Shocker: ‘NYT’ runs front page press release for AIPAC warning Obama to cool his jets

US Politics

This is a shocker. The New York Times has thrown in completely with the biggest Israel lobby group, AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in its battle with President Obama. The Times‘s front page story titled “Fears of Lasting Rift as Obama Battles Pro-Israel Group on Iran” is a public relations release for AIPAC, written by Julie Hirschfeld Davis.

The clear thrust of the article is that Obama should pull in his horns, now. We are told that it is “dangerous” when Obama “denounced the deal’s opponents as ‘lobbyists’ doling out millions of dollars to trumpet the same hawkish rhetoric that had led the United States into war with Iraq.”

“Dangerous” to whom? Why are there “fears” of a lasting rift? Why not “hopes” of a lasting rift? Davis violates basic Journalism 101 and shows clear bias. Many American political communities have sought this rift, from the American interest crowd to the Palestinian solidarity crowd to the liberal Zionist crowd to the anti-Zionist crowd, because they all share an interest in stopping another war in the Middle East. None of those groups is represented in the article.

The heart of the article is the anxiety on the part of Israel supporters that the White House and the pro-Israel group are becoming lasting enemies. Obama’s got to chill:

The tone of the current dispute is raising concerns among some of Mr. Obama’s allies who say it is a new low in relations between Aipac and the White House. They say they are worried that, in working to counter Aipac’s tactics and discredit its claims about the nuclear accord with Iran, the president has gone overboard in criticizing the group and like-minded opponents of the deal.

“It’s somewhat dangerous, because there’s a kind of a dog whistle here that some people are going to hear as ‘it’s time to go after people,’ and not just rhetorically,” said David Makovsky, a former Middle East adviser for the Obama administration and now an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies.

Wait a second! AIPAC is spending $20-40 million to defeat the president’s signature foreign policy achievement. It is acting in concert with a rightwing foreign leader. This same group, and same foreign leader, lobbied for the Iraq war, an unending disaster in US foreign policy. Why not “go after” them? Instead, the Times is publishing pure propaganda for the rightwing Israel lobby, several of whose members are quoted in the article — Makovsky, Malcolm Hoenlein, and Marshall Wittmann.

The article does not ask the opinions of a whole host of foreign policy experts who are deeply pleased by Obama’s critique of AIPAC, from Yousef Munayyer to John Mearsheimer to Rebecca Vilkomerson. The article mentions J Street, the Jewish lobbying group that supports the Iran Deal, but does not quote it or any other liberal Zionists.

Nor does Davis ask for comment from the White House official who told Reuters that Obama’s leading opponent on the Iran Deal, Senator Chuck Schumer, was taking his questions from the lobby group:

Schumer came to meetings with a list of questions, but “those questions were lifted straight from AIPAC” a senior U.S. official said, referring to the pro-Israel lobbying group. “He came into it with a certain mindset.” 

Why shouldn’t there be a rift? Many of us are welcoming it. The article doesn’t quote Grant Smith, who believes along with the late Senator Fulbright that AIPAC is an agent for a foreign government.

The article doesn’t mention a central fact David Bromwich does at Huffington Post; AIPAC can direct campaign contributions to public officials, so they become Netanyahu’s “marionettes.” He cites the junket that 50 Congresspeople are taking now to Israel:

Their trip was bought and paid for the charitable arm of AIPAC. The lawmakers obeyed the command of Prime Minister Netanyahu to visit him instead of their own constituents in early August if they want support in the future by prominent Jewish donors. A gesture of more abject servility cannot be imagined.

The point of view of the Times article is very similar to that of former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, who in his new book breathes a sigh of relief when AIPAC’s annual conference doesn’t boo Obama in 2011. The rightwing foreign official didn’t want a rift between the Israel lobby group and the White House, and neither does the New York Times.

The article is also an insult to the American Jewish community, which right now is trying to generate diversity rather than march in lockstep devotion to the Jewish state. Just read Laura Rozen of Al Monitorwho writes:

KC Rabbi [David M.] Glickman emailed his congregation he has views on Iran deal but recognizes issue divisive & won’t be speaking at services on them

Recognize many congregants hold opposite views . . . ‘been troubled by the level of vitriol in the Jewish community surrounding this debate’

Glickman and Rozen surely both decry AIPAC’s actions to defy the president. These voices aren’t heard from.

We are experienced students of both Israel/Palestine and NY Times bias, but we are both surprised by this article. It is evidence of a battle inside the newspaper, and the establishment generally, over which side it is on. Yesterday the Times editorial page editor came out strongly for the Iran Deal. Davis’s article is supporting the president’s opponents, the AIPAC warmongerers. The battle inside the establishment will only be won when leading voices call out the rightwing Israel lobby for what it is, a support system for a foreign prime minister.

127 Responses

  1. JLewisDickerson
    August 8, 2015, 10:28 am

    RE: “The article doesn’t mention a central fact David Bromwich does at Huffington Post; AIPAC can direct campaign contributions to public officials, so they become Netanyahu’s ‘marionettes’.” ~ Weiss & North

    FROM THE CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS (opensecrets.org) AS OF 8/03/15:

    ■ Pro-Israel: Money to Congress
    • SUMMARY
    • All cycles
    Dems: $71,700,750
    Repubs: $43,054,007
    Other: $1,552,596
    All Candidates: Total to All Candidates: $116,307,353
    Incumbents Only: Total to Members: $93,416,000

    SOURCE – http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=Q05&cycle=All&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U

    • Annie Robbins
      August 8, 2015, 11:10 am

      dickerson, you posted another link like this the other day and frankly i think these figures are misleading. if, for example, an extremely pro israel constituent lives in a district where a congressperson main election theme is some overpass construction, the donation could be made in the name of some other issue with the understanding the congressperson will vote on pro israel issues in the way the constituent wants. not all pro israel donations are made in the name of pro israel activism.

      plus these figures are for the 2013-2014 election cycle. the stakes are raised during a prez election. i think the figures are much higher.

      • Dutch
        August 8, 2015, 2:34 pm

        I studied the figures last night and was surprised by their low values. They can’t be true.

        And they raise questions. The introduction claims Adelson gave $ M92.8 to Republican PACs in 2012. Yet the figures for 2012 show that in 2012 only $ M2.9 reached politicians through these PACs.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 8, 2015, 4:24 pm

        exactly dutch.

      • lysias
        August 8, 2015, 4:44 pm

        More valuable to an incumbent politician than AIPAC-associated campaign donations is AIPAC’s failure to support a primary challenger.

      • JLewisDickerson
        August 9, 2015, 3:23 am

        P.S. The amounts shown above are for contributions DIRECTLY to congressional campaigns (unlike Adelson’s millions that mostly go to super PACs) that can readily be identified as having come from pro-Israel PACs (individuals really can’t be identified). – http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=Q05
        This is just the very tip of the iceberg! ! !
        For instance, it does not include INDIRECT support like the $960,250 in “supportive campaign advertising” that Tom Cotton received from the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) in his most recent campaign. – http://www.lobelog.com/exclusive-emergency-committee-for-israel-spends-big-on-rep-tom-cotton/

        ALSO SEE: “Trump’s Triumph: Billionaire Blowhard Exposes Fake Political System”, by Mike Whitney, Counterpunch.org, August 7, 2015

        [EXCERPT] . . . Just think about what the man [i.e., Trump] said. He not only explained that the whole system is rigged (Baier: “And when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”…TRUMP: “You’d better believe it.”), he also said that the politicians will do whatever they’re told to do. (TRUMP: Well, …with Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why? She didn’t have a choice because I gave.”)

        Doesn’t that confirm your darkest suspicions about the way the system really works, that money talks and that elections are just a way to get the sheeple to rubber-stamp a corrupt, fraudulent system?

        Of course, it does.

        So, let’s summarize: Moneybags capitalist loudmouth explains to 80 million dumbfounded Americans watching prime time TV, that the system is a total fraud, that the big money runs everything, and that even he thinks the system is broken. . .

        ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/07/trumps-triumph-billionaire-blowhard-exposes-fake-political-syst

      • RoHa
        August 9, 2015, 4:52 am

        This is hardly news to anyone who has been paying attention, or who remembers the name “Crassus” from their history lessons.

      • JLewisDickerson
        August 9, 2015, 2:29 pm

        P.P.S. EMMA GOLDMAN (1909):

        The history of the American kings of capital and authority is the history of repeated crimes, injustice, oppression, outrage, and abuse, all aiming at the suppression of individual liberties and the exploitation of the people. A vast country, rich enough to supply all her children with all possible comforts, and insure well-being to all, is in the hands of a few, while the nameless millions are at the mercy of ruthless wealth gatherers, unscrupulous lawmakers, and corrupt politicians.
        The reign of these kings is holding mankind in slavery, perpetuating poverty and disease, maintaining crime and corruption; it is fettering the spirit of liberty, throttling the voice of justice, and degrading and oppressing humanity. It is engaged in continual war and slaughter, devastating the country and destroying the best and finest qualities of man; it nurtures superstition and ignorance, sows prejudice and strife, and turns the human family into a camp of Ishmaelites.

        SOURCE – https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman

  2. unverified__5ilf90kd
    August 8, 2015, 10:36 am

    These people at the NYT like Davis and Rudorum are using lies, distortion and trickery to protect Israel from criticism and turn the US public against the Iran deal. They are false Americans who are primarily loyal to another regime in Israel and do everything in their power to use American resources for support of the illegal activities of their Israeli masters. I am fed up with this elephant in the room. If you criticize them they call you “controversial” or “antisemitic”. They have cleverly used all of Madison Avenue’s deception to make this word “antisemitic” a formidable weapon. We all need to fight against their underlying false claim that the US and Israel have similar goals and needs. We are different countries and the crimes of Israel have already tarnished the USA for long enough.

  3. Blownaway
    August 8, 2015, 10:46 am

    Interesting with articles like this that the NYT doesn’t open them for comments, because the readers have taken them to task for their nonsense

    • Les
      August 8, 2015, 12:44 pm

      All major news outlets are in the business of creating public opinion by what and how they report the “news.” Considering the many unfavorable comments in the Times about Schumer’s decision, it is clear that the paper does not actually trust public opinion regarding this particular article and that one of the Times duties is to override such disagreeable public opinion.

  4. Annie Robbins
    August 8, 2015, 10:58 am

    i read this article last night and made several notes. twice in the article quotes from aipac operatives hinted at pogrom fears, which is really cowardly. one of the was the Makovsky quote picked up here, this:

    ““It’s somewhat dangerous, because there’s a kind of a dog whistle here that some people are going to hear as ‘it’s time to go after people,’ and not just rhetorically,” said David Makovsky,

    i thought to myself, what does that mean, going after someone with more than words? pogroms? that’s the worst it suggests. what about trying to take down a PM, the way netanyahu actively overtly backed romney and tried to end obama’s presidency? is that what it means? hypocrisy anyone.

    and here was the second time:

    “Words have consequences, especially when it’s authority figures saying them, and it’s not their intent, perhaps, but we know from history that they become manipulated,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, …. repeating a concern he had raised directly with Mr. Obama during the closed-door session. “Of all political leaders,” Mr. Hoenlein added, “he certainly should be the most sensitive to this.”

    more sensitive? we know from history? what does this mean, this psychological guilt trip.

    Aipac says it is not behind those ads, [BULLSHIT] and that its arguments with Mr. Obama are about the deal, not him. “This critical national security debate is certainly not about an organization but rather about a deal which we believe will fail to block an Iranian nuclear weapon and will fuel terrorism,” said Marshall Wittmann, an Aipac spokesman. “We hope that all those who are engaged in this debate will avoid questioning motives and employing any ad hominem attacks.”

    no, it’s very much about an organization representing a foreign power trying to take down the deal and manipulate US foreign policy/diplomacy at great risk to our nation. we’re not idiots. he’s got a lot of nerve lecturing anyone on ad hominem attacks!

    • Citizen
      August 8, 2015, 2:42 pm

      Yep

    • DavidDaoud
      August 9, 2015, 6:44 am

      I absolutely agree with you Annie.

    • inbound39
      August 9, 2015, 6:45 am

      Both Hoenlein and Makovsky seem overly paranoid which from my experience denotes the paranoid person having guilt for something they themselves have done.

    • RobertHenryEller
      August 10, 2015, 1:26 am

      Annie, did you read James Fallows’ piece in The Atlantic about the New York Times article?

      “A Headline Worth Study in The New York Times” by James Fallows, The Atlantic

      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/a-headline-worth-study-in-nyt/400844/

      I actually wrote an email to Phil Weiss, suggesting he post the NYT article with the James Fallows response. I had not seen this North/Weiss piece at the time, or perhaps North/Weiss had not yet published it.

      Anyway, Fallows’ piece is very instructive as to how the NYT slants its construction to make Obama to appear as the aggressor and AIPAC the victim in the piece. A very good lesson in journalism, and one which can be applied to much NYT “news” coverage of the P5+1/Iran agreement battle, and other issue that have an Israel connection.

      • straightline
        August 10, 2015, 1:44 am

        Fallows seems to be arguing that the choice of headline is done hurriedly in the heat of the moment, and is, in some sense, accidental. Call me a conspiracy theorist but, if you toss a coin 1000 times and it comes up heads every time, then I think you need to start questioning the fairness of the coin.

        Jeez, I’m becoming paranoid about the RoHa punctuation patrol!

      • Annie Robbins
        August 10, 2015, 1:50 am

        thank you robert, good read. fallows is always good ;)

      • RoHa
        August 10, 2015, 5:12 am

        “Jeez, I’m becoming paranoid about the RoHa punctuation patrol!”

        And so you should be.

      • eGuard
        August 10, 2015, 8:17 am

        Indeed, straightline, I [Fallow in The Atlantic] am explicitly not suggesting that the headline was a conscious effort to present Obama as an antagonist of AIPAC and, by extension, of Israel. ..that everything we do, we’re doing in a hurry … do what comes first to mind

        Why would “hurry” be an excuse, and tossed out beforehand? Does NYT themselves claim so, while not correcting? Why the “everything”?

        In a hurry or not, journalists work by intuition. The headline shows NYT’s.

      • ckg
        August 10, 2015, 10:08 am

        @eGuard. It’s clear that the NYT headline was not thoughtlessly written in a hurry to meet a publication deadline, since the headline that Fallows quotes is not the article’s original headline, according to Newsdiffs. There was a 58-minute lapse between the orignal headline and the third (final) one which Fallows quotes. (The URL always contains the original headline.)

    • Doubtom
      August 10, 2015, 2:42 pm

      Amen, Annie!

  5. Kay24
    August 8, 2015, 11:13 am

    NYT lost any credibility it had, and has become yet another tool for the zionists to spread their propaganda. This is carrying the water for those whose top priority is to bomb Iran, no deal will ever accepted, so hence these biased and insulting articles by the servants of zionists in the US.
    The NYT was used by the Bush administration, especially the man from the dark side, Cheney, to sell the neocon war on Iraq, using devious methods, and here they are again, doing the work of yet another dark side. As long as zionist sympathizers own and work in our media, we have no hope that the truth will ever be told, and one sided stories will be the norm.

    Shame this writer is attacking Obama (and inadvertently the other nations) because she is
    supporting and doing the work for the only nation against this deal. It is sickening.

    • Doubtom
      August 10, 2015, 2:44 pm

      Way past time to boycott that ‘stinking’ paper which is in fact ‘sinking’ anyway.

  6. Boomer
    August 8, 2015, 11:36 am

    Re: “Their trip was bought and paid for the charitable arm of AIPAC.”

    Charity? That’s charity? Interesting how some people define charity. It’s tax-deductible, I guess.

    • PeaceThroughJustice
      August 8, 2015, 1:43 pm

      “It’s tax-deductible, I guess.”

      Definitely. Which means you and I are being forced to pay roughly 39.6% of their expenses.

      • Citizen
        August 8, 2015, 2:44 pm

        Yes, it masks itself as an education/cultural exchange organization.

    • inbound39
      August 9, 2015, 6:54 am

      Where the article talks about their fear of a rift…..I immediately wished and prayed for a yawning chasm to appear because the further away from AIPAC, America gets the better off Americans will be.

  7. David Doppler
    August 8, 2015, 11:38 am

    There appears to be a managed outcome in sight: Congress votes to disapprove, the President vetoes, then his veto is sustained, by a narrow margin. Schumer’s 10:00 PM Thursday announcement was designed to bury it in the news cycle dominated by the avalanche of Republican Debate. There are reports he will not work very hard to over-ride the veto, wanting to retain his shot at Senate Democratic Leadership. Obama wanted to get Netanyahu to make his deal for more aid, but Netanyahu favors playing this political battle out, at great expense – both monetary, and in terms of risk to the Lobby. Congresspersons are being subjected to direct pressure – carrot and stick – the Lobby at its most blatant.

    It is, of course, possible that, in the veto over-ride stage, Netanyahu and the Lobby will increase the pressure, and go all out to destroy the deal, and with it, any semblance of authority for the Obama Administration, but by most accounts that is unlikely to prevail.

    So what is gained? Will the Lobby then target each elected official who voted to sustain the veto, extract a price for disloyalty to the foreign master?

    Obama should take a lesson a from Donald Trump, someone who is always negotiating, always looking to win, and almost always does win, willing to use every tactic to get there. He has such an opponent in Netanyahu. He remains intimidated by those who will “dog whistle him,” accuse him of personal failings for fighting too effectively. In a fight to the death, he is perpetually modulating his message, nothing personal, do not doubt his sincerity, etc., etc., please let me give you more billions in aid.

    Even if Obama wins with a narrow margin on veto override, each and every one of those who support him may be targeted personally, vindictively, for the rest of their political lives, unless Obama first destroys Netanyahu, forcing regime change in Israel, forcing a change at the helm of the Israel Lobby.

    There is no good that can come out of a Netanyahu survival of this fight to the death with the President. It is a fight that should never have been picked in the first place. The Israeli newspapers reported that Netanyahu told his cabinet that his greatest fear was that Iran would get its deal and then abide by every term. Netanyahu is not sincere, at all, as he showed in panicky reporting about busloads of Arabs on election day, and a pledge never to reach peace with the Palestinians. The recent Israeli “terrorist attacks” are a symptom of Netanyahu’s fearful leadership. Holding him accountable for these failings will do Israel and the Middle East a big favor.

    It is not moderation his would-be allies in Congress need from him. It is strength. It is a killer instinct. And it is not just his allies who need that strength as the US system of government is under such blatant attack. The US Constitution – the American Way – needs a strong leader in times when it is under direct assault. A leader who uses strength to win when those he leads are under deadly assault will pass the most basic leadership test, while minor transgressions will always be forgiven. While one who tries to merely contain a sworn, deadly enemy, with just enough effort to contain him this time, will forever be remembered as an appeaser – a failed leader.

    Schumer should pay for his betrayal with loss of his shot at leadership, and Netanyahu should pay with loss of his job. All else is merely empowering Netanyahu to do more and escalating damage, to Israel, the Middle East, and the US.

    • Ellen
      August 8, 2015, 12:02 pm

      So what is gained? Will the Lobby then target each elected official who voted to sustain the veto, extract a price for disloyalty to the foreign master?

      Yes. The attack machine is in place.

      • Doubtom
        August 10, 2015, 2:49 pm

        Does one even NEED to ask such a question?

    • inbound39
      August 9, 2015, 6:59 am

      Hopefully Netanyahu will get his ultimate comeuppence and be dragged stamping and squealing before the Hague.

    • RobertHenryEller
      August 10, 2015, 12:50 am

      “So what is gained? Will the Lobby then target each elected official who voted to sustain the veto, extract a price for disloyalty to the foreign master?”

      You mean, kind of like West Bank settler “price tag” revenge?

  8. Mooser
    August 8, 2015, 11:38 am

    ” . . . ‘been troubled by the level of vitriol in the Jewish community surrounding this debate’”

    Arson and murder aren’t bad enough? Please don’t give the Israelis any ideas.

  9. Tchoupitoulas
    August 8, 2015, 12:42 pm

    That “night flower” is wilting in the bright, hot sunlight.

  10. Steve Grover
    August 8, 2015, 1:18 pm

    Weiss says:
    “The article is also an insult to the American Jewish community”
    How do you know? Do you only identify yourself as part of the American Jewish community iff you can use it as an opportunity to bash Israel?

    Each time I come to Israel, my motivation to counter the BDSers increases exponentially.
    Shavuah tov from Yerushalyim, the capital of Eretz Yisrael.

    • Citizen
      August 8, 2015, 2:47 pm

      Jerusalem does not lie in Israel. That’s why foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv.

      • Doubtom
        August 10, 2015, 2:52 pm

        You’re preaching to a blind ideologue! Or is that, one and the same? Redundancy?

    • Annie Robbins
      August 8, 2015, 2:59 pm

      Shavuah tov from Yerushalyim

      steve, you certainly do find a lot of time on your travels to hang out at mondoweiss. you keep telling us you’re there but umm, your i.p. address doesn’t really reflect that. just thought i’d mention.

      • italian ex-pat
        August 8, 2015, 7:15 pm

        Annie

        You’ve noticed that too? Just a few days ago I pointed out how this Steve Grover’s posting times seem to be at hours when in Israel it’s the middle of the night. Either he is an insomniac or, more likely, he is writing from the good old USA, and is in Jerusalem only in his dreams.

      • talknic
        August 8, 2015, 7:26 pm

        Oh Annie how could you. Steve wuz hav’n so much fun

      • eljay
        August 8, 2015, 10:34 pm

        || italian ex-pat: … Either he is an insomniac or, more likely, he is writing from the good old USA, and is in Jerusalem only in his dreams. ||

        Perhaps he’s been too busy this year to steal his share of Palestine. But maybe next year in Jerusalem, eh?

      • Steve Grover
        August 9, 2015, 5:45 am

        Annie sez in lower case:

        “steve, you certainly do find a lot of time on your travels to hang out at mondoweiss. you keep telling us you’re there but umm, your i.p. address doesn’t really reflect that. just thought i’d mention”

        If I’ve spent more than 20 minutes on MW while here that would be a lot.

      • just
        August 9, 2015, 8:28 am

        “If I’ve spent more than 20 minutes on MW while here that would be a lot.”

        I doubt that, Steve.

        By the way, you forgot to address the salient point of Annie’s post:

        “you keep telling us you’re there but umm, your i.p. address doesn’t really reflect that.”

      • amigo
        August 9, 2015, 8:52 am

        “If I’ve spent more than 20 minutes on MW while here that would be a lot. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/shocker-release-warning#comment-151505” S Grover.

        Actually it would be 20 mins too much but there is the entertainment value.

      • talknic
        August 9, 2015, 1:34 pm

        Steve Grover “If I’ve spent more than 20 minutes on MW while here that would be a lot”

        To busy catching flights back home to use your computer to post here … then another flight back to your holiday … back to the computer, back to holidays … what an on the go guy , what dedication !

      • Mooser
        August 9, 2015, 2:23 pm

        “If I’ve spent more than 20 minutes on MW while here that would be a lot.”

        Oh, no, Steve, nobody would ever accuse you of actually taking the time to read the articles.

    • Mooser
      August 8, 2015, 4:01 pm

      “Each time I come to Israel, my motivation to counter the BDSers increases exponentially.”

      And now, you are so incensed you’ve decided to stop drinking and really get down to work!

      So let me make sure I understand this “Grovner”: By being as obnoxious, arrogant and internet imperious as possible, a combination guaranteed to disgust people with Zionists and support BDS ever more, you are doing your part! Okay.
      But I’ve got to admit, “Grubner”, I am a bit envious. I mean, how many people are involved in a cause in which satisfying your lowest kinds of ego-demands are exactly, precisely, the actions needed to advance the cause.
      I mean, how often does that happen?

      “Steveie” you remind me of a guy denying a rape charge by saying his only motivation at the time of the assault was the consequences of underpopulation.

      Let me know when you convince your kids.

    • inbound39
      August 9, 2015, 6:48 am

      Israel agreed to and accepted and declared borders as defined by the Partition Plan. Jerusalem does not fall within those borders.

      • Mooser
        August 9, 2015, 11:35 am

        “Jerusalem does not fall within those borders.”

        Didn’t the Partition Plan go further, and specify the status of Jerusalem? Wasn’t there something about an international, open city?

      • inbound39
        August 9, 2015, 5:33 pm

        Right on the button Mooser……Administered by an International body….not placed under martial settler law like it currently is.

      • Doubtom
        August 10, 2015, 3:22 pm

        Inbound, you have to understand the Israeli lexicon, Israel might have “agreed” to the borders but “declare” trumps ‘agreed every time. And it’s clear that Israel has “declared” Jerusalem to be its capital city— so these people are close to god and it isn’t wise to question anything they do–they might ‘declare’ you nonexistent, as they did the Palestinians. ;-)

  11. Bandolero
    August 8, 2015, 2:04 pm

    I can’t understand why anyone would be shocked that the hasbara outlet famous for hasbara fairy tales from Judy Miller and other similar propagandists is in the business of spreading AIPAC’s propaganda as news.

    And, regarding the content of the article: isn’t it clear that Obama has to back down if he is having a dispute with Israel and the lobby? Hasn’t Obama, like every other US president, had to swear an oath upon entering office? Of course, because without swearing an oath he couldn’t enter his office.

    “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Wishes of Israel and the Israeli lobby in the United States.”

    So, since he has sworn an oath, it’s clear for the New York Times that Obama has to back down now and the Israeli lobby has every right to demand that from him now.

  12. surewin
    August 8, 2015, 2:41 pm

    The battle inside the establishment will be won by those who brought about the Iran negotiations and the agreement. That group has very substantial Jewish membership and leadership, although it is diverse and is committed to maintaining some measure of diversity. The Israeli establishment and its hard-line supporters elsewhere in the world will never cross over. But there are still many Jews in the middle who don’t really understand what’s happening, namely that Israel has become an intolerable problem for the globalist establishment, which as mentioned has very substantial Jewish leadership. The globalists will prevail, but they are doing so incrementally and are unlikely to resort to any sort of coup de grace. They began circumscribing Israel in late 2006, and the process will continue until Israel is well under control, and dreams of a flourishing empire based in Jerusalem are whittled down to implausibility. Of course some will keep the torch burning for many generations to come, and no one knows for sure what will happen in the very long term. But Israel is in the process of being restrained, and there’s a lot more of that to come in the next ten years or so. None of the American Presidential candidates who has a real chance of winning in 2016 will defy the globalists. Obama’s successor, no matter of which party, will move the process forward.

    • lysias
      August 8, 2015, 4:54 pm

      With Hillary’s fortunes sinking and Bernie Sanders’s rising, this race is starting to resemble that of 1968, where McCarthy’s campaign success paved the way for RFK. I can certainly conceive of Biden or Kerry eventually getting the nomination (in which case they would be heavy favorites to win the November election). I think either of those two would very much favor the globalists’ disfavor of Israel.

      • Doubtom
        August 10, 2015, 3:25 pm

        Lysias, you haven’t been following Biden’s record on Israel very closely, have you?

  13. piotr
    August 8, 2015, 2:47 pm

    http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/bad-decision-by-senator-schumer/?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Multimedia

    I do not know how it is in the print version, but in on-line NYT a commentary chiding Schumer for being wrong appeared on Op-Ed page immediately after his position against the Iran deal became public. And the front page frames the issue as follows:

    Fears of Lasting Rift as Obama Battles Pro-Israel Group
    By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS

    The president accuses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, of spending millions on advertising to try to defeat the Iran accord, as well as spreading misinformation.

    Schumer’s Vote Won’t Doom Iran Deal, Democrats Say

    For Obama, Golf, Then a Busy September

    ======

    A dub for AIPAC and Sen. Schumer? Bunker shot?

    • Rusty Pipes
      August 8, 2015, 3:20 pm

      Indeed, one might wonder whether the placement of today’s article is a response from higher-ups to yesterday’s opinion piece by Italian American editor, Carol Giacomo, that pointedly questioned Schumer’s leadership credentials:

      Given Mr. Schumer’s wrong-headed and irresponsible decision, Democrats may want to reconsider whether he is the best candidate to be their next leader in the Senate, a job he desperately wants.

      In addition to being the third-ranking Democratic leader in the Senate and a major party fund-raiser, Mr. Schumer is Congress’ most influential Jewish member. His choice could affect the votes of other lawmakers who are wavering. Whether to support the nuclear deal is the most consequential foreign policy decision facing lawmakers since the Iraq war and opponents are waging a fierce multi-million dollar campaign to defeat it.

      Mr. Schumer is a smart man and a clever politician but his arguments for opposing the agreement are no more convincing than those put forward by other opponents. While supporters of the deal, including the major powers and most nuclear experts, acknowledge it has weaknesses, the fact is, it offers strong and unprecedented curbs on Iran’s nuclear activities.

      No doubt some major advertisers did not like her editorial.

      • lysias
        August 8, 2015, 4:57 pm

        Wall Street has a lot of reason to favor Schumer.

        Carol Giacomo’s piece takes Schumer’s position seriously, as though he really means it. Myself, I strongly suspect it’s just posturing for the sake of assuring his re-election.

    • italian ex-pat
      August 8, 2015, 4:00 pm

      I also have to disagree with the accusations of anti-Obama and pro-Zionism hurled at theTimes in this particular case. I don’t know who Julie Hirschfeld Davis is, but I see nothing in her article to support the claim of pro-Israel hasbara, and I read the article twice, to make sure I didn’t miss something. What I see are QUOTES from various pro-Israel public figures – not necessarily the author’s opinion – as well as statements such as “Aipac furiously attacking Iran deal” and others on the same note. All in all a fair article.

      What I find much more troublesome is the Times allowing Naftali Bennett to shed a few crocodile years in an op-ed in yesterday Opinion pages, in which he condemns the “small extremist fringe destroying Israel from within”. Echoing other Israeli defenders, he states that the recent murderous attacks are the work of a few ultra-religious individuals totally disconnected from Israel’s democratic and tolerant society, and promised they will be arrested and treated just like Palestinian terrorists. Didn’t elaborate as to whether their homes will be blown up too.
      Does anyone really believe that the death of little Ali (and now his father) would have received so much attention in Israel if it hadn’t happened in the wake of the knifing murder of an Israeli girl by a Jewish extremist? Can’t very well be outraged at the first and not at the other. And pardon my cynicism, but I think the outrage directed at the settlers believed to be responsible for the arson attack is due more to the embarrassment their actions caused Israel in the world’s opinion than by true grief for the victims. Something they just didn’t need right now.

      • Kris
        August 8, 2015, 4:30 pm

        @italian ex-pat: “What I find much more troublesome is the Times allowing Naftali Bennett to shed a few crocodile years in an op-ed in yesterday Opinion pages, in which he condemns the “small extremist fringe destroying Israel from within”.

        “Small extremist fringe destroying Israel from within” reminds me of this, one of the stories in Kate’s compilation http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/rightwing-violence-churches today”

        The mutant-alien Jewish terrorists who have nothing to do with the Israeli right
        Haaretz 4 Aug by Chemi Shalev — Citing overwhelming empirical evidence is an old leftist ploy aimed at harming political rivals and weakening Israel itself — Whoever carried out the horrible arson attack that killed 18-month-old Ali Dawabsheh and nearly burned his entire family alive is a wild thorn, as Israelis like to call them. The perpetrators are in no way connected to, or inspired by, the settler movement, religious Zionism or the Israeli right wing in general. Whoever says so is slandering, defaming and inciting, as the left is wont to do. Yigal Amir, who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, was also a lone wolf. The fact that right-wing politicians had whipped up a public frenzy in the weeks before his killing, accusing Rabin of selling out Israel to terrorists, or that rabbis were discussing and some even sanctioning a religious sentence of death against Rabin, doesn’t mean they were prodding Amir in any way . . . The same is true of Baruch Goldstein, the Brooklyn-born Kiryat Arba doctor who massacred 29 Muslim worshippers at Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs in 1994 . . . Goldstein, in any case, was a native-born American, which renders him completely atypical. Baltimore-born Alan Goodman, who stormed the Temple Mount in 1982 in order to liberate the Temple Mount, killing two Palestinians in the process, is just as much your problem as he is ours. Nahshon Walls, who shot a pregnant 25-year-old Palestinian woman to death near Kiryat Arba in what he said was an act of revenge, was Ohio-born and bred. Sentenced to life imprisonment, he was released in less than 10 years and spent his last years surrounded by friends in Tapuach who praise his good deeds to this very day . . . And then there’s Yaakov Teitel, originally of Florida and Virginia then of Shvut Rachel, an all-purpose man-in-one terror machine who killed Palestinians, tried to poison a village, bombed Christian churches, maimed Messianic Jews and planted the pipe bomb that injured Professor Ze’ev Sternhell in 2008 . . . .
        http://www.haaretz.com/beta/.premium-1.669463

      • Mooser
        August 8, 2015, 4:44 pm

        Is that Chemi Shalev article some kind of joke? He says they are all lone wolves, nuts, and then goes on to detail how they all came from the same source. Who does he think he is kidding?

      • Kris
        August 8, 2015, 6:24 pm

        Thanks to Kate, we can read the entire Chemi Shalev article, for free, here:

        http://frammentivocalimo.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-mutant-alien-jewish-terrorists-who.html

      • italian ex-pat
        August 8, 2015, 7:23 pm

        Oops . . tears, not years.

      • italian ex-pat
        August 8, 2015, 8:04 pm

        Kris:

        THANK YOU for the link to the Haaretz article, which seems to have been originally translated into Italian by someone who runs a blog called ‘frammentivocalimo’ (if you are dying to know the meaning, it is: Vocal Fragments of the Middle East). I bookmarked it so I can follow it from now on, in Italian!

        Mooser :

        It’s not a joke – just a great sarcastic work of mocking Israel’s denial of any culpability, ever!
        At least that’s how I read it. Chemi Shalev should be writing for The Onion.

      • Mooser
        August 9, 2015, 11:38 am

        “It’s not a joke – just a great sarcastic work of mocking Israel’s denial of any culpability, ever!”

        Thanks! The article mirrored so perfectly the stuff all the ziobots are handing out, I couldn’t tell.

      • piotr
        August 9, 2015, 5:37 pm

        Chemi Shalev: … be that as it may, the fact that these and countless other terrorist incidents- including scores of attacks in which people were maimed and property was destroyed but no one was killed – were carried out by Jewish Israelis who were either settlers, or Orthodox, or right wing, or any combination thereof, doesn’t prove a thing.
        Attaching significance to such a random though admittedly overwhelmingly emphatic list is a time-tested leftist method of casting aspersions on true Israel-loving patriots. The fact that a Likud-led government has been in power throughout most of these years also means nothing: there are many other problems that it hasn’t managed to solve as well.

        I guess sometimes we need to explains how to tell snark from propaganda. Look for phrases that a propagandist would never use. “Casting aspertion” is a lightweight hint, Propagandist or a true believer would write “Slandering”. This sentence is almost copied from typical wingnut rants, but using an effeminate turn of phrase, one could almost add “Those bad people made you cry! Come to Mama! Chu. Pain, pain, fly away!”

        “These and COUNTLESS other terrorist incidents…” A propagandist or true believer would not mention any, and at best obliquely refer to isolated, rare incidents, with no examples.

        Defending Likud government that it cannot be blamed, because it was not able to solve any other problems either is more of “twisting the knife” than a defense.

        ====

        My own interpretation is that the normative extreme Zionists like Naftali Bennet have zero against the ordinary “price tag”, like uprooting trees, burning crops and cars, defacing buildings with grafitti, and even occasional mild arson, but the true murderous violence should be reserved for thr proper organs of the State. They are Statists and the extreme settler fringe is kind of Zio-anarchist. Thus some of the protests that they raise are genuine.

        In the same time, the Statists adore the “free Jewish spirit of bonding with the Land” represented by those Zio-anarchists, an let them develop separate settlements, where all neighbors share the same extreme views and the same hostility to the State. Additionally, as it was explained in +972, the troops detailed to the protection of settlements have to obey security coordinators of those settlements, hence they function to obey they whims and preserve immunity. At some occasions, IDF would protect Palestinians, at other, it either looks away or cooperates with the “unruly settlers”, by adding 2+2 I conclude that we have some troops instructed to be subservient to the settlements, and some operating directly under the regional command. Because of the way the settlements of the extremists are formed, normal investigations are hardly possible. Normally, these settlers are more hooligans then terrorists.

        I actually do not know a proper English world, Polish “bojówkarz” (a deregatory variation of bojownik = “figher”, in dictionary translated “raider” , but it actual usage restricted to “unruly young people” attacking ethnic and political opponents for the purposes of “good cheer” and intimidation, and they can be affiliated with a fascist party or other extremist movement. And from time to time they get lethal. Some of them become (not-so-)lone wolves.

        I would guess that the murderers in Duma were of “bojówkarz” variety, but they got a “bit overenthusiastic” and spilled to much gasoline, and in a dangerous manner. They were expected to splash lightly the houses fro outside rather than throwing a bundle of Molotov cocktails through the windows or whatever their arson method was.

      • RobertHenryEller
        August 10, 2015, 1:07 am

        Most specifically, what Naftali Bennett was attempting to do was to distinguish between the “bad” Zionist terrorist of the “fringe” fanatics in the West Bank, and the “good” righteous Zionist terrorism rained down on the Palestinians in Gaza.

        This is in fact what all the uproar, the “soul searching,” about the firebombing of one Palestinian baby in the West Bank, and the subsequent death of that baby’s father, is about: This psychotic bifurcation between one child’s murder in the West Bank, and the murder of hundreds of children in Gaza.

        Could these “soul searching” Israelis really not know that Gaza was baby Ali times 100, times 1,000? Are these “soul searching” Israelis simply compartmentalizing?

        “Look, we’re really human! We care about one baby! We’re not like ‘those crazy hilltop youth!’ ” Really, Israelis? Take another look in the mirror.

    • Doubtom
      August 10, 2015, 3:29 pm

      Schumer is just letting his Jewish backers know that he’s actually the real president of the USA.

  14. yourstruly
    August 8, 2015, 3:13 pm

    a new low in relations between Aipac and the White House?

    let us hope so

    better yet

    let us see to it!

  15. traintosiberia
    August 8, 2015, 3:23 pm

    NYT has always eventually come round . It did in 1947 . It supported the maximalist position of the Zionist . It didn’t seek or want a rift.
    The history of Zionism has always been exactly that- some sigh,a tired yawn,and some meal culpa – but the new reality always stays and more are created on the illegal invalid really for another cycle of sigh,yawn,and move on.
    NYT in future will remind a future president that for any ME issue, the president better coordinate all moves its Israel.Otherwise an avoidable fiasco and limb down by President woud follow .
    Wasn’t it Mit Romney who said he would ask Israel bête any foreign policy initiative ?

  16. hophmi
    August 8, 2015, 4:00 pm

    So the people who hear the dog whistle now tell us that a garden variety article about a relationship between the President and AIPAC, in which a prominent analyst calls AIPAC rhetoric overheated, is a “press release” for AIPAC. LOL. Do you read this blog, James?

    • inbound39
      August 9, 2015, 7:11 am

      I think it far more amusing the AIPAC member unthinkingly uses the phrase people hearing the dog whistle. Is that because a dog whistle is the only whistle AIPAC members can hear? Why did he choose a Dog Whistle…of all things.

  17. traintosiberia
    August 8, 2015, 4:00 pm

    NYT fired Judith Miller . Was she as a sacrificial lamb? Judith Miller was in bed with same group who were agitating for war day and night 24/7 following 911. Most of those were what we now know as the neocon.
    NYT now doesn’t want anyone even go there let alone the president.

  18. yonah fredman
    August 8, 2015, 4:06 pm

    It isn’t yet clear if there is a real chance for Bibi to get enough votes to override the coming veto. But Obama is laying the ground work for an all out battle if it should come to that. Those that fear that Obama is pushing too hard are being silly. This is the entirety of Obama’s legacy in regards to foreign policy. (Rhetorical excess but not by much.) Do you think he will let it get defeated by Bibi without a fight? Do you think he will fight with one arm tied behind his back? He will fight with his entire arsenal.

    (BTW, although Makovsky is part of the Israel Lobby which is by definition right wing, particularly while Bibi is Prime Minister, he is no right winger himself. Unless everyone to the right of Peter Beinart is a right winger.)

    • Mooser
      August 9, 2015, 11:41 am

      “It isn’t yet clear if there is a real chance for Bibi to get enough votes to override the coming veto.”

      Yonah, are you intending to make very clear that Israel engages in interference with the US political system?

      Look, I don’t want to shock you, Yonah, or make you feel all unprotected, like nobody is looking out for you, but Netanyahoo is not in the US government.

  19. Bornajoo
    August 8, 2015, 4:28 pm

    I read this article this morning and somehow knew that the great and good at mondoweiss would once again call out the NYT on this shameless article.

    Many thanks James and Phil

  20. Kay24
    August 8, 2015, 6:01 pm

    The rest of the world has accepted this deal, military officials in Israel has said it is better to accept this deal, and the top US scientists have PRAISED the deal:

    “Twenty-nine top U.S. nuclear scientists – including five Nobel laureates – sent a letter to President Barack Obama on Saturday praising the nuclear deal reached between world powers and Iran in July.
    According to the New York Times, the letter used the terms “innovative” and “stringent” more than half-a-dozen times, saying the deal can serve “as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements.”
    According to the letter, Iran was “only a few weeks” away from producing enough fuel for nuclear weapons before curbing its nuclear programs during the negotiations with world powers.
    The New York Times noted that many of the letter’s signatories have previously advised Washington on nuclear arms and arms control, and that most of them have held an equivalent of the military’s top secret security clearance with regards to the design of nuclear weapons. Among them were physicist and arms control expert Richard L. Garwin, who helped design the first hydrogen bomb and Siegfried S. Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos facility in New Mexico.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/beta/1.670232

    Netanyahu and his warmongers are the elements who want to oppose the deal. I guess their thirst for war makes them unreasonable and unable to do the right thing. Pity our American congresspeople are also going to look stupid to the rest of the world.

    • echinococcus
      August 8, 2015, 7:53 pm

      Twenty-nine nuclear scientists, eh? I suppose we should expect them to be killed by Mosad, one by one.

    • inbound39
      August 9, 2015, 7:19 am

      It is Netanyahu’s thirst for goyim blood. He is hoping to see American troops die eradicating his enemy….just like they did in Iraq. Since Hezbollah got batteries of missiles and last time they just about sunk a brand new Israeli corvette that had its early warning gear shut off….lol….they haven’t gone near Lebanon on the ground. Hamas seriously wrongfooted them with tunnel warfare and they lost the most personnel ever there and had no real answer to Hamas tactics nor did all that bombing achieve any of their stated aims. Netanyahu needs Foreign troops to fight his battles. Obama needs to grant him Denial of Service.

      • Kay24
        August 9, 2015, 8:44 am

        Unfortunately for the rest of the world (especially Germany), they have been programmed to feel guilty about the holocaust, and when the zionists flash that card at their convenience, they are made to feel chastened, and withdraw, giving in to zionist demands. Playing the eternal victims has had tremendous benefit.
        Meanwhile the true victims of the holocaust live quietly, and being neglected by the zionists in Israel, who use their terrible experience for zionist gain. Never again, is only for the zionists. The Palestinians must feel the pain again and again, not retaliate to the collective punishment, and be happy they are under occupation, while they are robbed left, right, and center.

  21. David Doppler
    August 8, 2015, 6:45 pm

    In response to suggestions that “war mongers” is an “inappropriate term,” he should quote Adelson and Saban on their ambitions to bomb Iran, Netanyahu on his guaranty to Congress that invading Iraq would make the world a better place, call AIPAC out for denying it supported the Iraq War, when all it did was do so quietly, all that was necessary, and, besides, they’re following Netanyahu NOW, who very clearly did lobby for the Iraq War. No apologies. Just escalate. Make them pay.

    And stop not doubting their sincerity, when there is every reason to doubt it. Start quoting the Gatekeepers. Start pointing out that dangerous behavior risks dangerous consequences. Start pointing out that ISIS and Al Queda in Iraq, Iran in Iraq for that matter, are all consequences of the Iraq War, the last time this chorus of warmongers were so sure of themselves, so disdainful of diplomacy. Get with the Vote Vet organization, which is driving veteran groups to lobby their Congressmen in favor of the deal. Get crowds of wounded vets calling on Congressmen and Senators. Play hardball for once in his political life.

    • Kris
      August 8, 2015, 8:06 pm

      @David Doppler: “Start pointing out that ISIS and Al Queda in Iraq, Iran in Iraq for that matter, are all consequences of the Iraq War, the last time this chorus of warmongers were so sure of themselves, so disdainful of diplomacy. Get with the Vote Vet organization, which is driving veteran groups to lobby their Congressmen in favor of the deal. Get crowds of wounded vets calling on Congressmen and Senators. Play hardball for once in his political life.”

      I think this is the “danger” that AIPAC and other Zionists fear–that the U.S. public will finally start connecting the dots.

      Lives in the Balance
      I’ve been waiting for something to happen
      For a week or a month or a year
      With the blood in the ink of the headlines
      And the sound of the crowd in my ear

      You might ask what it takes to remember
      When you know that you’ve seen it before
      Where a government lies to a people
      And a country is drifting to war

      There’s a shadow on the faces
      Of the men who send the guns
      To the wars that are fought in places
      Where their business interests run

      On the radio talk shows and TV
      You hear one thing again and again
      How the USA stands for freedom
      And we come to the aid of a friend

      But who are the ones that we call our friends?
      These governments killing their own?
      Or the people who finally can’t take anymore
      And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone

      And there are lives in the balance
      There are people under fire
      There are children at the cannons
      And there is blood on the wire

      There’s a shadow on the faces
      Of the men who fan the flames
      Of the wars that are fought in places
      Where we can’t even say the names

      They sell us the president the same way
      They sell us our clothes and our cars
      They sell us everything from youth to religion
      The same time they sell us our wars

      I want to know who the men in the shadows are
      I want to hear somebody asking them why
      They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
      But they’re never the ones to fight or to die

      And there are lives in the balance
      There are people under fire
      There are children at the cannons
      And there is blood on the wire
      http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/jackson+browne/lives+in+the+balance_20068574.html

      • just
        August 8, 2015, 8:51 pm

        I play that song/CD often and loud, Kris!

        AIPAC needs to be torn down and fully exposed as the agents of a foreign government.

        Perhaps Julie Hirschfeld Davis and the NYT have inadvertently helped to do this.

  22. KarlRKaiser
    August 8, 2015, 7:32 pm

    Fears of a “lasting riff”?

    Bring it on, baby. If there’s a rift with Israel that lasts through the next ice age it won’t be long enough.

  23. unverified__5ilf90kd
    August 8, 2015, 8:29 pm

    Now the Jews in the Congress, Sherman, Schumer, Engel, Deutch, and Lowey have all come out against the Iran deal.
    I wonder will there ever be a US election between a Gentile and a Jew where the Gentile says “Don’t elect the Jew, he/she will only vote for Israel instead of supporting your interests and the United States”.
    Last year it might have been anti-Semitic to say such a thing but next year, would it still be anti-Semitic ?

    • Sibiriak
      August 8, 2015, 11:16 pm

      unverified__5ilf90kd: …next year, would it still be anti-Semitic ?
      —————–

      Yes, clearly. And even more so given how many Jews support the Iran deal.

      • Atlantaiconoclast
        August 9, 2015, 12:01 pm

        not the Jewish establishment

        People throw around the term the “Christian Right” all the time, its time to start calling out the Jewish establishment, or organized Jewry.

      • MRW
        August 9, 2015, 10:24 pm

        How many Jews in Congress other than Sander Levin support the Iran deal? Name them.

      • Sibiriak
        August 10, 2015, 10:52 am

        Atlantaiconoclast: not the Jewish establishment
        ———————-

        I didn’t say the Jewish establishment.

      • Sibiriak
        August 10, 2015, 11:01 am

        MRW: How many Jews in Congress other than Sander Levin support the Iran deal.
        ————————

        I didn’t refer to Jews in Congress. I referred to Jews in general, and polls have shown considerable Jewish support for the deal.

        Sorry, “don’t elect the Jew , he/she will only vote for Israel” sounds a bit racist to me as it falsely assumes monolithic Jewish opinion and character, and treats an individual Jew not as an individual.

        “Don’t elect the Black , he/she will only vote for more affirmative action”, or “don’t elect the Latino , he/she will only vote for more immigration” sound equally racist to me. YMMV

  24. unverified__5ilf90kd
    August 8, 2015, 11:07 pm

    I just saw this in the TABLET – they are accusing Obama of being an anti-Semite and a Jew baiter in order to get his way with the Iran deal – I guess a Jew baiter is some sort of advanced anti-Semite who torments Jews ? They are doing a full court press to punish Obama for his audacity to take them on. Fantastic ! They are truly becoming unhinged and out of control. Like a 3 year old kid. I assume that Jew baiter is the new canard or is it quenelle.

    “What we increasingly can’t stomach—and feel obliged to speak out about right now—is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it. Accusing Senator Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South.

    This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and “lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card. It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.”

    • yonah fredman
      August 8, 2015, 11:15 pm

      unverified- why do you mention quenelle? to titillate?

      • unverified__5ilf90kd
        August 9, 2015, 9:04 am

        Yes. Tastless on my part. Sorry, I am a Francophile. And the quenelle is a repartee to the canard in some circles.

      • Mooser
        August 9, 2015, 11:56 am

        “unverified- why do you mention quenelle? to titillate?”

        Ah, Mondo’s very own Thomas Bowdler is here!

    • just
      August 9, 2015, 12:14 am

      Tablet’s editorial is foul, filthy, and full of lies.

      Chemi Shalev:

      “Obama Accused of Using Dark, Nasty Stuff’ Against Jewish Critics Like Schumer

      The N.Y. senator’s intention to vote against Iran deal unleashes hints of anti-Semitism on social media – and wild counter-accusations against the president in a Tablet Magazine editorial.

      The most widely known cliché about New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s alleged addiction to publicity was originally formulated 20 years ago by the acerbic former Senator Bob Dole, and then revived by his GOP colleague, John McCain. “The most dangerous place in Washington D.C.,” the joke goes, “is between Chuck Schumer and a television camera.”

      That’s why Schumer’s absence from a minor public event in Brooklyn on Friday was deemed worthy of headlines in the New York press this weekend, and that’s why it was seen as an indication of the duress that the veteran Democratic lawmaker might be feeling in the wake of his announcement Thursday night that he would vote against the Iran nuclear deal in Congress. That statement immediately placed Schumer in the eye of a public storm, earning him censure and rage from the White House and many Democratic activists. Schumer’s announcement also seemed to be releasing hitherto dormant demons of anti-Semitism and claims of “dual loyalty” on social media, on the one hand, and by a harsh, over-the-top editorial in Tablet magazine that accused the administration of “sickening anti-Jewish incitement”, on the other. Obama  – I kid you not – was using “dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally” according to the Jewish magazine. …

      … No such doubt accompanied the sudden outburst of anti-Semitic insinuations and outright accusations on social media that fumed at “Israel-Firster” Schumer’s “dual loyalty.” But the first stirrings of the nightmare scenario that critics of the high-profile Netanyahu-led onslaught against the Iran deal had warned against were then transported from the fringes to center stage. They were elevated from a slight concern to a clear and present danger by an unusually harsh editorial in Tablet magazine that accused “the White House and its representatives” of “using anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool.”…

      …The incendiary editorial takes a New York Times editorial that blasted, “The unseemly spectacle of lawmakers siding with a foreign leader,” an Obama call on Democratic senators to “stand up to donors” and the president’s statement in his address at American University on Wednesday that, “It would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally,” and weaves them together to form “blatant and retrograde forms of racial bigotry.” It takes Obama and the White House to task for counterattacking critics by asserting that “murmuring about ‘money’ and ‘lobbying’ and ‘foreign interests’ who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card.” The editors of the widely respected magazine say the administration is “crossing a line” and making them “sick to their stomachs” in the process. 

      Tablet’s malevolent interpretation of statements made by the president, administration officials and the New York Times are so wantonly over the top that one cannot but suspect ulterior motives. The site, which combines liberal articles on culture and religious pluralism together with usually hard-line takes on issues related to Israel, seems to be amplifying the message made in several recently articles by its writer and senior editor Lee Smith, who is also affiliated with the arch-conservative Weekly Standard. Smith, a harsh critic of the Obama administration and a fierce opponent of the Iran deal wrote only last week of the administration’s “smear campaign” against Jewish senators who might vote for the deal.

      Before Schumer had announced and Tablet’s editors were appalled, Smith had already uncovered the White House’s “Jew-baiting dog whistle.”

      The editorial gives opponents of the Iran deal a powerful weapon with which to silence any criticism of Netanyahu or AIPAC or Jewish Democrats who oppose the president. It provides a convenient way for the GOP and other right-wingers to have their cake and eat it too: Netanyahu is allowed to address 10,000 American Jewish leaders and activists from Jerusalem, but mentioning their faith is forbidden; he is allowed to be the sole foreign leader to openly campaign against the deal, but singling him out is verboten; AIPAC can raise emergency funds, cancel all vacations and send its lobbyists to canvass on Capitol Hill, but say the words “lobby” or “money” and you are quickly branded a bigot; Schumer can famously boast that he sees himself as a Shomer Israel but you won’t dare say that when he seems to live up to his promise.

      It’s hard to tell which is more offensive – or scary: the anti-Jewish comments creeping up on the sidelines of political discourse or the brazen attempt to exponentially multiply signs of anti-Semitism to gain political advantage. Obama and administration officials used language that even some of their supporters might find disturbing, but these have now been turned into unequivocal manifestations of a rabid hatred of Jews. One thing is for sure: the GOP couldn’t be happier.

      Administration officials and Democratic activists fiercely deflected any charges of anti-Semitism over the weekend, but said they will be attentive to legitimate Jewish sensitivities. That could prove to be a mission impossible, however, given the war that Netanyahu has declared on Obama and the efforts of Obama-haters to portray the president as inherently anti-Jewish, just as they claimed from the outset.”

      read more: http://www.haaretz.com/beta/.premium-1.670247

      Too bad that Tablet is considered “widely respected”. Who knew? It’s gross.

      I can only hope that the WH does not fold, and that the pressure continues and more is revealed.

      • inbound39
        August 9, 2015, 7:45 am

        Chem Shalev not being the ripest nut on the tree is becoming more and more right wing oriented and has been moving that way since Netanyahu last got elected. Prior to the format change I noticed HIS articles were more or less being blocked from people posting or only supportive posts were allowed. All I see coming from this President- baiting by Israel and AIPAC is a large backlash. You can just about smell it in the air. No-one is taking Republicans seriously anymore and their nominee debate made them look like clowns and sealed their non election. Netanyahu is simply not believed anymore and is so smart he has outsmarted himself on this one and the more AIPAC stamps and squeals the more exposed the whole insidious lot become. They are simply hoisting themselves upon their own Petard.

      • Mooser
        August 9, 2015, 11:58 am

        “Chem Shalev not being the ripest nut on the tree is becoming more and more right wing oriented and has been moving that way since Netanyahu last got elected.”

        Wait a minute, fellows! Up-thread they told me Chemi’s article was sly satire, a parody of Israeli thinking. Which is it? Signed: Confused Ungulate.

    • Annie Robbins
      August 9, 2015, 12:04 pm

      we have 2 articles coming up about this momentarily, so hold onto your hats! don’t spill all your beans in this thread.

      • just
        August 9, 2015, 12:29 pm

        :-0

        Good to know that MW is publishing today. Shalev’s piece is certainly worthy.

        “Wait a minute, fellows! Up-thread they told me Chemi’s article was sly satire, a parody of Israeli thinking. Which is it? Signed: Confused Ungulate.”

        +1, Mooser!

      • inbound39
        August 9, 2015, 5:46 pm

        Lol,,,,2 articles coming up…..don’t spill all your beans on this thread…..Annie says with a glint of glee. I LOVE this site. Great bunch of people. Mondoweiss should declare itself an Independent State. Sanest State on the planet.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 9, 2015, 5:52 pm

        ;) thanks inbound. did you read? http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/semitic-israel-lobby

    • MRW
      August 9, 2015, 10:30 pm

      “Murmuring about “money” and “lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card.”

      Tough. That’s what they’re doing. The ONLY country in the world objecting to this deal is Israel. Their PM has appeared before Congress and the UN twice, and American Jewish lobbies are actively taking up the Israeli PM’s tone and request.

  25. Sibiriak
    August 9, 2015, 1:09 am

    Chemi Shalev: It’s hard to tell which is more offensive – or scary: the anti-Jewish comments creeping up on the sidelines of political discourse or the brazen attempt to exponentially multiply signs of anti-Semitism to gain political advantage. (emphasis added)
    ————————–

    I don’t know about “offensive”, but the latter is far more widespread, mainstream, powerful and pernicious. (Which is not to say that the former should be ignored.)

    • inbound39
      August 9, 2015, 5:52 pm

      It is hard to tell with Young Chemi where he is at. I haven’t seen the expression on his photo change once to a smile. My observation is his loyalties are changeable. IDF personnel vet and monitor Haaretz. Difficult therefore to determine satire from seriousness. What we do know is Israeli denials are comical.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 9, 2015, 5:59 pm

        i think he’s a good journo tho i don’t always agree w/his analysis. sure, there are some anti-Jewish comments creeping up on the sidelines of political discourse, not an abundance in relativity but they are there. but he’s exactly correct in his phrasing of “brazen attempt to exponentially multiply signs of anti-Semitism to gain political advantage. ”

        i have not scrutinized the article he wrote on the 4th piotr just linked to — i think an example of him being wrong unless it’s the article someone said it snark. and i’m late right now. but i’ll be checking it out. he’s one of the best haaretz writers imho. without a doubt.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 10, 2015, 2:36 pm

        just thought i’d add, now that i’ve had a chance to read Shalev’s “Mutant-alien Jewish Terrorists”, i do think the headline is a dead giveaway. and the next line “overwhelming empirical evidence” (which generally means “analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.” ) is another dead giveaway.

        and there’s a lot of evidence in the whole body of the text. but what to make of the “one swallow does not a summer make/Perish the thought” sequence?:

        Don’t forget, one swallow does not a summer make, nor does one terrorist – or even quite a few, for that matter – necessarily create a pattern. What you see isn’t necessarily what you get, and we can prove it.

        Ami Popper, who killed seven Palestinians in May, 1990 near Rishon Letzion was atypical; Gur Hamel, a Breslav Hasid who stoned an elderly Palestinian to death in 1998, was obviously a bit deranged; the Hebron residents who went on a rampage in 2001 following the killing of a Jewish baby were enraged, perhaps, but understandably so. Eden Natan Zada of Tapuach killed four Arabs on a bus in Shfaram in August, 2005 writing that “A Jew doesn’t expel another Jew”; Asher Weisgan of Shvut Rachel murdered another four Palestinians that same month near Shiloh: both had hoped to stop the Gaza disengagement, but they could not have been inspired by settler leaders who described the Gaza withdrawal as blasphemy that would lead to catastrophe. Perish the thought.

        read more: http://www.haaretz.com/beta/.premium-1.669463

        the idea anyone familiar with Shalev’s writing wouldn’t notice the editorial aberrations in this article — Perish the thought.

    • italian ex-pat
      August 9, 2015, 10:04 pm

      @ Inbound39

      You are probably not the only one to have taken Chemi Shalev’s article literally. Hello?! The man wrote a brilliant piece of satire, and you go dumping all over him. Apparently convinced Sibiriak too, not to mention poor Mooser is now even more confused! Am I the only one here who can recognize sarcasm?

      • echinococcus
        August 10, 2015, 12:04 am

        Expat,

        It’s a defense mechanism. People who read Zionist writers know what these are capable of, so they won’t react like common readers. If, as is the case here, said writer hangs an “Attention, Satire” panel every ten feet, the knowledgeable reader gets even more guarded. If the satire is honest, even much more cagier. This is, after all, a Zionist author.

      • italian ex-pat
        August 10, 2015, 10:06 am

        @ Echinococcus:

        Nice try, poor argument. You are basically saying that paranoia is perfectly justified whenever reading any ‘Zionist’ article. Actually, I would expect the “knowledgeable” readers who habitually read Zionist writers to be able to distinguish between propaganda and sarcasm. I, as a ‘common’ reader, and not knowing Shalev from shinola, could tell just from the second paragraph that this whole article wasn’t meant to be taken at face value, especially coming from Haaretz.
        Anyway, I look forward to Annie’s take.

      • MHughes976
        August 10, 2015, 10:33 am

        I do take Shalev literally, though he uses literal statement for sarcastic effect. He’s saying that some bigoted anti-Semitic statements are being made but that their importance is being grossly overstated and that far more horrible language is being used in the process, such as ‘Jew-baiting dog whistle’, which is indeed the most disgusting term I have seen recently used in what purports to be serious discourse. He quite rightly says that a politician should not be a) allowed to boast of an affiliation, b) allowed to protest when someone who opposes what he’s doing draws attention to his boast. Perhaps he is a liberal Zionist and if so no doubt fails along with all the rest to make the L and the Z consistent, but that doesn’t stop him from exposing the contradictions of others quite incisively.

      • Sibiriak
        August 10, 2015, 11:17 am

        italian ex-pat: You are probably not the only one to have taken Chemi Shalev’s article literally. Hello?! The man wrote a brilliant piece of satire, and you go dumping all over him. Apparently convinced Sibiriak too.
        —————————-

        There are TWO different Shalev articles being discussed here.

        1)”The Mutant-alien Jewish Terrorists Who Have Nothing to Do With the Israeli Right”

        http://www.haaretz.com/beta/.premium-1.669463

        2)”Obama Accused of Using ‘dark, Nasty Stuff’ Against Jewish Critics Like Schumer ”

        http://www.haaretz.com/beta/.premium-1.670247

        I made reference to the second only. The first is clearly satiric.

        E.g.

        Yigal Amir, who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, was also a lone wolf. The fact that right-wing politicians had whipped up a public frenzy in the weeks before his killing, accusing Rabin of selling out Israel to terrorists, or that rabbis were discussing and some even sanctioning a religious sentence of death against Rabin, doesn’t mean they were prodding Amir in any way. By claiming otherwise, the Israeli left and their lackeys in the media only prove how low they are willing to go in order to exploit a national tragedy for political gain.

        The same is true of Baruch Goldstein, the Brooklyn-born Kiryat Arba doctor who massacred 29 Muslim worshippers at Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs in 1994. True, Goldstein was revered by hundreds if not thousands and still commands sympathy and respect among hardcore settlers and Kach-supporters, but let’s not forget that he was savagely murdered for his beliefs by terrorist Palestinians at the scene.

        The author deliberately piles up facts to undermine his own pseudo-theses= satire.

        “Terrorist Palestinians at the scene” is a clear giveaway. (After killing 29 people, he was beaten to death by survivors of the massacre.)

        Compare from the second article:

        Tablet’s malevolent interpretation of statements made by the president, administration officials and the New York Times are so wantonly over the top that one cannot but suspect ulterior motives. The site, which combines liberal articles on culture and religious pluralism together with usually hard-line takes on issues related to Israel, seems to be amplifying the message made in several recently articles by its writer and senior editor Lee Smith, who is also affiliated with the arch-conservative Weekly Standard. Smith, a harsh critic of the Obama administration and a fierce opponent of the Iran deal wrote only last week of the administration’s “smear campaign” against Jewish senators who might vote for the deal.

        Where is the satire?

      • italian ex-pat
        August 10, 2015, 2:17 pm

        @ Sibiriak:

        Sorry if I misunderstood you – maybe I’m just as confused as Mooser. LOL.
        But I was actually replying to Ecinococcus, who quite clearly was referring to – shall we call it, Article #1 – when explaining his ‘defense mechanism’ theory to me, which is that it’s perfectly natural to be seeing Zionist hasbara in anything published in Israel. As wrong as saying that everything published in MW is anti-semitic.

        Anyway, even if you were referring to Article #2, reading the excerpt in Annie’s article I see Shalev lashing out at Tablet magazine (never heard of that one, either) for the ‘malevolent interpretation of statements made by the president . . .’ and on and on on the same note.
        You call him ‘not the ripest nut on the tree’ for that? Or shall we blame Just for giving the impression that Shalev is the author of the foul and filthy Tablet editorial (sorry Just, but Sibiriak’s comment was in reply to your post quoting said editorial).

        Finally: what do you say we put this matter to rest?

      • Sibiriak
        August 10, 2015, 2:32 pm

        italian ex-pat: “You call him ‘not the ripest nut on the tree’ for that?
        ——————

        For the record, that was inbound39, not me.

        ——————
        Anyway, even if you were referring to Article #2…

        Yes, I was, although admittedly it’s usually Hostage that refers to Article 2.

      • echinococcus
        August 10, 2015, 2:45 pm

        Expat,

        One has to be on guard not only with anything published in “Israel” but anything written by Zionists. The tongue being only half in cheek. The Shalev #1 has ulterior motives.

    • italian ex-pat
      August 10, 2015, 5:16 pm

      Sibiriak & inbound39:

      Sorry for the identity mix-up. Sure wish you guys used easier to memorize monikers.

  26. Shingo
    August 9, 2015, 4:26 am

    A fascinating article also from the NYT today that shows that AIPAC are feeling the heat after Obama went after them in his recent speech.

    Fears of Lasting Rift as Obama Battles Pro-Israel Group on Iran

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/world/middleeast/fears-of-lasting-rift-as-obama-battles-pro-israel-group-on-iran.html?mabReward=A4&moduleDetail=recommendations-2&action=click&contentCollection=World&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article

    The account given is pretty eye opening. Obama didn’t pull any punches and AIPAC look like they are pulling their heads in and resorting to damage control.

    Another article also shows that at least 29 leading scientists have come out strongly in favor of the deal, which is a big boost and this will debunk all those false claims about how the deal will allow Iran to build nukes under the deal.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/world/29-us-scientists-praise-iran-nuclear-deal-in-letter-to-obama.html

    The great thing about all this is that Obama is not backing down and taking the lobby on directly. This is going to damage the lobby more than Obama and they appear to realize it.

  27. unverified__5ilf90kd
    August 9, 2015, 9:36 am

    Jew baiting – tormenting the Jews.

    From all the recent vitriol I detect that “Jew Baiting” is being marketed by Israel as the new “anti-Semitism”. If we use the words “President baiting” against them, that will neutralize the use of the words “Jew Baiting” used against Obama; although it is good to see the words anti-Semitism abused less often. I also think that in recent times it really is the Jews tormenting the WH rather than vice versa.

  28. just
    August 9, 2015, 12:08 pm

    Uri Misgav:

    “American Jews at the Service of Netanyahu

    Who are U.S. Jewish leaders really representing when they lobby the American president on behalf of Israel’s prime minister? Not their fellow countrymen, for sure.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared jihad on the U.S. president and the Iran nuclear accord, bringing things to a climax this past week. There’s no point expecting him to take stock following the debacle or consider its ramifications. Netanyahu doesn’t recognize the concept of introspection or the notion of accountability. However, it is appropriate to suggest that America’s Jewish population and the organizations representing it look inward and do some serious reflection. Even if we attribute only the best of intentions to them, these intentions again lead to a well-known place.

    It’s hard to overstate Netanyahu’s insolence. In a Web speech given from his office and with the Israeli flag behind him, he called on American Jews to unite against the accord, “regardless of your political affiliation.” It’s even harder to understand how the leaders representing these Jews didn’t recognize the trap Netanyahu was leading them into – regardless of their political affiliation. The apex was the surreal meeting between 20 U.S.-Jewish leaders and President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. I can’t recall a meeting between a U.S. president and vice president with U.S.-German leaders in order to discuss American relations with Europe. Or a conversation with U.S.-Japanese businessmen prior to the signing of a trade agreement between the United States and Japan.

    It’s unclear who these Jewish leaders were actually representing in the Oval Office. Certainly not me or the half of Israelis who didn’t want Netanyahu as prime minister. In any case, they can’t represent Israeli interests. They may donate generously to projects in Israel or send their children and grandchildren for a rousing Zionist week arranged by Taglit-Birthright. But neither they nor their flock live here. And they didn’t even pretend to represent Americans of Jewish descent, since what was on the table was the implications of the nuclear deal for Israel. In other words, the assumption is that the clear-cut interest of the Jewish people everywhere is expressed only via the Israeli interest.

    But thanks to Netanyahu and his irresponsible call, boundaries were again blurred. It’s no longer clear who is representing whom. Are American Jews supposed to be functioning as Israel’s arm in the midst of the world’s greatest superpower? Or is Israel their delegate, the aircraft carrier of the Jewish people, floating in the distant and stormy seas of the Middle East? Both options are obviously bad and distorted ones. This game squarely places U.S. Jews in the twilight zone of dual loyalty. How symbolic that the awful show on Capitol Hill took place at the end of a week in which the release of Israeli spy … was announced.

    It’s time for U.S. Jews to consider the harmful message that emanates from the trap Netanyahu is pulling them into, as well as the harm done by the lobbying, arm-twisting, as well as their political and financial machinations. Let’s avoid sanctimoniousness – Obama made time for them in his busy schedule as leader of the Free World because they represent voters and donors. 

    American-Jewish leaders celebrate a Passover seder with the president at the White House every year. That should suffice. They shouldn’t drag the nuclear deal there as well.”

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.670275

    Kerpow!

  29. traintosiberia
    August 9, 2015, 12:42 pm

    AIPAC would support this deal if Iran does a Sovietesque collapse,allows an Yeltisnesque president ,and allows a Jewish oligarch emerge who can hide in Israel .
    AIPAC hasn’t been directly mentioned by Obama. So why does AIPAC get so aggravated. hysterical and antagonistic?
    By its own behavioral pattern,isn’t it admitting that it is the 890 pound gorilla in town and only gorilla in town?

    NYT mentions Reagan.
    Rift with Reagan proves the fact that AIPAC had the confidence that as the 890 pound gorilla in town ,it can take on a popular president ,force a popular president to change policy on a country that lobby doesn’t represent.
    That confidence doesn’t grow in a vacuum overnight without major forces propping it up ,undergirding,and protecting the audacity ,and without assurances that the misadventures would not be punished or labelled by American as unpatriotic,dangerous,and inimical to US interests.
    That is the take home message of that saga, It was not a defeat of lobby . It was the confident,audacious,brazen antiAmericanism that it was sure wouldn’t hurt it a bit.

  30. RobertHenryEller
    August 10, 2015, 12:41 am

    “The lawmakers obeyed the command of Prime Minister Netanyahu to visit him instead of their own constituents in early August if they want support in the future by prominent Jewish donors.” – David Bromwich, in Huffington Post

    But these U.S. lawmakers (or should we call them ” U.S. lawbreakers”) DID visit their constituents in August. These U.S. lawbreakers’ constituents ARE Netanyahu. These U.S. lawbreakers’ constituents ARE Likud. These U.S. lawbreakers’ constituents ARE AIPAC.

    The people who voted for these U.S. lawbreakers? The people who pay these U.S. lawbreakers’ salaries? The people who these U.S. lawbreakers pledged their oaths of office to? To these people, the U.S. lawbreakers say, “Screw you.” We work for our donor lobby. We work for AIPAC. Money is speech. Money is votes. Just ask the U.S. Supreme Court, you dumb suckers.

    I say, indict these U.S. lawbreakers for violating their oaths of office. I say, confiscate their U.S. passports when these U.S. lawbreakers try to return to the U.S. I say, put them right back on their planes when they try to return, and return them to their true constituents in Israel.

    It’s not just Chuck Shumer who is the new Joe Lieberman. There is a whole cohort of Congressional lawbreakers who are Joe Lieberman wannabes. A whole cohort of Congressional lawbreakers who deserve Jonathan Pollard Prizes for loyalty – to Netanyahu, to Likud, to Israel.

    The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate will vote close to 2 to 1 in September on the P5+1/Iran nuclear agreement in the interests of Israel, not in the interests of the citizens of the United States. Fortunately at least President Obama is acting as the President of Americans.

    Who in the U.S. Congress represents American citizens?

  31. italian ex-pat
    August 10, 2015, 5:19 pm

    Annie:

    Thanks for setting things straight re: C. Shalev. I’ll be looking for more of his articles.

  32. Pixel
    August 10, 2015, 8:37 pm

    “cool his jets”

    .
    Now, there’s a phrase that takes me back to my youth!

Leave a Reply