Trending Topics:

Will Graham’s gaffe about ‘all-Jewish cabinet’ get the MSM to talk about pro-Israel money?

US Politics
on 46 Comments

We keep waiting for the mainstream media to talk about all the pro-Israel money going into the Republican Party. They have a perfect opportunity in Sen. Lindsey Graham’s joke that he’s going to have an “all-Jewish cabinet” as president, given all the pro-Israel funding he’s gotten.

“If I put together a finance team that will make me financially competitive enough to stay in this thing…I may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America because of the pro-Israel funding. [Chuckles.] Bottom line is, I’ve got a lot of support from the pro-Israel funding.”

A number of folks have taken offense at the Riesling-fueled remark. Ron Kampeas says that only Jews are allowed to make the joke; Jim Lobe and Eli Clifton say, “Graham should make a greater effort to avoid feeding anti-Semitic tropes… as much as [Sheldon] Adelson himself seems to invite them.” Dylan Williams of J Street wrote, “Here’s Lindsey Graham casually talking about Jews as little more than political ATMs,” and Ali Gharib said,

“The craziest thing said about Jews today didn’t come from Iranian hardliners, it came from Drunk Lindsey Graham.”

But what if Graham was being honest about the fundraising process? (That’s Michael Kinsley’s definition of a gaffe, saying what you really think). “[P]ro-Israel heavyweights, such as Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, and other heavyweight donors of the Republican Jewish Coalition, are emerging as the go-to funders of the Republican Party,” Lobe and Clifton say. “Graham’s observation… tends to confirm that access to their millions is critical to the fortunes of any Republican presidential candidate in 2016.” TPM did the story straight, as a reflection of Jewish funding of Republicans; and Andrew Silow-Carroll at the New Jersey Jewish News takes the story seriously. He says there’s a deep pool of Jewish money– and it’s justified by the Holocaust.

The truth is that there is a deep pool of Jewish money available to candidates, and that the Republican contenders, especially on the second tier, are angling for it. They remember how Sheldon Adelson, the Jewish philanthropist and casino mogul, kept the candidacy of Newt Gingrich alive long after the rest of the world put a fork in it. Establishing one’s pro-Israel bona fides has become a pillar of Republican politics. As The New York Times reported earlier this month, for the first time in more than a decade, Senate Republicans raised more pro-Israel money during the 2014 election cycle than their Democratic counterparts. The same article reported that Graham’s donations from pro-Israel donors rose from $100,000 in 2008 to about $285,000 in 2014.

Pro-Israel donors are not responsible for the huge amounts of cash that flow into and distort our political campaigns. But we have gotten very good at leveraging our small numbers and relative affluence for political influence. If that bothers you, then consider the alternative. Perhaps the Holocaust would have happened even had American Jews been an assertive, well-organized lobby. And perhaps Israel would have been able to defend itself in war after war without a strong “Israel lobby.” But American Jewry is haunted by memories of its failures in the first instance, and doesn’t want to repeat the mistake in the second.

That reminds me of Rubio’s billionaire backer, Norman Braman, 82, saying that Jews don’t get pushed around any more because there’s a state of Israel.
Whether said in jest or not, Graham’s comment was an acknowledgement that pro-Israel funders are playing a significant role in the U.S. political process. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency has a report on who “are the Republican candidates’ Jewish donors.” So the door is open; and here are two questions I hope to hear George Stephanopoulos, Bob Schieffer or Chris Matthews asking:
Given the controversy over Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent speech before Congress and Israel’s much discussed opposition to the approach taken by President Obama in negotiations with Iran,  isn’t it reasonable to ask whether U.S. politicians are being influenced by all this pro-Israel money?
And:
“Senator Graham were you suggesting by this remark that folks a president chooses as cabinet secretaries are determined by political donations?   This may be common knowledge in Washington but it’s a matter of considerable interest to ordinary Americans. Please tell us how that works.”
By the way, two weeks ago there was a conference on the Israel lobby at the National Press Club. We covered Gideon Levy’s speech and mentioned speeches by Huwaida Arraf and former Congressman Nick Rahall too. Well, big surprise, at Counterpunch, Ralph Nader says that nobody covered the conference in the mainstream media:

Organized by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, which was launched about thirty years ago by a British Army Officer who served in World War II and two retired U.S. Ambassadors to countries in the Middle East (wrmea.org), the day-long program at the prestigious National Press Club should have been intriguing to reporters. After all, are they not interested in important, taboo-challenging presentations on a critical dimension of U.S. foreign and military policy?

The presenters were much more newsworthy than most of the speakers at the AIPAC convention who redundantly restated the predictable AIPAC line. “The Israel Lobby: Is it Good for the US? Is it Good for Israel?” had presenters ranging from the courageous, principled columnist, Gideon Levy of Israel’s best and most serious newspaper, Haaretz; Princeton Professor emeritus of international law and the former UN Special Rapporteur for Palestinian territories, Richard Falk; former members of Congress, Paul Findley (R-IL) and Nick Rahall (D-WV); author and an Israeli general’s son, Miko Peled; Dr. Jack Shaheen, the award-winning author documenting stereotypes of Arabs and Arab-Americans in Hollywood and the U.S. media; and even a former AIPAC supporter M. J. Rosenberg (mjrosenberg.net) who witnessed the power of AIPAC money as both a congressional staffer and later an AIPAC senior staffer in the nineteen eighties.

So, where were the reporters of the mainstream media? Where was C-SPAN during a week when Congress was on a holiday and their cameras were not preoccupied by Capitol Hill activities—its foremost priority? Apparently, the American people were only to see and hear the extreme views of AIPAC that do not even command the support of a majority of American Jews who do favor a two-state solution, along with a majority of Arab-Americans.

It is true that a few members of the mainstream media RSVP’d to attend this conference, but they did not show up or write anything about it before or after.

Nonetheless, thanks to the Internet, you can see the entire one-day conference online.

P.S. M.J. Rosenberg’s site is still going but he has, for now anyway, taken down his twitter account. I understand he’s retired from the Israel issue– I hope he thinks that over and gets back in. He knows more about the lobby than anyone.

 

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

46 Responses

  1. Boomer
    April 22, 2015, 3:17 pm

    Will it get the MSM to talk? Well, I’ve seen one pundit criticize Graham for contributing to antisemitic tropes. I expect that’s what we will see. It’s antisemitic to mention it, unless you are Jewish and bragging about it.

    • lysias
      April 22, 2015, 4:18 pm

      During a debate about Hillary on Democracy Now! a week or two ago, when Robert Scheer was singing the praises of Rand Paul for having much better views than Hillary on foreign policy and Iran, Joe Conason interjected that Paul has backtracked, in order to get Adelson’s money.

    • Kailashana
      April 23, 2015, 10:40 am

      Two words:

      Campaign Reform.

    • Annie Robbins
      April 23, 2015, 6:39 pm

      It’s antisemitic to mention it, unless you are Jewish and bragging about it.

      i opened the jta article phil linked to “Who are the Republican candidates’ Jewish donors?” http://www.jta.org/2015/04/20/news-opinion/politics/who-are-the-republican-candidates-jewish-donors and they list each candidate with 3 sections underneath each one boldly titled.

      the headings being,

      Campaign status:

      His Jews:

      His views:

      his jews? i thought that was weird. but then it was published in jta so i guess they can get away w/it.

      • Mooser
        April 25, 2015, 9:15 pm

        “His Jews”? The obvious reference to “court Jews” never occurs to them? That’s nice. I love to see people recovering from trauma, unafraid to enter the lists.

      • echinococcus
        April 25, 2015, 11:42 pm

        Nah, no court Jews.
        Just read the text. This time, JTA is practically quoting the Protocols of the Elders… looks like the Okhrana should have waited just a little bit to produce an original instead of an indigestible copy.
        The only word that can be substituted for “His Jew” in this text is “His Sugardaddy”.

  2. a blah chick
    April 22, 2015, 4:03 pm

    I thought the big money donors got their pick of the cushy diplomatic posts, like London or Paris. Being in the cabinet seems like too much work.

  3. Krauss
    April 22, 2015, 4:07 pm

    I understand the historical anxieties, but in the long run this kind of Omertà isn’t going to last. People should know what motivates the Koch brothers to throw billions of dollars just as they should know what motivates these old Jewish geezers.

    The old Jewish geezers shouldn’t be singled out: their corruption shouldn’t be held as more abnormal than that of a Koch, but they shouldn’t get reverse treatment either (kids gloves), which is what the situation is now.

    • pabelmont
      April 22, 2015, 4:39 pm

      The kid gloves and absent MSM is because no-one wants to say “Jewish Money” and cannot think of a way to say what needs to be said without saying it. Saying it sounds like antisemitism.

      I’ve come up with characterizing The Lobby as “a very, very few very, very rich Jews willing to spend money to support hard-line Israel”. Maybe I should leave out the “Jews”? Like saying that Sheldon Adelman is a very, very rich gambling tycoon who really, really supports hard-line Israel. And maybe the fact (if and whenever it is in fact a fact) of The Lobby being composed mostly of Jews is irrelevant. And maybe the fact that the Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations are Jewish is also irrelevant (although the Presidents do seem to aspire to speak for American Jews).

      • marc b.
        April 22, 2015, 5:00 pm

        You’re missing the point, Krauss. Graham and other dipsomanic politicians are victimizing the likes of Adelson and Singer. Really, with his two-days-into-a-bender breath, one hand on Adelson’s ass, the other in his pocket book. it’s chilling. How do you think Adelson feels, dehumanized, reduced to an ATM? Just because he is a corrupt player, in a corrupt system, doesn’t mean he’s without feelings. And . . . [deep breath] WWII. Yes,’Jewish’ money plays an outsize role in politics, but ‘the Holocaust’, because Adelson would never seek political influence beyond his mighty attempt to prevent the next genocide.

      • echinococcus
        April 23, 2015, 2:06 am

        Can’t we once and for all cut this stupid angels-on-a-needletip ballet and call it Zionist money, Zionist bribes, Zionist undue influence etc.? Let the bandits sort out the Jewishness.
        Wherever we know one of the persons to be a double national, “Israeli money” is perfectly appropriate.
        All this major media terminology with “pro-Israel” etc. is misleading.

      • Mooser
        April 27, 2015, 9:21 pm

        “Can’t we once and for all cut this stupid angels-on-a-needletip ballet and call it Zionist money, Zionist bribes, Zionist undue influence etc.? “

        I’m with you “echin” Let them (Zionists) bring it up. Because they will, every time. After all who else can the Zionists blame? Or use as an excuse.
        But make them do it, don’t do it for them.

    • Mooser
      April 24, 2015, 12:44 pm

      “The old Jewish geezers shouldn’t be singled out:”

      I don’t know how to break this to you, but nobody appointed us gatekeepers on how these things should be talked about.
      Look, I would think that IP issues, no matter which way opinion or policy swings, or doesn’t, will probably be talked about in the media on the same level as other issues.

  4. Boomer
    April 22, 2015, 4:15 pm

    re: “I thought the big money donors got their pick of the cushy diplomatic posts, like London or Paris. Being in the cabinet seems like too much work”

    It also seems like too much to sell. Perhaps Graham’s comment reflects the cynical, money-grubbing attitude of today’s politics, but I think a lot of Americans still would be shocked at that idea. He hasn’t helped himself with those Americans. It’s not just a matter of Jewish money. The idea that cabinet positions are handed out for money seems foreign to U.S. values and history. Money influences politicians, but not so obviously.

    PS: I was trying to respond to a blah chick but evidently hit the wrong reply button.

  5. lysias
    April 22, 2015, 4:16 pm

    Why can’t Republican candidates get enough in the way of donations from the rich gentiles who used to be the chief funders of the GOP?

    • Citizen
      April 22, 2015, 5:54 pm

      @ lysias
      Good question. Jewish donations have always been the bulk of financing the Democrats, but not so much, with the GOP. So where is the big donors there? Koch Bros is alone? I assume the GOP candidates till get all the donations from the military-industrial-security complex, eh? But there, arming Israel and warring for Israel, arming it and the Saud clan for example, dovetails with AIPAC desires….does this add up?

      • Citizen
        April 22, 2015, 6:03 pm

        Koch Bros said they would support whichever GOP candidate comes out on top as contender, but they said they prefer Scott Walker. Walker himself is staunchly pro-Israel. Did the make his trip to Israel last March? It seems there are no big GOP donors who are not pro-Israel, right or wrong? Am I right or wrong? Defending Israel is good for business. It’s that simple?

        The only difference between GOP & Demoratic Party donors does not concern Israel at all–both parties are pro-Israel, right or wrong in their leadership. The difference is domestic in the extreme, social, e.g. abortion, immigration, same sex stuff, etc. Also, there is a populist component in both, Democrats are for more regulation of Wall St, while GOP is for less. Again, both parties love Israel, but there’s a leftist part of Democratic base that wants some justice for Palestinains–remember how Obama was so annoyed at the Democratic convention when the base reps wanted a plank in the party platform supporting Jerusalem as not a Jewish capital? This was in accord with international law and US policy, but the guy with the gavel overruled the dissenters on primetime TV. Gays, women, blacks, for starters, sacrifice the Palestinians on the altar of their personal quirks.

  6. Rusty Pipes
    April 22, 2015, 4:35 pm

    The question is not just how large donors influence political campaigns, but when in the political process their largess can make the most impact. M&W have made the point that traditionally, Republicans did not need major Zionist donors; because Republicans represent the interests of big business, they can draw donations from a variety of wealthy donors and corporations. Consequently, the Republican party had a history of “moderate” politicians resisting pressure from the Israel Lobby.

    With the shift in the Republican base to incorporate Christian Zionists, the demise of moderate Republican politicians and changes in campaign finance laws, Republicans have joined Democrats in courting Major Zionist donors. Early major donations can help raise the profile of a lesser-known candidate to the general public. The biggest money can be raised before an exploratory committee has been formed and an exploratory committee can still take larger donations than a declared candidate. So any politician who is thinking of thinking to run for president and willing to promise the moon could raise huge sums of money from any willing zillionaires — including zionists.

    • ritzl
      April 22, 2015, 5:35 pm

      Great comment, Rusty.

    • Citizen
      April 22, 2015, 6:19 pm

      Yes, @ Rusty Pipes, and further, the fundies are always also against abortion, gays, welfare that is not crony capitalism, eta,

  7. ritzl
    April 22, 2015, 5:31 pm

    OT, but related, I’m wondering how long the fact that Adelson is a gambling tycoon funding Gopers goes unnoticed/unreported.

    Here in Alabama an education lottery is anathema to a hefty majority of GOP voters because of biblical prohibitions on gambling. The dynamics/spectacle of casino money funding and selecting national candidates to be voted for by fundie Christians ought to be interesting, if not newsworthy and/or amusingly self-negating.

    • pabelmont
      April 22, 2015, 6:02 pm

      Good point. They probably don’t know! Do they, for instance, know how much their candidates get from banks, oil companies, defense contractors, etc?

      • Citizen
        April 22, 2015, 6:22 pm

        NO, they don’t. I never met a Christian fundy who was educated on such topics. All they say is, sure there’s a few rotten apples in every barrel, and so, a few bad jews, but you have to support Israel as God says so if you want to go to heaven.

      • ritzl
        April 29, 2015, 4:07 pm

        Sorry for taking so long to respond, pab and Citizen.

        I live in North Alabama. Biz is king. There are no biblical prohibitions against it, real or imagined. Gambling is different. People across the fundie socio-economic spectrum are acutely aware of the prohibitions. So, yes, there is a sensitivity and awareness on that specific topic, though I don’t know how it balances out with the so-called social issues.

        In terms of South Alabama, I suspect that the ongoing BP spill-induced economic and lifestyle hemorrhage has tuned many into those issues.

        Back to NA, I’ve had a few recent conversations with folks here, people that might be considered “uneducated voters,” that revolve around a search for answers to the “What’s wrong?” or “What’s going on?” trying-to-make-sense-of-it-all, questions.

        I don’t know if that means they’re educating themselves “appropriately,” but it DOES mean they’re looking for answers. To me, the mere fact that there’s a search means receptiveness, and a “who get’s there first” political dynamic.

        Wish I could be more affirmatively positive, but my basic belief is that people aren’t stupid. They know when they’re being manipulated. They just don’t know how, or how to respond.

        TBD.

  8. Kay24
    April 22, 2015, 5:37 pm

    This is the elephant in the entire nation. No one addresses it, refers to it, or acknowledges it.

    United States of Israel.

  9. Atlantaiconoclast
    April 22, 2015, 5:42 pm

    I was born and raised in Alabama, and agree that biblical injunctions against gambling are a major motive for those opposing a lottery, but in fairness, a lottery is really a very regressive tax. Very few poor would ever benefit.

  10. Citizen
    April 22, 2015, 6:24 pm

    No mention of Graham Cracker’s gay comment in the US mainstream media, although Graham is a joke for his gayness on Imus show. Imus himself always says he’s a “jew in spirit” although he’s never evidenced the slighest knowledge of the I-P history. His wife is equally ignorant.

  11. JLewisDickerson
    April 22, 2015, 7:02 pm

    RE: “That reminds me of Rubio’s billionaire backer, Norman Braman, 82, saying that Jews don’t get pushed around any more because there’s a state of Israel” ~ Weiss

    SEE: “Israel’s Defense Chief OK’s Hundreds of Israeli Deaths”, By Ira Chernus, CommonDreams.org, 11/11/11

    [EXCERPTS] “If we take out the Iranian nuke facilities, sure, they’ll strike back at us,” Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said yesterday. “But if every American stays in their home when the Iranian rockets start falling, well, it will be uncomfortable. It won’t be a picnic. But we won’t have 220,000 Americans killed. Not even 22,000. So let’s stop the fear-mongering. We’ve got vital interests to protect.” . . ,

    No, of course Panetta didn’t say that. It would be unimaginable. But Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak did say much the same thing in a radio interview just the other day.

    . . . An essential motive of Zionism from its beginning was a fierce desire to end the centuries of Jewish weakness, to show the world that Jews would no longer be pushed around, that they’d fight back and prove themselves tougher than their enemies. There was more to Zionism than that. But the “pride through strength” piece came to dominate the whole project. Hence the massive Israeli military machine with its nuclear arsenal.
    But you can’t prove that you’re stronger than your enemies unless you’ve also got enemies — or at least believe you’ve got enemies — to fight against. So there has to be a myth of Israel’s insecurity, fueled by an image of vicious anti-semites lurking somewhere out there, for Zionism to work. Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, Iran has gradually risen to the top of Israel oh-so-necessary enemies list. Iranophobia is rampant in Israel, as one Israeli scholar writes, because “Israel needs an existential threat.”
    Anyone who has grown up in Israel, or in the U.S. Jewish community (as I did), and paid attention knows all this. . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/11-2

    P.S. ALSO SEE – “Iranophobia: The Panic of the Hegemons”, by Ira Chernus, Tikkun Magazine, November/December 2010
    LINK – http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/iranophobia-the-panic-of-the-hegemons-3

    • JLewisDickerson
      April 22, 2015, 7:13 pm

      P.P.S. ALSO RE: “That reminds me of Rubio’s billionaire backer, Norman Braman, 82, saying that Jews don’t get pushed around any more because there’s a state of Israel ~ Weiss

      SEE: “Israel and the Palestinians; The Psychopathology of Revenge”, by Norman Pollack, CounterPunch.org, March 02, 2015

      [EXCERPT] In my earlier article I referred in passing to Israel’s having rendered Gaza “the Bergen-Belsen of the Arab world,” a very harsh statement, but one on further reflection I believe is justified. How explain not only the merciless killing but also the indifference to it on the part of Israelis? Initially, as I over time became more critical of Israel, I ascribed the behavior to the psychodynamics of introjection: the gut-wrenching, anguished, unspeakably cruel experience of the Holocaust, a process of dehumanization which left the individual in a state of extreme ego-loss powerless to resist both the degraded image of the self and the external penetration of the total context of repression into the psyche, notably, the value system of the oppressor, the jailer, the Nazi. This grounding down of the human personality cannot but leave its scars, as though in struggling for a return to wholeness some of the internal poisons remain. One should not blame the victims for the brutal crimes practiced on them. They are entitled to understanding, at the very least, and actually a good deal more. But the historical experience etched into the mindset of the survivors and passed on to future generations could, and I think did, take on a perverse course, at first, largely unconscious, but then hardened into place as the group-memory of genocide remained in force and the experience of renewed persecution either persisted or threatened.

      At this point, clearly not explainable by some form of psychological determinism, but nevertheless, by a natural drive for self-protection, victims find within themselves transformative powers, as in the resolve, “Never again,” to liberate themselves from societal- and self-captivity to become strong, if need be, by overcompensating from previous weakness, with the result of adopting for themselves the mindset that had been responsible for holding them down. The toughness of the Israeli is legendary, a toughness, however, drained of the humanistic, life-giving impulses that had heretofore characterized Judaism and its embrace of the stranger, its inceptive radicalism and call for transcendent brotherhood, its respect for the arts—all thought softness today and ill-fitted for present reality. Sartre once described the anti-Semite (which we can enlarge to include the authoritarian personality) as one attracted to the durability of stone.

      This is where, I’m afraid, we’re at: the prostitution of “Never again” into a solipsistic credo of what might best be called, defensive aggression, which turns out to be not defensive at all. Gaza is like a laboratory of cruelty, different from the gas chamber in quantity more than in quality, a possibility actualized only because of or through the debasement of religious teachings preceded by the breakdown of personality structure and value system under the weight of the Holocaust. Can the spell be broken, the historical- psychological continuity of suffering-transformed-into-revenge likewise broken? I fear that introjection has become a runaway process, that at this point revenge has eliminated an initially passive response to psychological impoverishment, so that the presumed emancipation from the past, the conversion from weakness into strength, takes the hideous form of recapitulating that past under Israel’s own auspices as reproducing the Nazi experience in the modern era: Bergen-Belsen qua Gaza, an assertion of might, a warning to all enemies, real and imagined, and proof-positive of the requisite hardness worthy to being taken as America’s staunchest ally. . .

      ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/02/the-psychopathology-of-revenge/

      • pabelmont
        April 22, 2015, 8:48 pm

        There seems to be some question whether all Jews (in the old days or even today) had/have any humanistic “embrace of the stranger “. Enough bad stuff happened here and there over a long time that many (not all I should think) Jews came to regard strangers/foreigners (non Jews) as less than human, deserving little humanity. This was written up by Israel Shahak (see some, not much, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shahak#Alleged_telephone_incident).

        Think of Jewish settler violence in the West Bank. Shahak did.

      • steven l
        April 23, 2015, 6:15 pm

        You are of the opinion that a small country of a few million people should wait and absorb the attacks from other countries that have 100 x more people and weapons available? This is insanity.
        The best defense as we all know, but you, is pre-emption.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 23, 2015, 6:47 pm

        The best defense as we all know, but you, is pre-emption

        no we definitely do not all know that. besides, “pre emption” is offense not defense.

      • RoHa
        April 25, 2015, 9:52 pm

        “The best defense as we all know, but you, is pre-emption.”

        The best defence is to turn enemies into friends, but israel is not prepared to do that.

        Pre-emption requires waiting until an enemy attack is set up and ready to go, and then launching an attack that foils it. Under Just War theory, this is permissible during the course of a war.

        Preventive attacks involve launching an attack against an enemy in order to prevent that enemy from starting a war or acquiring the means to start a war. This is not permissible. It is simply aggression.

      • eljay
        April 26, 2015, 9:08 am

        || steven l: … The best defense as we all know, but you, is pre-emption. ||

        You make an excellent case for Iran pre-emptively striking Israel, a country that:
        – has one of the world’s most powerful armies AND a nuclear arsenal;
        – is expansionist and belligerent; and
        – routinely makes existential threats against Iran.

      • RoHa
        April 26, 2015, 7:55 pm

        That would still be a preventative attack, eljay, not a pre-emptive one. It would be impermissible.

        It is very difficult to be sure that a first strike is pre-emptive, since it is difficult to be certain that the enemy’s manoeuvres will actually turn into a real attack.

    • CigarGod
      April 23, 2015, 8:59 am

      Nice!
      A little Chomsky, for breakfast.

      • Mooser
        April 25, 2015, 9:19 pm

        Gee, isn’t “pre-emption” illegal? As illegal, if I am not mistaken, as taking territory by war?

  12. chris o
    April 22, 2015, 10:55 pm

    Do pigs have wings? I love your optimism and it’s a very good piece, but that’s a crazy question in the headline.

  13. steven l
    April 23, 2015, 6:10 pm

    The vast majority of US Jews are democrats. Therefore you are demonizing rich democrats Jews.
    Most liberal Jews are not pro-Israel. So what is your point?
    Jews are culpable for being good in finance, science, music etc. Is this your point?

    • Annie Robbins
      April 23, 2015, 6:51 pm

      maybe you are on the wrong thread steve. what are you talking about? lots of rich people are “good in finance’, it has nothing to do w/being jewish.

    • Mooser
      April 24, 2015, 12:51 pm

      “Most liberal Jews are not pro-Israel.”

      Gee, “stevenl” if you want to admit that Zionism is mostly supported in the material sense by a small coterie of Jews, please, go right ahead.

      Maybe you can figure out a way to logically demonstrate that the fewer Jews support Israel, the more support it deserves?

  14. Mooser
    April 24, 2015, 10:30 pm

    “I understand he’s retired from the Israel issue– I hope he thinks that over and gets back in. He knows more about the lobby than anyone.”

    Gosh, is he doing a good imitation of a man who has had a bad scare?

    • echinococcus
      April 25, 2015, 5:40 am

      Yeah. That Rosenberg (MJ) absurdity stinks real bad. Should be investigated by those who can investigate. His “knowing the lobby” is no use to us but I wouldn’t be surprised by Zionists silencing one of their own, even if he used to make a living by writing and publishing, by dire threats.

      • Mooser
        April 25, 2015, 9:22 pm

        “Should be investigated by those who can investigate.”

        Can’t agree with you, “echinococcus”. I think MJ Rosenberg should be left alone and his privacy respected. If he needs help I’m sure he will ask for it. And if he wants to speak, he can count on being able to reach the public, even if it’s only, say, on his own blog. I think we are just going to have to wait and see.

      • echinococcus
        April 25, 2015, 11:36 pm

        Yeah, the extent of help I’d be ready to extend to him is I’ll gladly help him drown.
        And how likely would he be to speak up if he’s being shut up by the Zionist Vaterland?

Leave a Reply