Next U.S. elections threaten Israel’s ‘total isolation’ — and the Israeli public is worried

Israel/Palestine
on 93 Comments

Last summer an Obama foreign policy aide, Philip Gordon, shocked Israel supporters by warning that Israel faces a “tsunami” of international pressure if it fails to participate in the peace process. Now that warning seems to be coming true. Here are three items from the last day or so that speak to Israel’s growing isolation from world opinion, and the west.

First, Israel has not responded to a request to endorse the U.S. policy shift on Cuba. The word is that Israel’s nose is out of joint: It wasn’t notified of the change ahead of time, (just like everybody else wasn’t notified); and it has served as the U.S. government best friend on the freeze in days gone by, affirming the embargo in the United Nations when everyone else has been against it.

“They didn’t even give us a few minutes’ warning,” one senior Foreign Ministry official told [Haaretz].

I have to believe that Gaza plays a role in Israel’s wariness. If you listen to international opinion and end the blockade of Cuba, why not end the siege of Gaza too?

Next item. Dahlia Scheindlin at +972 reports on a poll indicating that the Israeli public is fearful of isolation.

+972 Magazine’s survey indicates a sea change in consciousness inside Israel, and a dawning realization that things cannot go on as they are. Ninety percent of the respondents reject the option of continuing the status quo on the conflict…

In recent months it is a rare day without a headline discussing Israel’s worsening situation vis-à-vis the international community. Other surveys of mine show thatover 60 percent of Israelis believe the U.S.-Israel relationship is in a crisis, and over 60 percent blame the prime minister for making those relationships worse….

We asked: When you think about the negative attitudes toward Israel in Europe and the crisis in relations with the U.S., are you worried about international isolation, or not worried?

A strong majority, more than two to one, are worried: 30 percent are very worried, and a total of 71 percent say they are worried; 29 percent say they are not…

By political breakdown, even 50 percent of Likud voters are worried. Fully 90 percent of Labor/Hatnua voters say they are worried….

Bringing the Debate to You
Scheindlin says that support for a two-state solution is unchanged, at 57 percent of Israelis.

• There is no statistical change in support for an equal one-state solution. [7 percent]

• Instead, there is significantly rising support for one, unequal state. Perhaps if the word “apartheid” had been added, political correctness would dampen the numbers, but this reflects a real trend.

Yes and perhaps the word “equal” would mean more to Israelis if the U.S. stood up for equality for once.

On that note, here’s the latest column from an American dean of foreign policy, journalist William Pfaff, saying Gaza changed everything, Israel is on a tailspin of international isolation that is going to break on the U.S. in the 2016 elections. Pfaff says that Israel’s image began changing in the 1980’s, when the country began to seem to be more aggressive. And then the “futile” and “pitiless” Gaza onslaughts confirmed the trend, defeating the idea of “violence as a policy.”

The employment of “shock and awe” military assaults against civilian populations, medical facilities, schools and public infrastructure, as well as UN and foreign NGO facilities, — presumably meant to intimidate Palestinian civilians, and as the American army says, “demonstrate resolve” — provided few if any positive gains and contributed to that foreign political discredit that drives the Israel Boycott Movement. They generated what the Israelis insist on describing as anti-Semitism but is in fact hostility to Israeli violations of international law by its settlement policies and military actions rather than by any hostility to the Jewish people. There is a difference.

These policies have combined with the insolent defiance of Israel’s most important allies, the United States and the West Europeans, to create a situation — now approaching its climax in the Israeli national election in March, and the American presidential and legislative elections in 2016 – that threatens for Israel total isolation from the world of democracies – or as the leader of the Labor Party, Isaac Herzog, has recently said, “an abyss.” They surely lead towards still another war, in which it will have arrogantly discarded all of its friends.

So the American elections in 2016 threaten to precipitate Israel’s “total isolation?” From your lips to Jeb’s ears, Mr. Pfaff.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

93 Responses

  1. Bornajoo
    December 25, 2014, 12:54 pm

    Thanks Phil
    Mr Pfaff might be correct if we get another right wing government in israel spearheaded by Netanyahu and Bennett. But if a so called centre left government takes over I believe they will restart the peace process (and it will only ever be a process) which will once again spread the illusion that Israel is genuinely looking for peace.

    For change to come, real change, we need that tsunami, they need to fall into that abyss. The centre left (which is in reality hardcore zionist a riand ght wing) will be very effective in calming the fears of Israelis and those outside of Israel but will not actually make any real concessions necessary for a proper solution

    I’d like to take this opportunity to wish you good holidays and to thank you and the whole Mondoweiss team for the superb and invaluable work you do.

    • Krauss
      December 26, 2014, 12:08 am

      Pfaff’s analysis is not original. It rests upon reading critical liberal Zionist accounts. I doubt that he knows much of Israel without first vetting with the established narrative, i.e. heavy on “shoot-and-cry” Zionists and light on Palestinians. That is typical of white liberals.

      What I am saying is this: the world knew what Israel did to the Palestinians in the years before the ’67 war. Even before the founding of the state. That is why Roosevelt and Marshall were so against establishing it. That is why the British forbade Jewish immigration because they saw what the previous migrants had done.

      Israeli law was in many ways more repressive towards Palestinians before ’67 – when the country was under military laws – than it was after.

      What changed in 67 has nothing to do with the occupation but more to do with how Jews themselves were viewed. Jews became integrated into the white establishment in a very rapid way in the 60s and especially the 70s and 80s. By the time the Clinton administration rolled around, assimilation was essentially a done deal.

      As such, white liberal elites, those who control the key institutions of the West, viewed Jews as one of them and as such started to hold Jews to a much higher standard. That is the price of assimilation. The Jewish establishment tried to hold that off by always invoking the Holocaust, the Nazis etc, and for a long time – too long time – that worked.

      But as we all now know, that line of defence just doesn’t work.
      What has changed perceptions is not some fundamental policy shift. Israel in the 80s was much less brutal than it was in the 50s, under Labor. Pfaff is ignorant about these matters and it shows.

      What changed was perceptions of Jews and our role in the West, no longer trampled victims but the masters of our own destiny.

      Israel was crated in the Western world, it has always draw financial and political support from the Western world and its fate will decided in the Western world, too. That is what the Israeli public understands on an intrinsic level and what people like Bennett does not. He tells them what they want to hear but at the same time, they understand he is wrong, which is why they worry to such an overwhelming degree.

      • rkthomas13
        December 26, 2014, 9:07 am

        Roosevelt did not oppose the Jewish state. He had a rather cavalier attitude toward it, hardly surprising for a New York politician. He raised the issue when he met with King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia after returning from Yalta. Abdul Aziz refused even to discuss the subject. Marshall did oppose U.S. recognition, although just why is a matter of dispute among historians.

      • yonah fredman
        December 26, 2014, 12:39 pm

        Krauss- If I were a student of your views of Zionism and Jewish history I would study this comment at greater length. But I must assert the wrongness of one of the early assertions contained therein:
        “What I am saying is this: the world knew what Israel did to the Palestinians in the years before the ’67 war. Even before the founding of the state. That is why Roosevelt and Marshall were so against establishing it. That is why the British forbade Jewish immigration because they saw what the previous migrants had done. ”
        To attribute such motives to Roosevelt and Marshall and to the British is quaint and naive. Roosevelt and Marshall were against the state because it would wreak havoc in the region and for US interests. (The British were concerned with geopolitics and not human rights.) Possibly the way the Zionists treated the indigenous was part of the colonialism which roosevelt and marshall saw as something that was going to wither and pass away, but to attribute their opposition to the way the Zionists treated the indigenous is somewhat childish and certainly far away from the real world considerations of the world powers.

      • Misterioso
        December 26, 2014, 12:47 pm

        On the way home from his meeting with King Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud, Roosevelt confided to Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius that he “must have a conference with Congressional leaders and re-examine our entire policy in Palestine” and later, while addressing Congress he declared: “I learned more about that whole problem, the Muslim problem, the Jewish problem, by talking with Ibn Saud for five minutes than I could have learned in the exchange of two or three dozen letters.” (Peter Grose, Israel in the Mind of America, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983 pp.154-155)

        Roosevelt’s comments at the time indicate he was greatly influenced by the king and acquired a thorough understanding of the Arab point of view and the issues at stake. He told Ibn Saud that he wished “to assure His Majesty that he would do nothing to assist the Jews against the Arabs and would make no move hostile to the Arab people. He reminded His Majesty that it is impossible to prevent speeches and resolutions in Congress or in the press which may be made on any subject. His reassurance concerned his own future policy as Chief Executive of the United States government.”(FR: 1945, Vol. Vlll, p. 679)

        On the way home Roosevelt confided to Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius that he “must have a conference with Congressional leaders and re-examine our entire policy in Palestine” and later, while addressing Congress he declared: “I learned more about that whole problem, the Muslim problem, the Jewish problem, by talking with Ibn Saud for five minutes than I could have learned in the exchange of two or three dozen letters.” (Peter Grose, Israel in the Mind of America, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983 pp.154-155)

        King Ibn Saud received a letter from Roosevelt dated April 5, 1945, which stated he wished to make it clear to his “great and good friend” that as per previous communications, it was the desire of the American government that “…no decision be taken with respect to the basic situation in [Palestine] without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews.” He went on to say: “Your Majesty will no doubt recall that during our recent conversation I assured you that I would take no action…which might prove hostile to the Arab people. It gives me pleasure to renew to Your Majesty the assurances which you have received…with regard to the question of Palestine and to inform you that the policy of this Government in this respect is unchanged.” (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1945, Vol. Vlll, p. 698)

        Tragically and unexpectedly, President Roosevelt died one week after reaffirming his pledge to Ibn Saud. On the last day of his life, 12 April 1945, Roosevelt sent telegrams to the leaders of Iraq and Syria repeating the pledge he had given to Ibn Saud and his secretary of state sent a similar message to Lebanon. Three hours after his last telegram was cabled, Roosevelt died.

        In 1962, David Niles, a pro-Zionist naturalized Polish Jew who served as the advisor to the White House regarding Zionist concerns declared: “there are serious doubts in my mind that Israel would have come into being if Roosevelt had lived.” (Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, Jews and the New American Scene, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, 1995 p. 121)

        President Truman’s decision to grant Israel immediate de facto recognition following its declaration of a state on 15 May 1948, (as pressed for by Clark Clifford and David Niles) was opposed by the State Department, including Secretary of State George Marshall who wisely wanted to place all of Palestine under an international trusteeship. Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett feared that the creation of Israel and the resulting influx of Europeans would provide “a unique opportunity for Soviet penetration into a highly strategic area.” (Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, Dangerous Liaison, p. 24)

        On May 12, during a meeting in the White House to discuss America’s options Lovett told the president that “‘premature’ recognition would be ‘buying a pig in a poke. How do we know what kind of Jewish state would be set up?’ Clifford’s recommendation, he charged, ‘was a very transparent attempt to win the Jewish vote….'”

        Marshall agreed with Lovett. He told Truman that if he followed Clifford’s advice and immediately recognized Israel “the great dignity of the office of President would be seriously diminished. The counsel offered by Mr. Clifford was based on domestic political considerations, while the problem which confronted us was international. I said bluntly that if the President were to follow Mr. Clifford’s advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the President.” (“Memorandum of Conversation by Secretary of State,” Top Secret, Washington, May 12, 1948, FRUS 1948, pp. 972-76)

        Like Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, Dean Acheson of the State Department (who would succeed George Marshall as Secretary of State) also opposed Truman’s pro-Zionist policy on Palestine from its inception: “I did not share the President’s views on the Palestine solution to the pressing and desperate plight of great numbers of displaced Jews in Eastern Europe….[T]o transform the country into a Jewish state capable of receiving a million or more immigrants would vastly exacerbate the political problem and imperil not only American, but all Western interests in the Near East”.

        Acheson was also critical of American Jewish leaders who advocated a Jewish state in Palestine: “In urging Zionism as an American Government policy, they had allowed, so I thought, their emotion to obscure the totality of American interests.” (Dean Acheson, Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department, Norton, New York, 1969, p. 169)

    • CigarGod
      December 26, 2014, 9:37 am

      The benefits of Abyss, tsunami.
      Reminds me…
      Did we ever substantiate the bibi comment…that 9/11 was beneficial to his cause?

      • Ellen
        December 28, 2014, 2:33 pm

        Here it is reported with sources:

        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-W6LdB24-wU

        I do remember well that in the hours after Netanyahu, who was not even the Israeli PM yet, was on CNN blathering on an an with his plan of what to do next.

        He said that the terrorist have to be taken out with a campaign just as the British put an end to piracy on the seas in the 18th century.

        Before Bush was out of hiding, King Bibi was speaking to the American people on CNN, setting the stage .

  2. ritzl
    December 25, 2014, 1:13 pm

    So 95% of Jewish-Israelis supported this year’s summer slaughter in Gaza, and now 90% of those same people are concerned about Israel’s worsening global isolation.

    If Israel was a person, wouldn’t that level of dissonance signal a psychotic break? With nukes.

    It’s just completely, collectively, and dangerously divorced from reality.

  3. Marnie
    December 25, 2014, 2:41 pm

    Mairav Zonszein +972
    http://972mag.com/watch-rightists-campaign-on-hate-and-arrogance/100466/

    Published December 25, 2014
    WATCH: Rightists campaign on hate, incitement and arrogance

    In a highly incendiary video, Likud Knesset member Danny Danon, who was fired from his position as deputy defense minister for publicly slamming Netanyahu’s “restraint” during this past summer’s assault on Gaza, has released a campaign video in which he brands himself as “the real Likud.”

    In the video Danon fashions himself as a no-nonsense sheriff in the Wild Wild West (Bank), whose first order of duty is to kick Haneen Zoabi out of the Knesset (which he has been gunning for since she took part in the Gaza flotilla in 2010). Zoabi is demonized as an Arab terrorist and murderer, seen in a room with posters of Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh and former Balad leader Azmi Bishara (Bishara fled Israel after being accused of providing aid to Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon War). Even the song, a take on the American classic “Oh! Susanna,” is replaced by the words “Oh! Zoabi.” His entire video is based on his vendetta against a fellow Knesset member, which he manages to liken to the entire Palestinian people – who are all enemy terrorists. His message is one of hate, vengeance and intolerance.

    “There are limits for any traitor,” he sings, and then presents himself as the “real Likud,” with former Prime Minister Menachem Begin (the one who signed a peace accord with Egypt) and Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the father of revisionist Zionism and the Likud’s spiritual leader, giving a thumbs up in the background.

    Proving how patriotic he is, Danon then indicates that the “infiltrators” – referring to African refugees – will be kicked out, Israel will build many more settlements and he will take care of the Hamas tunnels “at any price.” And if some people don’t agree with his approach, well that’s too bad.

    Naftali Bennett, the chairman of the Jewish Home party, also released a video this week. In it he is mockingly dressed as a hipster in central Tel Aviv, seen profusely apologizing to everyone around him even though he is the one being wronged. He apologizes to the waitress who spills his coffee, to the aggressive driver (who looks Arab – whether Jewish or not) who hits his car, and then reads an article in Haaretz, which is in fact a New York Times editorial translated into Hebrew, calling on Israel to apologize (managing to knock two liberal media outlets in one go).

    The moral of the story is: Israel should never apologize for anything it does – not for the hundreds of kids it killed in Gaza, not for the Palestinian demonstrators it shoots and kills at unarmed protests in the West Bank and Jerusalem, not for the countless other human rights violations it commits for which it is occasionally reprimanded by the international community, not for the settlements it builds on occupied land. And apparently not for the lost lives of Israeli soldiers and civilians……

    Very, very depressing.

    • Bornajoo
      December 25, 2014, 3:23 pm

      Thanks for that Marnie
      Depressing Yes, but also unfortunately absolutely necessary that they get into power in my opinion. These nut jobs are even more insane than I thought they were. But they are brutally honest and open about their intentions and their agenda. this is the real face of ziofascism which the world needs to see and understand. Once they do see then Boycotts and sanctions will follow. Only then will there be progress

      The worst thing that can happen is for the fake and dishonest “peacemakers” to win because they will try and roll back any progress made in recent times but with no actual concessions. It will be illusions and hasbara and nothing else

      I’d love nothing more than for Bennett to win and just sit back and watch the whole zionist project disintegrate.

      • Marnie
        December 25, 2014, 5:05 pm

        You’re right, there’s nowhere to hide, they are all out in the open without any mask of civility. There’s no excuses anymore. This has got to end.

      • NoMoreIsrael
        December 26, 2014, 10:12 am

        This is why Israel was so fired up to ban the textbook psychotics of the Kach Party, while putting all the devoted Kahanist filth like Moshe Feiglin in power, following a sleazy re-branding effort. Even though Feiglin forms the Manhigut Yehudit (“Jewish Leadership”) party with Shmuel Sacket, a longtime follower of Kahane and leader of Kahane Chai, it’s not called “Kach” any more, so everything’s fine.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmuel_Sackett

    • Pixel
      December 26, 2014, 2:41 am

      Thanks for your post and the link!

      • jon s
        December 27, 2014, 4:37 pm

        “Manhigut Yehudit ” is , in fact , a faction in the Likud .

        Once again , I wonder about Mondoweiss editors and moderators who allow a poster to identify himself / herself as “NoMoreIsrael”. It’s clear that someone trying to use a title such as “NoMorePalestine” woud not be tolerated.

      • Mooser
        December 27, 2014, 5:07 pm

        “I wonder about Mondoweiss editors and moderators who allow a poster to identify himself / herself as “NoMoreIsrael”.”

        Isn’t it awful, “Jon s”? Just terrible, that you, the very soul of piety and sanctimony, should have to wonder about anything. I mean, really, why should you have to wonder about anything? It’s an unconscionable demand on you! Why, it’s enough to make you “uncomfortable”.

    • CloakAndDagger
      December 26, 2014, 11:14 am

      @ Marnie
      The moral of the story is: Israel should never apologize for anything it does

      Unfortunately, that holds true for us as well. The neocon attack-dogs assail any attempts at apology from our leaders for what we have wrought on the world. Despite acknowledgements by many about Iraq being a blunder, apologizing for it remains elusive.

      Exceptionalism at its very worst.

      • catporn
        December 26, 2014, 1:26 pm

        Authoritarian regimes don’t apologise.
        Dick Chaney epitomizes this stance, his recent appearances before the public are used to both laud and trivialize America’s torture programme, not one milligram of regret or sorrow for the harm done to who knows how many, mostly innocent, people.
        Take a good look at him, a clone of so many others that make their living inside the beltway, nil empathy, high on the psychopathy chart.

  4. Citizen
    December 25, 2014, 3:25 pm

    “From your lips to Jeb’s ears, Mr. Pfaff.”

    How about, from your lips to Hillary’s ears, Mr. Pfaff”? Hillary will beat Jeb or any other GOP contender–it will come down to many females voting gender, in context of much unhappiness generally re conduct & policies of both main parties.

  5. Ramzi Jaber
    December 25, 2014, 5:47 pm

    I wish I can share the enthusiasm. But alas, what’s happening on the ground in the US does not really support this projection. Let’s not forget that the US elections is 2 years away, an eternity! And as always, the zionists and their allies will circle around whomever is about to win and make sure they suck their oxygen out unless they surrender to total zionism. Remember: brainwashing and/or blackmailing. No matter who wins, USA 2016 will be zionist.

    Peace on earth. That’s all we want, peace, justice, equality, human rights, civil rights, prosperity, a good future to all Christians, Moslems, and Jews in Palestine. 1S1P1V.

    Merry Christmas.

    • just
      December 25, 2014, 7:31 pm

      “Peace on earth. That’s all we want, peace, justice, equality, human rights, civil rights, prosperity, a good future to all Christians, Moslems, and Jews in Palestine. 1S1P1V.”

      Lord knows, you’ve waited long enough!

      Merry Christmas to you and yours, Ramzi.

      • Ramzi Jaber
        December 26, 2014, 10:16 am

        Same to you just!

    • CigarGod
      December 26, 2014, 9:47 am

      A zionist/teaparty/evangelical coalition in 2016?

      • Ramzi Jaber
        December 26, 2014, 10:17 am

        It already exists. They are joined at the head.

    • john h
      December 28, 2014, 11:51 pm

      “No matter who wins, USA 2016 will be zionist”.

      Agreed. The US will remain a prisoner to Zionists for who knows how many more years.

      As well put by Blownaway below.

  6. Blaine Coleman
    December 25, 2014, 6:47 pm

    In case you were wondering why the entire Palestine solidarity “movement” is so in love with Mondoweiss, this column is your answer.

    You walk away from this column in good spirits, because you don’t need to march for a boycott of Israel!

    After reading Mondoweiss, you will imagine that you don’t even need to march for the anemic BDS resolutions which await April 2015 before they can be unveiled. Why?

    According to Mondoweiss, you can just relax because the 86-year-old Dean of American Foreign Policy (the unknown Mr. Pfaff) has done all the heavy lifting for you. Yes, Mr. Pfaff is grousing about the latest massacres committed by Israel.

    But wait, there’s more! Mondoweiss has uncovered some similar grousing in a speech by an Obama advisor, Philip Gordon. Gordon wishes dearly that Israel can be “broadly and universally accepted among the community of nations”, but he is grousing because Israel’s behavior may prevent that.

    You call that a movement? It is momentary grousing which will be read by no one. Less than 1% of the United States could identify either Pfaff or Gordon to save their life. Nor does anyone know or care what they grouse about.

    But wait, Mondoweiss also implies that the U.S. President candidates will magically form a tsunami of condemnation against Israel and isolate it in 2016! Yet none of the candidates have done any such thing — ever!

    Read history. Without any audible movement on the campuses, the city councils, the mass media and the streets, there will be zero change in U.S. policy. Zero. For how many years has Phil Weiss enthused over some magic sea change ending U.S. support for Israel? Many. Never has that “sea change” materialized.

    Shall I remind you of the most blatant Israeli massacres of Arabs, just since the year 2000? After each one, there is a brief murmur of protest on some campuses, and then more massive aid to Israel from the U.S. government.

    Contrast that with the Civil Rights Movement of the early 1960’s, which could not be silenced or kept off the front pages of the mass media. Ditto for the Black Power Movement of the late 1960’s.

    Those were real movements, unlike the BDS non-movement, which is invisible for 11 months every year.

    The Black freedom movement gave birth to every movement worth a damn in U.S. politics, most notably the anti-war movement which helped end the Vietnam War, and the anti-apartheid movement, and whatever consciousness exists about Palestine in this country: that all started with Malcolm X, with SNCC, and with the Black Panther Party in the 1960’s.

    The Black freedom struggles of the 1960’s were actual marching, visible movements which broke the back of white supremacy worldwide, especially in this country.

    Contrast that with the tiny pitiful squeaks for “BDS” which wait silently for April every year before they can be heard at all. Those squeaks are no movement. Their tone is always timid, always vanishing before it is even perceived by mass media outlets. God, how the squeakers love Mondoweiss, for validating their strategy of silence 11 months out of every year.

    • Marnie
      December 26, 2014, 12:40 am

      Where is your alternative? The mainstream media doesn’t even broach the subject of BDS or apartheid and occupation and that is the daily nonstop subject at Mondoweiss. Show me another source that does more as far as unrelenting focus on Palestine.

      Obviously the freedom marches were successful because the entire south was not on lockdown so people got in and out. Do you think its the same in Gaza? Busloads of Israelis are not going to go to Gaza to demonstrate, not in the forseeable future anyway.

      So why be so critical of Mondoweiss? Please if there is a better alternative I’d love to see it.

      “Contrast that with the Civil Rights Movement of the early 1960’s, which could not be silenced or kept off the front pages of the mass media. Ditto for the Black Power Movement of the late 1960’s. Those were real movements, unlike the BDS non-movement, which is invisible for 11 months every year.”

      I agree with what you said about the civil rights movement and it birthed many others; however, it lost a lot of momentum when some changes were made and African Americans are still at the mercy of a system that just doesn’t give a shit about them, I don’t care if Barack Obama is the first black president, he’s shown no respect at all and has been fought tooth and nail over the most trifling legislation or appointments he has tried to pass, even if the opposition is in agreement. The US shouldn’t continue to look the way it does after events like freedom summer and the march on Washington.

      • Blaine Coleman
        December 26, 2014, 2:14 pm

        Marnie,

        I did leave you a reply to your thoughtful comments. I hope that Mondoweiss will post it.
        Thanks.

    • jimby
      December 26, 2014, 1:18 am

      Pardon me Mr. Coleman, but the black freedom movement did not pop up overnight full blown and marching. It seems to me that there was a very long incubation period, maybe a couple of centuries of development. I have been following the Palestinian situation wrt Israel seriously since 1967. The issue is building tremendously faster in the last few years, especially since Operation Cast Lead.

      • Blaine Coleman
        December 26, 2014, 1:33 pm

        Hi Jimby,

        Yes, you may be right. It may take centuries for a marching, nationwide “Boycott Israel” movement to develop. Of course, by then Israel will have gobbled the entire Middle East plus Pakistan, and abolished the Arabic language and alphabet too.

        So it would be better to try and accelerate the boycott movement, before Israel has bombed its way across the entire Middle East.

        Think of the great, seemingly impossible achievement of the abolitionist movement (which was ultimately led by slaves walking away from their plantations and joining the Union Army). That movement stopped slavery before it could spread all the way through Latin America.

        Zionism has the same kind of racist dynamic as slavery, except they simply want the lands of the Middle East, not the people. You see what they do to the people.

        Better to jump-start the boycott-Israel movement now, not later.

      • RoHa
        December 26, 2014, 10:18 pm

        “That movement stopped slavery before it could spread all the way through Latin America.”

        I desperately hope you intended that sentence to be satirical.

        If (shudder) not, I will point out that slavery in Latin America was worse than in the USA, but after the Latin American countries gained their independence most of them banned it. (Mexico in 1829) By the time the American civil war started, major Western European countries had outlawed slavery* and banned the slave trade**, and the Royal Navy was running patrols.

        Slavery hung on longer in Brazil and Cuba.

        (*In 1772, the High Court declared that it had never been recognized in English Common Law or statute.)
        (**Denmark first for that.)

    • CigarGod
      December 26, 2014, 10:04 am

      Great criticism.
      I hope the great thinkers/researchers here, spend more time considering than defending.
      I agree, that students are key to a real movement…and i would like for mw to be more aggressive in criticism of israel. Mw should hold the anti/apartheid banner higher…as well as the bds one.

      Did you forget to mention the euro-states recognitions? That seems real.

      You might be outside comfort zones here, but your voice is needed.

      • Blaine Coleman
        December 26, 2014, 1:40 pm

        Dear “CigarGod”,

        Thanks. Yes, the higher that BDS banner is held, the better. And I prefer to say “Boycott Israel” because 99% of the United States has no idea what BDS even stands for.

        As far as any cosmetic governmental actions like the European recognition of some Abbas rump state – those actions are a very inadequate accommodation to the audible boycott-Israel voices that can be heard ( a little bit) across Europe. So the louder the movement becomes, the more positive governmental actions you will see.

        Without an audible boycott-Israel movement, you get bupkis.

    • catporn
      December 26, 2014, 1:57 pm

      I quite like Blaine Coleman’s grousing about grousing (a new word for me), and criticism is always welcome, if it’s groundless no worries, if there’s some truth in it then it’s a great opportunity to learn, or at least acknowledge.
      My fondness for MW, warts and all, continues to grow, it’s not perfect, but what is.

      • Blaine Coleman
        December 26, 2014, 2:08 pm

        Dear “catporn”,

        Oo, that hurts. Grousing about grousing. Yup.

        I have to admit Mondoweiss has grown way past its comfort level. And they still print my comments; God only knows why.

        But they are called upon to do better and faster. If no one else is marching for a total boycott against Israel, then I expect Mondoweiss to do it. Even if that just means Phil, Adam, and Annie strolling into an NYU student government meeting and demanding a boycott resolution.

        Do I ask too much? Of course. But without a demand, you get nothing.

      • Mooser
        December 27, 2014, 10:36 am

        “Do I ask too much? Of course. But without a demand, you get nothing.”

        Try reading the “about” page. No use asking for what isn’t on offer.

      • Mooser
        December 27, 2014, 5:14 pm

        I’m not sure, I don’t run the place, but I think the primary mission of Mondoweiss is, and must be, informational and journalistic. It reflects many points of view and reports on lots of advocacy, and bases its reporting on a humanist and humane viewpoint, but I don’t think it is supposed to function as an advocate for anything but those values in general and the truth in those terms.
        And given the subject matter, that’s a big enough job as it is.

  7. just
    December 25, 2014, 6:48 pm

    Good op-ed by Akiva Eldar just popped up in Haaretz:

    “Yes, I call on the world to intervene

    If only 1 million Israelis, instead of 1,000, would sign the petition calling on European parliaments to recognize Palestine and save Israel from the occupation’s wickedness.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.633819?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

  8. just
    December 25, 2014, 6:56 pm

    Mr. Obama has zero to lose by changing course completely!

    Israelis should be worried~ eventually the ire and distaste amongst American citizens will force Congress to listen to the will of the people.

    Just reassure the Israelis that they’ll always have India…….as long as Modi keeps his seat.

    • RoHa
      December 25, 2014, 7:28 pm

      “Mr. Obama has zero to lose by changing course completely!”

      Aside, of course, from a wife, two children, and his own heartbeat.

      • Citizen
        December 26, 2014, 12:22 pm

        And his lucrative post-POTUS career as a speaker and author, not to mention the funding for his library.

  9. Kay24
    December 25, 2014, 9:42 pm

    Phil makes excellent points, and his article gives us good insight to the changes Israel now faces, and it seems not to their liking.

    This article by Josh Marshall, also supports what Phil says, but from the perspective of the man who keeps failing Israelis, his inability to cooperate with the US and the EU, Netanyahu.

    “I cannot conclude without noting what I can only call Netanyahu’s uncanny resilience. I would not be surprised if for all I say above he somehow manages to be Prime Minister yet again. The balance of Israeli political parties now lean heavily to the right. And the fact that the right and the center-left (there’s really hardly an Israeli left as a political force) have both had it with Netanyahu but want to replace him with totally different things leaves open for him the path of being despised and yet necessary. In many respects this is what got Netanyahu the premiership after the last two elections – especially the most recent. But all the things we see happening are the things that happen when a leader loses his grip on power. At some point we need to believe what our eyes tell us.”

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/is-netanyahu-finished-maybe-so

  10. Nevada Ned
    December 25, 2014, 11:19 pm

    Phil, this is great news.

    The Israeli public is starting to feel the pressure of diplomatic isolation. If the power and influence of JVP and similar groups grows, the pressure will grow. If Max Blumenthal’s book gets enough attention, the US public will be inoculated against Israeli propaganda.

    In general I don’t like Josh Marshall (because he is a liberal hawk who supported the US invasion of Iraq), but I hope he is right on this issue.

  11. Blownaway
    December 25, 2014, 11:25 pm

    The one thing that Israel can count on for the foreseeable future is unconditional US support . There is no conceivable election scenario that even remotely hints at a change in that dynamic. As evidencedby the pilgrimages made by every candidate including fringe candidates like Ben Carson.

  12. JLewisDickerson
    December 26, 2014, 12:15 am

    RE: “The employment of ‘shock and awe’ military assaults against civilian populations, medical facilities, schools and public infrastructure, as well as UN and foreign NGO facilities, — presumably meant to intimidate Palestinian civilians, and as the American army says, ‘demonstrate resolve’ . . .” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: This is very much in keeping with the “authoritarian psychology” inherent in Jabotinsky’s “Iron Wall”* policy as adopted by Israel.

    SEE: “Eric Garner, the Torture Report, and Authoritarian Psychology”, by Todd E. Pierce, Antiwar.com/blog, December 12, 2014

    [EXCERPTS] What do the NYPD arresting officers of Eric Garner, the CIA officials responsible for the crimes detailed in the Torture Report and US foreign policy officials all have in common? They are all agents of institutions that have adopted an “authoritarian psychology.” So what does authoritarian psychology mean?

    Alexandre Kojeve, a French fascist in Vichy France, and lifelong close friend of Neocon Godfather Leo Strauss, explained authority as follows: “Authority is the possibility of an agent acting upon others without these others reacting against him, despite being capable to do so, and without making any compromises. Any discussion is already a compromise.”

    This is anathema to the authoritarian because it means their absolute authority or of the institution they represent has been lost, even if only to an imperceptible degree. That is the nature of authoritarian psychology and authoritarian government by Kojeve’s and fascist logic. . .

    . . . Finally, the United States, through Dick Cheney while he was Secretary of Defense in 1991, created a global authoritarian order with the declaration that all nations must hereafter comply with US military orders, as explained here. Not surprisingly, the Clinton administration didn’t spurn that gift, and Madeline Albright and Hilary Clinton eagerly put it to use in the Balkans.

    But the doctrine required Cheney’s return in 2001 to be fully revealed as US authoritarianism applied to the world. This was expressed in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) where it identified as a “threat” to the United States what was described as “anti-access and area denial threats.” These were exactly as the plain words stated, the United States saw as a threat to itself nations that might deny it access to their territory regardless of how nefarious our purpose maybe.

    This would be explained further by its conception as an enduring national interest, our “freedom of action,” which can only be understood in an Orwellian sense. Finally, to bring that home, in some military reading in the 2002-2003 timeframe, I came across the best explanation of what that all might be: the U.S. will not tolerate any nation even having the ability to make us hesitate in our decision making. In other words, if another nation doesn’t immediately submit and comply with our order, we have to “take it to the next level” lest our authority and intimidation capabilities come to be questioned.

    * FROM WIKIPEDIA [Iron Wall (essay), as of 12/09/13]:

    [EXCERPT] . . . [Ze’ev] Jabotinsky argued that the Palestinians would not agree to a Jewish majority in Palestine, and that “Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.”[1] The only solution to achieve peace and a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, he [Ze’ev Jabotinsky] argued, would be for Jews to unilaterally decide its borders and defend them with the strongest security possible. . .

    SOURCE – http://web.archive.org/web/20131209232359/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Wall_%28essay%29

    ENTIRE ‘IRON WALL’ ESSAY: “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)”, By Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1923 – http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm

    P.S. ALSO SEE: “The Ethics of the Iron Wall”, By Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1923 – http://www.jabotinsky.org/multimedia/upl_doc/doc_191207_181762.pdf

  13. catporn
    December 26, 2014, 12:33 am

    I’m not sure what’s being said here, in respect to the US 2016 election what does Israel have to fear exactly? Mr Pfaff doesn’t really say, and more than a few of his allusions to the occupation of Palestine are askew. For starters I thought foreign policy didn’t factor much in presidential elections, and which candidate is standing in the wings with an anti-Israeli mindset? Non that I can see, even the darling of the liberal left Elisabeth Warren was heard mumbling “I’m having trouble reading Netanyahu’s writing during Q&A’s about the Gaza hit” this summer. Everyone here knows the amounts of money congress is willing to donate, even bonuses when full scale bombing campaigns against civilian populations are underway. Then the religious nutters, there’s millions of them and they wouldn’t care if every Palestinian were hung from the rafters, as long as the Jews inherit Israel, YHWH said so don’tcha know!
    According to a recent Pew Research study 82% of Protestant Christian evangelicals (who believe that the Bible is “the Word of God” to be understood literally) believe that God made this eternal gift to the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Evangelicals as of 2007 accounted for about 29% of the U.S. population.)
    http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/12/the-myth-of-abraham-and-americas-allegiance-to-israel/
    It’s bad enough that the voters believe this crap but politicians on both sides have the sickness too
    ‘Senator Ted Cruz recently spoke before a conference on the plight of Christians in the Middle East, and was booed when he referred to Israel as a friend of the region’s Christians. “If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews,” he retorted, “I will not stand with you” as he retreated from the stage.’

    ‘Republican Senator from Oklahoma James Inhofe has unashamedly declared, on the floor of Congress: “I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel, and that it has a right to the land, because God said so. In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says: ‘The Lord said to Abram, ‘Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, southward, eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever… Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.’ That is God talking. The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, ‘I am giving you this land’ — the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.”
    I think Israel can continue to count on America’s support for the foreseeable future, we should count on it too and look to other solutions.

    • Ellen
      December 26, 2014, 4:42 am

      The sad thing is that when those texts were put down (and since revised and translated x times) there was no such conception of the “literal word.” The idea of written text to be understood literally would be inconceivable .

      Knowledge and understanding was passed through story-telling, metaphor from the known physical world for larger symbolic meaning. It is how the world and mind ticked 2000 + years ago.

      The understanding to take a text for literal meaning is relatively new — since the so called scientific enlightenment .

      The Protestant and other literal interpretations of the Bible are simply bizarre and with a more primitive reception and understanding than the first desert dwellers to receive these text in whatever form.

      • RoHa
        December 26, 2014, 4:54 am

        And you know this how?

      • catporn
        December 26, 2014, 12:27 pm

        I’ve heard several theologians say the same thing – literal interpretation of the bible is relatively modern, yet as the ecumenical councils narrowed down what they believed was ‘real Christianity’ more and more people were executed for heresy. From Priscillian in 386 through to the last known heretic to be executed, Cayetano Ripoll in 1826, countless individuals and groups (Gnostic, Arianism, Donatism, Montanism, Paulicians, Dulcinians, Waldensians, Cathars, to name a few) suffered horrendous deaths for non-conformity, I expect that would include preaching – the bible is full of allegorical myths not to be taken literally – and this is just within Catholicism.
        Ancient Egyptians, and many others, seemed to have taken the Pharaoh as God, or descendant of Gods, myth quite seriously, as well as the afterlife stuff, you don’t go to the trouble of building elaborate pyramids and subterranean tombs filled with next life goodies, slaves, and a passport, on the off chance it’ll work.
        So while many before the enlightenment may have seen parting sea’s, loquacious shrubs on fire, or oxymorons of virgin births as symbolism or allegory, I’m sure a great many would have taken them as fact, literal, gospel even..

      • David Gerald Fincham
        December 26, 2014, 12:57 pm

        Ellen, you are quite right. The great Christian theologian St. Augustine of Hippo (around 400CE), said

        “Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”

        See more at http://www.religion-science-peace.org/2012/09/03/st-augustine-answers-the-biblical-literalists/

      • Ellen
        December 26, 2014, 6:06 pm

        RoHa, I do not “know” anything, really. But if interested, work by Margaret Alexiou might help. There is also another author /historian and linguist who worked into these questions literalism, the written text and conceptual thought in the modern and ancient world. I forget her name at the moment.

        And who was the philosopher who made the argument that when we document and record, the essence is no longer the truth and reality.? That such an act creates a new reality.

        Point is, to believe something in a literal sense because we read it is how the modern mind thinks. 2000 years ago, that kind of thinking would be impossible . Earliest Christianity had no written bible or text. That came later with institutionalizations of a Church.

        https://books.google.com.qa/books?id=Dsa0OP8V3nUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Margaret+Alexiou%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=leSdVNjVOoPyavHmgZgJ&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

      • RoHa
        December 26, 2014, 11:36 pm

        “And who was the philosopher who made the argument that when we document and record, the essence is no longer the truth and reality.? That such an act creates a new reality.”

        I don’t know. Sounds like a (excuse the language, please) p*stm*d*rn*st. Foucault, perhaps, or one of those other French frauds who are responsible for so much current intellectual corruption.

        “Point is, to believe something in a literal sense because we read it is how the modern mind thinks. 2000 years ago, that kind of thinking would be impossible . ”

        The ancients certainly seem to have had a conception of literal truth, and they recognized the dodgy nature of some of their myths.

        Xenophanes, Heredotus, and especially Euhemerus sought to ground myths in natural explanations. Anaxagoras got into trouble with the religious authorities in Athens for suggesting that the sun was a hot, spinning, rock, rather than a God. Socrates asked Euthyphro if he really believed the traditional stories of the Gods, and Euthyphro assured him that he did. These examples show (a) literal belief in the myths, and (b) recognition the myths may not be literally true.

        It seems reasonable that the ancients could apply this sort of thinking to written texts as well.

        Of course, where Early Christian writings are concerned, the authors seem to have no conception of truth whatsoever.

      • RoHa
        December 27, 2014, 2:49 am

        That quotation from Augustine shows that Christians did, in fact, take the Biblical descriptions of the universe literally. He is warning them not to do so.

      • Citizen
        December 27, 2014, 10:01 am

        Here’s some context and a debate on whether or not the bible is to be taken literally: http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Bible-was-not-meant-to-be-literally-interpreted./1/

        My own guess is, since the bible was written by humans, it’s a mix. I never met a human who always intended what he or she said or wrote was to be taken literally or poetically, have you? Before Guttenberg, most people were not literate, right? They depended on whatever interpretation they were told by their religious teacher, cleric, priest.

      • Mooser
        December 27, 2014, 10:40 am

        “or oxymorons of virgin births”

        As far as I know I was born pure and virginal. I feel bad for twins, there’s always a lingering suspicion…..

      • RoHa
        December 28, 2014, 12:14 am

        Mooser, I have to confess that I was born in bed with a woman.

      • Mooser
        December 28, 2014, 1:27 pm

        “Mooser, I have to confess that I was born in bed with a woman.”

        Now I’m wondering what I did before I was born. Nothing constructive, I’ll wager, and probably completely self absorbed, too. I’m amazed Mom put up with me.

      • RoHa
        December 28, 2014, 5:43 pm

        “Now I’m wondering what I did before I was born. Nothing constructive, I’ll wager, and probably completely self absorbed, too.”

        Sounds like what I’ve been doing after I was born.

      • piotr
        December 28, 2014, 10:09 pm

        Of course, no one should understand “literal understanding of the Bible” literally, since it would assume, falsely, a combination of literacy and logical thinking. In fact, the believers use books like “Guide to Biblical prophecy to congenitally retarded” (actual titles: http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Last-Days/dp/1592575617
        http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Revelation-ForDummies/dp/0470045213/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y
        http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Bible-Edition/dp/1592573894/ref=pd_sim_b_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=1TR150RAJ36B1C30JBMW

      • Ellen
        December 29, 2014, 8:11 am

        This week’s cover article of Newsweek calls out Bible literalist as ignorant frauds:

        http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html

        It is a bit superficial, but makes some good points: many stories did not exist in early translations, and some of the scribes who copied translations were illiterate themselves.

        The bible was is only stories, meant to be understood as stories and not earthly reality.

        So Zionism and the justification of support for Isreal is built on a fraud of literal biblical reading , and the MSM piece calls bible beaters and their politicians who twist it for agendas as ignorant frauds.

        That IS interesting.

      • RoHa
        December 29, 2014, 7:46 pm

        The article starts out badly.

        Its first claim is “At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations …”

        Cobblers.

        The original texts were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Plenty of people read them.
        Most modern European translations are from the original languages, not translations of translations.

        “It is a bit superficial, but makes some good points: many stories did not exist in early translations”

        No, the article says that some stories are not found in the earliest texts, not the translations . This is quite correct.

        It does imply that much of the corruption took place in the Middle Ages. In fact, most of it was much earlier than that.

        Aside from those two points, the article isn’t too bad at pointing out the fiction, forgery, and fiddling that make the NT totally unreliable.

        “The bible was is only stories, meant to be understood as stories and not earthly reality.”

        We do not know the intentions of the earliest writers. However, the introduction to Luke looks like an attempt to claim historical reliability. Ancient historians intended their histories to be taken as earthly reality, even though they frequently slanted the writing to peddle a specific message.

      • Ellen
        December 30, 2014, 3:09 am

        Rohan, yes, indeed, I agree the NT writers intended their story telling to be taken as truth. The Pauline letters, etc. the Christian church was making itself an institution.

        As for the OT, I do not buy it. Heck even today the written words of formal contracts hold comparatively little worth in the ME. There are other means that the written words of formalizing agreements. And the act of writing, calligraphy of written words, an art. Imagine what little worth the written word had over the spoken word 2000+ years ago.

        Point is Israel and it’s Zionist supporters (frauds that they are) justify claims on the fictions of the OT, which even few Theologians, it seems, believe the stories were meant to be understood literally.

        Didn’t even Hillel say that about the OT?

        US politicians spouting OT claims to justify policy make themselves buffoons.

      • CigarGod
        December 30, 2014, 8:15 am

        Buffoons? I wish. Manipulators seem more like what they are.

      • Citizen
        December 30, 2014, 8:29 am

        Re: US politicians as clowns or manipulators–maybe more like skillful, self-serving magicians; their skill being in deception, secure in the awareness there’s always a lot more rubes in the audience than there is those who know the tricks of the trade?

        Or are they like parrots in a gilded cage who copy the sounds and get bird seed hand-fed to them every time?

      • CigarGod
        December 30, 2014, 9:01 am

        Parrots in gilded cages. Put like that…Maybe not much difference between buffoons and manipulators, afterall.
        So, i continue to wrestle with the ideal and the reality…while it is 22 degrees below zero, outside my wyoming window.

      • Citizen
        December 30, 2014, 9:10 am

        @ Cigargod

        Damn, that’s cold. Have a wood-burning stove & lots of ready wood to feed it? “Between the Ideal and the Real, falls the shadow.” I forget who said that–maybe T.S. Elliot? Yeah, from The Hollow Men

        I’ve never been farther west than Missouri (Ft Leonard Wood). I have lived though a few Chicago blizzards. I was followed down South by Hurricane Charlie

      • CigarGod
        December 30, 2014, 10:30 am

        I use natural gas. We are big gas field area. Pinedale anti-cline. Fort ord for me. Surfer dude army. Seriously. Might be where the surfing idea for apocalypse now came from. Lot of army surfers.

    • RoHa
      December 26, 2014, 4:43 am

      “God made this eternal gift to the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. ”

      Fair enough. So long as every Israeil can produce a family tree or DNA test that would satisfy the College ofArms, I won’t complain too much.

      • ritzl
        December 26, 2014, 10:26 am

        Good one, RoHa.

      • Mooser
        December 26, 2014, 10:45 am

        “So long as every Israeil can produce a family tree”

        Very risky! One never quite knows who is in the kitchen with DiNA, strumming, as it were, on the old banjo.

      • catporn
        December 26, 2014, 12:49 pm

        C’mon RoHa, your surely not saying a deed, or science, should override the word of Gawd.. Blasphemer, thy will be cast into the furs of external dalmatians.

      • just
        December 26, 2014, 12:54 pm

        omg! LOL and thank you to RoHa, Mooser, and catporn…….

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      December 26, 2014, 10:28 am

      Sadly, I agree. Maybe if more of us had the courage to discuss Israel’s false flag attacks against the U.S., we could make headway with the often Christian Zionist but patriotic American right. Israel is not and has never been our friend. That needs to be made clear as day.

    • Abu Malia
      December 26, 2014, 12:06 pm

      “rise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.’ That is God talking. The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, ‘I am giving you this land’”

      Yes Catporn this is true. And that the Bible is a true title policy for a peace of real estate. However, rumor has it that a mischievous Rabi’s assistant edited off 2 pages from the Bible when he was tasked with reproducing the document. One was the plat drawing.

      The other omitted page was to have been: Schedule II section B of the title policy. And line-item 1 thru 3 read as follows.

      1- 50% of said parcel is encumbered by a permanent easement granted to the seed of Ishmael forever and to do as they see fit with the land – see plat drawing for delineation (recorded on page 00000001 of the heavenly book of registry)
      2- Encroachment on the neighbors land makes this covenant null and void
      3- A man named Nothing and Yahoo will bring ruin to this land??

      No one, throughout the ages, ever understood what line-item number 3 meant. Everyone, like a devout Palestinian would say, just said “alahu Ya’lam” and went about their business.

      Merry belated Xmas to all of you Js and Gs alike.

      • just
        December 26, 2014, 3:39 pm

        Well done, Abu Malia!

        LOL, as well. Thank you.

  14. hmp49
    December 26, 2014, 10:27 am

    Weiss is delusional.

    Will Israel be at risk if the Republicans win the presidency in 2016? Even if they don’t, is he expecting a Democrat resurgence in the House and the Senate?

    And regardless, when is the last time a vote favoring Israel did not pass with at least 400 votes in the House and almost unanimously in the Senate?

    Latest polls show almost no drop in support for Israel among US voters. As I said, Weiss is delusional. A few fringe Democrats do not make any difference whatsoever, and unlike this fantasy, Israelis are not worried.

    • Citizen
      December 26, 2014, 12:05 pm

      I’d say a few Israeli Jews are worried about Israel’s bad PR image, and about facts actually getting to the average US taxpayer. I don’t think there’s any very wealthy dual citizen Palestinian brainstorming how to buy the NY Times, etc.

      • just
        December 26, 2014, 3:40 pm

        +1

  15. just
    December 26, 2014, 10:49 am

    Israel is failing in almost every way, despite being a recipient of billions and billions of US dollars. Here’s only one way:

    “Report: One-third of Israeli children are poor – 55% increase in 15 years

    In 2013, 66.4 percent of Arab children were living below the poverty line, compared to 20 percent of Jewish children”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.633808

    Perhaps Israelis should ponder and worry about the why of this…

    • Citizen
      December 26, 2014, 12:02 pm

      Pondering it, how many decide that’s because Palestinians are not very smart?

  16. stopaipac
    December 26, 2014, 12:04 pm

    Funny, nothing in here describes at all what about the 2016 election will isolate Israel. You think for that to happen you would at least need a substantial minority in congress to change directions. Yet we are still waiting for even *A SINGLE ONE*. Not the “Left” (or what goes for the Left in Congress) or Libertarians are in any way discussing any kind of real consequences for Israel.

    What will happen is that a people’s movement will continue to expand. From labor unions, to churches, to university campuses…

    But from Hillary and Ted, Bernie and Jeb, nothing but the same old, same old.

  17. yonah fredman
    December 26, 2014, 1:38 pm

    The headline is quite positive that the 2016 elections will threaten Israel’s isolation, but in the text of the article, Phil treats the thought with mockery: from your lips to Jeb Bush’s ears. Thus we have established that headlines are for thoughtlessness and the text of the articles reveals the realistic thoughts.

    • Mooser
      December 27, 2014, 10:45 am

      “The headline is quite positive that the 2016 elections will threaten Israel’s isolation”

      No, the headline says just the opposite, that Israel is threatened with isolation. Learn to read English. It’s only the national language of your country, and is also used throughout the world.
      And nobody had to make it up with insidious purposes in mind. Unlike modern Hebrew, it developed naturally.

      • Mooser
        December 27, 2014, 10:47 am

        “It’s only the national language of your country,”

        You are clear on which country that is, right? Or does single-loyalty create double-vision?

    • Mooser
      December 28, 2014, 1:32 pm

      “Thus we have established that….”

      Sure, why not, “we”! You and Queen Victoria, Yonah.

  18. eGuard
    December 29, 2014, 4:33 am

    The word “isolation” is an euphemism for BDS. A good journalist would not omit this, giving in to foggy language.

  19. Kathleen
    December 29, 2014, 10:41 am

    Phil ” It wasn’t notified of the change ahead of time, (just like everybody else wasn’t notified); and it has served as the U.S. government best friend on the freeze in days gone by, affirming the embargo in the United Nations when everyone else has been against it.”

    I think this sentence completely ignores Israeli’s ongoing business efforts in Cuba. How this may have effected U.S. concerns about how Israel may or may not react to the new relationship between the U.S. and Cuba.

    Times of Israel.
    After years of enmity, Jerusalem to follow US on Cuba détente

    http://www.timesofisrael.com › Israel & the Region

    “Despite the lack of formal diplomatic ties, Israelis do business with Cuba — Mossad officer and former MK Rafi Eitan, for example, established several large agricultural and construction ventures there — and regularly visit as tourists.

  20. Kathleen
    December 29, 2014, 10:44 am

    “On that note, here’s the latest column from an American dean of foreign policy, journalist William Pfaff, saying Gaza changed everything, ”

    “Gaza changed everything” The first time willingness of the mainstream media’s accurate coverage of what was going on in the Gaza is what changed a great deal. This had never happened before in the US media when Israel was committing past war crimes.

  21. MHughes976
    December 29, 2014, 1:24 pm

    ‘Changed everything’ still seems very optimistic to me. Pro-Palestinian sentiment has emerged from the holes and corners where it was once confined and is noticeable, though still not powerful, in mainstream debate – it is very nearly a powerful force in student politics and though student politics are a bit unreal there is a warning for the future as I’m sure Israeli politicians very well understand. However, things have not changed within the political class in any really noticeable way. In the UK we had Alan Duncan protesting openly, which again would have been near unthinkable in a Conservative a few years ago, at Israeli interventions in our political system but we’re a good way from doing anything about it. The ‘Friends of Israel’ organisations, the main visible vehicles of that intervention, remain very powerfully placed in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat systems. And in the United States, the one country that really matters, things change with the pace of a glacier rather than of a tsunami.
    I think Pfaff might be right in saying that a process has started and that a way to stop it has not been found as yet. But his talk of imminent climax makes him seem like a very wishful-thinking lover of justice.

    • Citizen
      December 30, 2014, 10:43 am

      Yep. I think we are closer to a war on Iran in behalf of Israel than a USA sticking up for the Palestinians, hence sticking up for its own best interests, including whatever is left of US reputation as a do-gooder in this world. I am betting Hillary will win the next POTUS seat, and that’s a sign for more war in behalf of Israel. Why? Lots of conflicted voters next time around for the presidential race and the winning hole card is women and well-intentioned young men thinking, ” All the picks are bad in different ways, so I will vote that it’s time for a woman as POTUS. This includes both my sisters and every female relation in my family. In sum, the average American will simply not wake up in time to come together and prevent the next castrophe launched by the 1%. How many average Americans even know the next gigantic FTA is being launched to send more decent jobs overseas? All done behind close doors, main media mum. And nothing done to prevent the next big bank bailout either.

      • MHughes976
        December 31, 2014, 8:41 pm

        That all seems very true, Citizen, from what we find in opinion polls etc.. I get the feeling that Hillary’s real running mate will, if her plans work out, not be whoever she puts on her formal election ticket, but Livni, the new, slightly bogus, standard bearer of liberal Zionism.

Leave a Reply