

    list of other hawks from the aipac memo to Capital hill link to aipac.org

    Congressional leaders have voiced concern with the interim agreement.

    • “I am disappointed by the terms of the agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations because it does not seem proportional. … Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions.”
    – Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Vice Chair Democratic Conference Committee

    • “We had these guys on the ropes. What I was looking for is an interim deal that went a long way toward the final deal. This actually leaves in place everything that would allow them to make a weapon.”
    – Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee

    • “Numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions have called for the full suspension of Iran’s nuclear activities, so it is troubling that this agreement still permits the Iranians to continue enriching.”
    – Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), House Majority Leader

    • “While I am concerned that this interim agreement does not require Iran to completely halt its enrichment efforts or dismantle its centrifuges, I hope that over the next six months, Iran takes the necessary steps to finally end its quest for a nuclear weapons capability.”
    – Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Ranking Member, House Foreign Affairs Committee

    • “I have serious concerns that this agreement does not meet the standards necessary to protect the United States and our allies. Instead of rolling back Iran’s program, Tehran would be able to keep the key elements of its nuclear weapons-making capability.”
    – Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee

    • “[T]he United States must not settle for a comprehensive agreement that fails to end Iran’s capacity to build and deploy a nuclear weapon.”
    – Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) , Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee

    Congressional leaders have called for new sanctions to be ready if a final agreement is not reached or if Iran violates the agreement.

    • “Until Iran has verifiably terminated its illicit nuclear program, we should vigorously enforce existing sanctions. I do not believe we should further reduce our sanctions, nor abstain from preparations to impose new sanctions on Iran should the talks fail.”
    – Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

    • “I am concerned this agreement could be a dangerous step that degrades our pressure on the Iranian regime without demonstrable actions on Iran’s part to end its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. … I will continue working with my colleagues in Congress to keep the pressure on the Iranian regime, including by action on additional sanctions.”
    – Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

    • “I think it’s now time for Congress to weigh in because I think people are very concerned that the interim deal becomes the norm, and that’s why I’ve crafted legislation to hold the administration and the international community’s feet to the fire…”
    – Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

    • “I believe the Senate should move forward with the sanctions bill the House recently passed—and include a provision enabling the President to delay their implementation while Iran’s compliance with yesterday’s agreement proceeds and is verified.”
    – Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House Democratic Whip

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 25, 2013, 10:54 pm

      Oh, yes, the usual suspects are still carrying the zio’s water. Surprise, surprise, surprise. typical. Failing to take advantage of this great opportunity for the USA, in far of Netanyahoo’s position.

      • Citizen
        November 26, 2013, 6:32 pm

        @ Woody
        Major attendant problem is that all cable TV news/infotainment shows in USA echo Bibi, including MSNBC, which normally is Obama’s channel. That channel even pointed out that both Demos & Repubs are at one on this issue–without even mentioning the Zio Lobby which buys Congress.

    • amigo
      November 26, 2013, 6:52 am

      • “I am disappointed by the terms of the agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations because it does not seem proportional. … Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions.”
      – Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Vice Chair Democratic Conference Committee

      Israel simply refuses to freeze it,s illegal settlement expansion while it continues to steal more land.Proportionality you say.

      “Numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions have called for the full suspension of Iran’s nuclear activities, so it is troubling that this agreement still permits the Iranians to continue enriching.”
      – Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), House Majority Leader

      You wanna talk about UNSCR,R, Cantor.

      “• “I think it’s now time for Congress to weigh in because I think people are very concerned that the interim deal becomes the norm, and that’s why I’ve crafted legislation to hold the administration and the international community’s feet to the fire…”
      – Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

      Been watching Tom Brown,s school days Corker.

      “• “Until Iran has verifiably terminated its illicit nuclear program, we should vigorously enforce existing sanctions. I do not believe we should further reduce our sanctions, nor abstain from preparations to impose new sanctions on Iran should the talks fail.”
      – Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

      What illicit Nuclear Program.Menendez. (twerp).

  28. Taxi
    November 26, 2013, 2:19 am

    “vows to ‘defeat’ Arab world and Palestinians”.

    Antisemitism much?

  29. NickJOCW
    November 26, 2013, 6:49 am

    Mr Schumer appears not to understand that this is a global agreement not one with the US legislature. Netanyahu was quite right to fear that any agreement might encourage the less scrupulous to seek a new generation of loop holes in the sanctions.

    What fascinates me right now is the role of the KSA. There they were in the 3 week interim offering Israel’s beloved leader air space to go bomb Iran, and just yesterday they hail the agreement.

    The government of the kingdom sees that if there was goodwill, this agreement could represent a preliminary step towards a comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear programme…the deal could eventually lead “to the removal of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, from the Middle East and the Arab Gulf region”.

    link to aljazeera.com

    My guess is we will see Iran with a role in the January conference on Syria while more eyes turn to focus on Dimona.

    • piotr
      November 26, 2013, 6:42 pm

      Travelers from desert countries report that the thing there are not always as they appear. The differences can be actually drastic, and the unaware could pay with their lives for following appearances. This phenomenon is called “mirage”.

  30. amigo
    November 26, 2013, 7:33 am

    “Following two emergency meetings to discuss the rift with the European Union over the Horizon 2020 scientific cooperation initiative, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided overnight Monday to continue seeking a compromise that would enable Israel to sign the pact.” Haaretz

    “http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.560107″

    Nietanyahu, reaping the benefits of obstinacy and Zionist Diplomacy.I bet the EU leaders are going to extract a price from him for his stance on the Geneva Agreement.
    and dont be surprised if Obama is on board.

  31. Daniel Rich
    November 26, 2013, 8:48 pm

    - Parachute – check
    – Crappy M-16 – check
    – Couple of extra clips – check
    – WalMart SinoSatPhone – check
    – Noiseless Sneakers – check
    – Inflatable Zion Ideology – check
    – Israel 1st, 2nd and 3rd – check

    “Well, Chuck, it looks like you’re all set and done and ready to be dropped deep behind enemy lines. Good luck and all that…”

  32. xanadou
    November 26, 2013, 10:19 pm

    Schumer is a relic utterly out of touch with reality. Check out this piece of radical news in today’s Guardian, “Israeli government split over joining prestigious EU science programme” :
    “The Israeli government is split over the prospect of being excluded from a prestigious and lucrative European scientific research programme unless it accedes to a clause effectively endorsing a boycott of its cherished settlement enterprise.
    The issue has the potential to further isolate Israel internationally, and particularly from Europe, with which relations have grown increasingly strained over continued settlement expansion.”
    link to theguardian.com

    Schumer and his fossilized amen corner may yet contribute to hastening the delivery of Israel to the rubbish heap of history. Way to go morons!

  33. Jabberwocky
    November 27, 2013, 8:16 pm

    Many posters have commented that Schumer is obviously not talking as a US Senator but as an Israel Firster.

    This is in breach of his Oath of Office: link to senate.gov

    Those that are constituents of Schumer should report him to the Congressional Ethics Office.

    I tried posting earlier but the moderators chose not to include. I guess that they want talk and people to blow off steam rather than take action.

    US citizens need to take action against the Israel firsters that are traitors to their country.

    • just
      November 30, 2013, 8:17 am

      Jabberwocky– I think that you are dead wrong about the moderators here, and more than unfair. The folks at MW take important action EVERY DAY. And, yes, blowing off steam is crucial– it’s a conversation that was sorely lacking before.

      As to your point about the Senate Oath– you are absolutely correct. I have said the same thing many times here, there and everywhere. Unfortunately, the Ethics Committees (on both sides) are compromised as their memberships are also supporters of Israel (no matter what!) via the money and control that AIPAC exerts…………hard to do until every member of Congress is put on notice by the American people. Education is the key, and that is up to us to do with the tools we find here.

      I wonder how many folks spoke about the Palestinian people and their need for justice and respect over Thanksgiving turkey? I did. Though I was taught not to discuss religion or politics with new folks around, I was able to make some headway by addressing the many things we have and are grateful for, and then contrasting it with the yearning of people just like us, as deserving as us that are not being allowed to live free– the indigenous Palestinians. The conversation started, and was joined by more than a few.

      • Citizen
        November 30, 2013, 9:10 am

        @ just

        Agree
        I didn’t bother to address the P-I thing over Thanksgiving. Nobody there had the slightest interest in politics of the Middle East. I’ve brought up the issue in the past, and have always been ignored. Domestic white v.black politics, yes–because one of my nieces is married to a black American. Nobody even discussed that issue. I ate, was friendly, and left, all within about two hours. My brother will always discuss all political issues, but he lives far away.

Leave a Reply