Why the split inside the Democratic Party over BDS needs to happen

US Politics
on 116 Comments

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act was rolled out in Congress this summer by leading advocates for Israel, backed by the Israel lobby group AIPAC; but it is having trouble gaining Democratic support. “Democrats remain non-committal about anti-BDS bill,” Aaron Magid reports at Jewish Insider. Senators Dan Murphy (CT) and Tammy Duckworth (IL) and Rep. Joe Kennedy (MA) are all dithering about the legislation.

Their misgivings follow NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s celebrated withdrawal of her support for the bill, which the ACLU says threatens free speech with criminal penalties.

The reason for the politicians’ vacillation is obvious. The progressive Democratic base cares about Palestinian human rights, and progressives are generally not opposed to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions as a means of persuading Israel to abide by international law; polling shows a majority of Democrats support economic sanctions to counter Israel’s settlement construction. Other polls show that young Democrats, blacks and Hispanics have more sympathy for Palestine than Israel.

Palestinian solidarity has surely been fostered inside the party base by resistance to Trump’s anti-immigrant/refugee policies, by the arrival of Black Lives Matter (which calls out “apartheid” in Palestine), and by the Women’s March, led by BDS supporter Linda Sarsour.

The marvel is that the BDS groundswell is occurring without any coverage by the mainstream press. The media is refusing to do the fundamental job of telling people what Palestinians are asking for– equal rights– Michael Brown writes at EI. It is no wonder that CNN and MSNBC have avoided hosting honest discussions of BDS: a Time Warner executive has written speeches for Netanyahu and a Comcast exec has raised money for the Israeli Defense Forces (as I regularly point out). 

Still BDS remains a dividing line inside the Democratic Party. The progressive candidate in the race for the Democratic nomination to be Illinois governor, Daniel Biss, dumped his running mate because he supports BDS two weeks ago. The former running mate didn’t cave. The Democratic Party platform committee came out against BDS in 2016 even though some Bernie Sanders surrogates supported BDS. And leaked emails showed that the Hillary Clinton braintrust spent way much too much time organizing opposition against BDS during her campaign, even while they were ignoring Wisconsin. Clinton was trying to please Haim Saban and other donors; and donor relations surely explain Biss’s swandive too.

Journalists avoid this story because the Democratic establishment fears the potential of this issue to divide the party– to split Clintonites from Sandersites and undermine the party’s ability to take on Trump. This is why Josh Marshall of TPM has slagged BDS supporters as anti-Semites. “Truly the last thing the Democratic Party needs right now is a toxic internecine fight over Israel,” he has written.

That fear on the part of party leaders is not a new one. The battle over Palestinian human rights has been put off again and again inside the Democratic Party since the 1960s, and always with the claim on the establishment’s part that the solidarity activists are radicals and troublemakers, who need to get out of the road in a hurry (think about Andrew Young, Jimmy Carter, Cynthia McKinney, Cornel West, etc).

Yet in those 50 years, we have seen countless other once-marginal progressive questions enter the mainstream and gain establishment approval, from women’s rights to same-sex marriage to the embrace of transgender rights. It is lost on none of us that the BDS call went out 12 years ago at a time when the transgender issue was not central to Democratic Party politics; yet BDS remains off-limits, even as party leaders endorse the boycott of North Carolina over transgender peoples’ access to bathrooms of their choice. The hypocrisy is glaring.

I believe that this division cannot be papered over any longer, and that Palestinian human rights will at last be taken up by major political figures.

Why the optimism? Too much has changed in the political landscape. The rightwing convergence of Netanyahu and Trump has had the effect of politicizing Israel support at last in the U.S. mainstream– Republicans back Likud, Democrats back liberal Zionists. The growing demands by people of color to be represented in the U.S. establishment signal that voices like Linda Sarsour and Keith Ellison will become less and less marginal. The Democratic Party is being challenged to take a stand against Islamophobia.  And meanwhile, it is clear that many national security leaders, including lately Gen. H.R. McMaster, have read the book The Israel Lobby, and don’t like the message.

As always I focus on the Jewish community because I think it has the most influence over the politics of Israel and Palestine; and there too change is upon us. Last June’s celebrations of 50 years of permanent occupation demonstrated to American liberals something that was obvious to Palestinians years ago: Israel has no intention of allowing the creation of a Palestinian state. Liberal Zionists are in crisis over their failure to save “the good Israel”, and are looking for a way forward. Many of them will end up supporting BDS.

This week the Jerusalem Post listed Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace as one of the 50 most influential Jews in the world. Vilkomerson supports BDS; and there were no liberal Zionist leaders on that list. Though AIPAC was there, and the ADL too. Meantime, young Jews in IfNotNow are taking on the Jewish establishment, asking why “you never told me” about the occupation. Yes, these are still embryonic trends. But even some big Jewish donors are balking at funding Israel. The Jewish monolith on Israel is cracking, and that will give everyone else permission to dissent, including politicians.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

116 Responses

  1. festus
    September 22, 2017, 12:49 pm

    I for one will not forget the JVPs smearing and blackballing of Alison Weir and Helen Thomas. I had joined and donated as I thought they were for real but their masked slipped with those actions.

    • Steve Macklevore
      September 23, 2017, 11:13 am

      You’re right – but then nobody appointed “Whites Against Apartheid” as the judge and police force of the Palestinian rights movement.

      I listened to their views on Alison Weir and Helen Thomas and then shook my head and ignored them. :-)

      • gamal
        September 23, 2017, 1:12 pm

        “but then nobody appointed “Whites Against Apartheid” as the judge and police force of the Palestinian rights movement”

        i think this a crucial point and that JVP is very poor name for a group in support of Palestinian struggle, white South Africans who joined the anti-Apartheid struggle joined the ANC and look how that currently stands, the Pan-African Congress schismatics observed that:

        “The Pan Africanist Congress was formed by a group of renegade ANC members in Orlando, Soweto, on 5 and 6 April 1959. The breakaway group was led by members of the so-called Africanist movement. Along with the ANC, the Pan Africanist Congress is the only “official” South African liberation movement recognized by the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity.

        The Africanists experienced many difficulties with the views of the ANC. They themselves were primarily members of the Youth League of the ANC, formed in 1944 under the leadership of Anton Lembede. According to them, membership of the Youth League was open to all who “lived like and with blacks”. They felt the ANC had made too many concessions in respect of oppression, and was incapable of promoting black liberation. The Africanists took the view that the Congress Alliance, because of its large number of white members, had diluted the traditional black nationalist position of the ANC. They felt blacks should be in control of their own liberation struggle, and should not be prompted by white liberals, including communists. According to the Africanists, the whites have too much to lose to be regarded as reliable allies.

        They also rejected the Freedom Charter, mainly because of the guarantees it contained for minority rights. These guarantees, they felt, would entrench minority domination. The Africanists believed that the land which the white settlers had “stolen” from the indigenous people should be returned to the latter. They also rejected the ANC view that disciplined leadership was necessary for the struggle. Instead, they believed that if the notion of liberation was correctly propagated by the leadership, resistance would be spontaneously created among the masses. For the Africanists the armed struggle is the primary struggle and they support the principle that political power will never be relinquished and must therefore be seized by force”

        https://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv02424/04lv02730/05lv03188/06lv03214.htm

        This conflict is still raging in S.A. Vicious injustice is inadvisable as it is nearly impossible to set right and in one way or another generates confusion and suffering over whole eras, and when the pressure increases allies end up as enemies, as the tantra says “with death there is freedom in the empty nature of phenomena”, freedom is inevitable anyway.

        wouldn’t JVP be better named as Jewish Voice for Palestine, and remember if you don’t entertain any hopes you will not be subject to any fears, but “hopelessness and stagnation” is a poor political slogan i guess. Are there any white run Black liberation movements? Its a funny old world.

      • genesto
        September 23, 2017, 3:57 pm

        Ditto. But I choose to support what JVP does right despite these misguided attacks on some of our most courageous and effective activists. I encourage the JVP leadership to do the same by appreciating, and supporting, the great work being done by Alison Weir and her organization, ‘If Americans Knew’.

  2. Citizen
    September 22, 2017, 1:11 pm

    Sure is slow progress for any Palestinian. PEP needs to be shown constantly for what it is: pure hypocrisy.

  3. JeffB
    September 22, 2017, 1:22 pm

    @Phil

    You are an optimist. Liberal Jews are angry at Israel. They do dislike the Netanyahu government. With breaking the Kotel agreement Netanyahu has pretty much at this point gone out of his way to offend American Jews. But anger at a country over a few policies and wanting to see it destroyed are not the same thing.

    BDS hates Israel. BDS hates Israelis. BDS hates Zionism. American Jews are unhappy with some Israeli policies. American Jews are distressed at some the choices Israelis have made. American Jews love their Israeli cousins both in the biological sense, the sense of friendship and the more tribal sense. American Jews fully and aggressively support Zionism. There is less distance between Liberal American Jewish positions and Netanyahu’s than their is between their positions and Rebecca Vilkomerson’s. They want some relatively minor policy reforms not total destruction of the government and society. They might approve of some pressure like sanctions but they would want the scope to far more limited than the BDS demands.

    BDS discredits it doesn’t lead on the issue of Israeli policy. BDS is simply too harsh.

    American Jews don’t like Iran, they were strongly opposed to the Iranian war.
    American Jews don’t like North Korea, they are strongly opposed to Trump’s escalation on North Korea
    American Jews don’t like Hugo Chavez they would have opposed a war against Venezuela.

    And those are all about countries where there aren’t the deeply conflicting feelings.

    Now I do agree that IfNotNow, JStreet… have the potential to play the role of leading American Jewry to pressuring Israel and allowing for greater dissent within the Democratic party. But they will never agree to adopting the Palestinian perspective. If the Democratic party were to adopt the Palestinian perspective (which I think is unlikely but possible over the next 2 generations) Jews will be just be Republicans. In the end Jews are a wealthy group of white voters. Social Justice is a hobby, Zionism is about core identity. I think most Democrats may hate Israel and still if they understand the choice is that clear will pick American Jews over Palestinian rights.

    I think over the next few years you will get t an open BDS supporter running for state senate or congress somewhere and everyone will get to watch nonstop fire from the Jewish community directed against a Democrat and insane fundraising success for their opponent that ain’t coming from the oil lobby. And the Clintonites will say to the minority liberals, “told ya”. The most important number in American politics is the unfavorability rating, no politician wants high unfavorables among otherwise supporters if they can at all avoid it. That’s the mechanism by which popular will turns into representation.

    Your other examples are good ones. Support for Black Civil completely changed the demographics of both parties from 1965-1995. Gun rights debates have been devastating to Democrats. Gay rights was damaging to Democratic candidates for years, and now is having the opposite effect on Republicans in drawing young conservatives into the fold. All those issues did shift voters in rather dramatic ways.

    • John O
      September 22, 2017, 3:08 pm

      @JeffB

      “BDS is simply too harsh”

      In light of this, how would you describe Israel’s regular assaults on Gaza?

      • JeffB
        September 22, 2017, 4:30 pm

        @John O

        In light of this, how would you describe Israel’s regular assaults on Gaza?

        First off as irrelevant. The discussion is about the dynamics within America (and specifically within the Democratic party) between various Americans. There are all sorts of foreign wars where factions have domestic support within America. To pick a recent crisis that involves refugees Columbia. Generally the standards for rhetoric between factions are not measured against the standards between the combatants.

        To pick another similar divisive conflict Reagan supported the Contras, Congress supported the Sandinistas. Both sides were directly intervening. However, neither felt that their conduct towards one another should include torture, disappearance, blindings, assassinating each other’s religious figures… It got heated but not that heated. There was a nasty debate that crossed over into criminal misuse of government resources. But the incredibly strong disagreement never came close to crossing over into violence in the American homeland. I should mention, since South Africa comes up all the time in BDS literature that the debate between Constructive Engagement and Boycott / Divestment / Sanctions supporters in the USA remained relatively civil. There were few harsh words spoken much less necklacing here.

        Now to answer the question I’d say punitive strikes to punish the Hamas government and the population more broadly for refusing to act like a good neighbor. The Israeli people were repeatedly promised that this conflict was about land and if they relinquished land they would have peace. After 100% withdraw from Gaza they want Gaza to be cooperative and constructive. They were lied to. Gaza is not peaceful.

        So now when Gaza gets violent they hit back hard enough to teach the Gazans at the minimal loss of life that Israel is not going to tolerate a hot border and will use whatever level of violence is required to keep that border calm. There is not going to the kind of low intensity high cost protracted struggle that Iran favors for ending Zionism. (i.e. the kind of battle you all had with the IRA). Specifically in 2014 they kept the body count relatively low (since the world seems to count dead) while doing a truly amazing amount of infrastructure damage. Clearly trying to show the Gazans that Israel has options that kill relatively few people directly while being able to drive to still them out if they don’t stop misbehaving (essentially threatening what you all did to Ireland in the 19th century).

        And before all the humanitarian stuff starts the rational solution to end the violence is for the Gazans is to ask Netanyahu for terms of surrender what a responsible country does in an unwinnable war.

      • Talkback
        September 23, 2017, 5:52 am

        JeffB: “Now to answer the question I’d say punitive strikes to punish the Hamas government and the population more broadly for refusing to act like a good neighbor.”

        Exactly. Collective punishment. Are serious war crime since the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis. Do you support the same treatment against Israel for refusing to act like “a good neighbor”?

        JeffB: “The Israeli people were repeatedly promised that this conflict was about land and if they relinquished land they would have peace. After 100% withdraw from Gaza they want Gaza to be cooperative and constructive. They were lied to. Gaza is not peaceful.”

        Yes, well, the “Israeli people” believe the most stupid lies from its goverment. First of all the principle of “land for peace” simply means that Israel ends occupying land that it doesn’t own. Its basic principle is conquering land and then extorting a solution it accepts. Secondly even this dishonest policy always applied to the whole occupied territory, not only to parts of it while the rest remains occupied. But Israel’s unilateral “disengagement” from a peace of occupied Palestine was planned to avoid peace arrangements according to Dov Weinglass.

        And Israel didn’t “relinquish land”, it only modified its occupation, put its soldiers at the edge of this territory and emptied it from Jewish civilians to be able to punish the Gazans collectively with mass murdering them and putting them under siege. After the election of Hamas it restrained rocket fire until Israel slaughtered a family on the beach. Alone in 2006 Israel shot more than 14.000 artillery shells into Gaza which killed more civilians than Palestinian rockets have killed Israelis (including soldiers) since then. In 2008 when a ceasefire was brokered Israel killed 6 Hamas fighters to end it. This is by design. This is not without intention. Whenever there’s a mull Israel starts killing people to provoke reacotions so it can point to Gaza as an excuse to keep occupying the Westbank, too.

        JeffB: “So now when Gaza gets violent they hit back hard enough to teach the Gazans at the minimal loss of life that Israel is not going to tolerate a hot border and will use whatever level of violence is required to keep that border calm.”

        First of all it’s not Gaza getting violent. The ongoing occupation/siege of Gaza and the Westbank are an ongoing violation and based on state terrorism. I won’t list all of Israel’s incursions into Gaza or its crimes commited in the Westbank by Israel’s soldiers or settler scum. But to paint Israel as a defender who tries to keeps its borders calm allthough it breaches them on a daily base and even illegaly settles beyond them is as despicable as your support of “teaching” the Gazans. Again, this is considered a war crime since the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis. Is there any Nazi policy you actually DON’T support?

        JeffB: “And before all the humanitarian stuff starts the rational solution to end the violence is for the Gazans is to ask Netanyahu for terms of surrender what a responsible country does in an unwinnable war.”

        Surrender to what condiition? The prolonging of Israel’s siege and occupation and its violation of humanitarian law? If you think that a conflict an only be won militarily than you clearly missed what happened to Apartheid South Africa.

      • JeffB
        September 24, 2017, 8:41 am

        @Talkback

        No. A withdraw from Gaza if this was about land should have pulled the Gazans out of the fight. The West Bankers could have continued fighting but the Gazans lost that right when Israel made huge unilateral concessions. Even if those concession on Gaza were based on not wanting to make other concessions in the West Bank.

        As for keeping troops on the border, the context here was during a suicide bombing campaign. A Gazan government interested in peace would have been enforcing the border themselves on their own side in cooperation with the Israelis as part of showing good faith. Similarly the Gazans should be resolving the killings issue by joint law enforcement the way America and Canada deal with cross border crime, or at least be no worse than America and Mexico during tense periods. So I don’t agree with your analysis of the killing but don’t feel with revisiting this issue in depth. Its been debated here, most of the killing made sense. They were things that Hamas should have been doing themselves if they had been interested in showing good faith after a huge concession. But that starts with the premise of holding Hamas to the standards of a government and that’s where we are going to disagree. You are unwilling to hold the Palestinians to any standards and blame the Israelis exclusively for everything.

        More generally: any peace agreement anywhere has stuff that’s imperfect. If the Palestinians reserve the right to attack Israel constantly because there exists something they don’t like about the peace then they aren’t willing to live in peace under any circumstances which will emerge in the real world. The Gazans have proven at least prior to 2014 they were not willing to live in peace. The effects of 2014 may have changed. That’s called war not collective punishment.

        Finally the request for an end of the conflict would be something like this, “We apologize for our actions since 2005. What changes in Hamas policy can we enact so as to facilitate a good relationship and rebuild your trust in us to allow you to end the blockade?”

      • Talkback
        September 24, 2017, 6:26 pm

        JeffB: “No. A withdraw from Gaza if this was about land should have pulled the Gazans out of the fight.”

        This is not only about land. This is about ending a brutal occupation/siege and the daily state terrorism of Israel against the Palestinians.

        JeffB: “The West Bankers could have continued fighting but the Gazans lost that right when Israel made huge unilateral concessions. Even if those concession on Gaza were based on not wanting to make other concessions in the West Bank.”

        ROFL, Gaza is an integral part of Palestine which is under Israeli occupation. People have a right to resist against occupation. And what “huge unilateral concessions” are you talking about? What did or does Israel legally own to even make “concessions”?

        JeffB: “A Gazan government … ”

        There is not “Gazan goverment”. The goverment of Palestine is the goverment of Palestine. No matter how much you would like to tear up the country.

        JeffB: “… interested in peace would have been enforcing the border themselves on their own side in cooperation with the Israelis as part of showing good faith.”

        ROFL. With Israel that violates Gazas air space and coastal waters on a daily basis, illegal settles in the Westbank, builds a wall beyond its borders and illegally annexed Jerusalem? So much for crossing borders and being interested in peace.

        JeffB: “Similarly the Gazans should be resolving the killings issue …”

        The Hamas has offered Israel multiple times to stop killing civilians. Israel rejected this which is quite understandable. How can someone maintain a belligerent occupation that violates humanitarian law without resorting to violence. What has Israel down to resolve the “killing issue”? It established the Dahiya doctrince that is blatantly state terrorism based on mass murdering and want on destruction.

        JeffB: “So I don’t agree with your analysis of the killing but don’t feel with revisiting this issue in depth”

        ROFL. Of course not. You don’t agree with, because you don’t like the truth.

        JeffB: “But that starts with the premise of holding Hamas to the standards of a government and that’s where we are going to disagree.”

        Hamas is not a goverment. But let’s allow Hamas to act like Israel in EVERY way. For example like Isarel acted in its last wars against the defenseless people of Gaza. Agreed?

        JeffB: “You are unwilling to hold the Palestinians to any standards and blame the Israelis exclusively for everything. ”

        You mistake me for yourself, JeffB. I condemn every violation of international and especially humanitarian law and human rights law that everyone commits. No only collective punishment and illegaly settling in occupied territories which you support. Or war crimes of Israel you have to deny or dispute.

        JeffB: “If the Palestinians reserve the right to attack Israel …”

        You are confused, JeffB. The Palestinians are under occupation of the aggressor called Israel. They have the right to defend themselves and resist this occupation. Calling this an attack is just one of your countless perversions of international law.

        JeffB: “The Gazans have proven at least prior to 2014 they were not willing to live in peace.”

        ROFL. Sure, the Gazans whose majority are made up of Palestinians and their descendants Israel keeps ethnically cleansed and are suffering under half of century under Jewish occupation/siege are not willing to live in piece. That’s at least three years less than Israeli Jews are not willing.

        JeffB: “That’s called war not collective punishment.”

        JeffB and his distractions. First of all you called for “punitive strikes”. That’s a Nazi war crime. And if you target a whole civilinn population to “teach them a lesson” that’s another Nazi war crime called “collective punishment. You just can’t hide your true mentality, JeffB.

        JeffB: “Finally the request for an end of the conflict would be something like this, “We apologize for our actions since 2005. What changes in Hamas policy can we enact so as to facilitate a good relationship and rebuild your trust in us to allow you to end the blockade?”

        Sure, right out of the Hasbara propaganda handbook. How about Jews apologing for Zionism since 1919 and all the crimes against humanity they commited since then? Starting with illegal immigration and settling of Palestine while driving Palestinians of the land they cultivated? Or preventing the independence of Palestine and majority ruling while establishing a state through war and expulsion while putting Nonjews under martial law? Or conquering the rest of Palestine through more war and more expulsion and putting the occupied under martial law? Or illegally settling in occupied territories and illegaly stealing its resources? Or torturing children and keeping them under prolonged adminstrative detention without charge or trial? Or collective punishment while counting calories? Or house and well demolitions? Or killing multiple ten times more civilians than Palestinians do?

        The list of Zionist crimes is endless. But keep counting Palestinian rockets. What Palestinians do to Isarelis is nothing compared to Israels crimes. And you know it.

      • JeffB
        September 25, 2017, 8:49 am

        @Talkback

        This is not only about land. This is about ending a brutal occupation/siege and the daily state terrorism of Israel against the Palestinians.

        Then when Palestinians repeatedly said this was a land dispute and not an ethnic or religious dispute they lied. You can’t have it both ways. They spent 2 decades saying this was about land, land, land. Nothing else. They claimed they fully embraced a land for peace formula. They argued repeatedly against the Israeli right that claimed there were deeper issues and the problem wouldn’t be resolved by giving up the land.

        So yes the Israelis were lied to. Everything else in your post is you trying to change the topic about how this shouldn’t have been about land. Which wouldn’t have been a lie had they said at the time. But the Palestinians didn’t do that.

        Finally though this.

        Hamas is not a goverment. But let’s allow Hamas to act like Israel in EVERY way. For example like Isarel acted in its last wars against the defenseless people of Gaza. Agreed?

        Yes absolutely. Hamas as the government of the state of Gaza is fully entitled to war on Israel the same way Israel is entitled to war on Gaza. If we put aside the whole inadmissibility of force issue, if Hamas conquers Israeli territory they are entitled to keep it same as the reverse. Hamas is fully entitled to try and diminish the Israelis people’s will to resist their might and thus change the diplomatic options that exist. And if they were to conquer Israel they would be entitled to setup a new government friendlier to Hamas.

        What they lack is the practical means to do anything of the kind. They are a weak state bordering two regional powers. They don’t have war as a practical option, though that hasn’t stopped them.

        I’ve never considered what Hamas in Gaza is doing to be terrorism, it is war. A poorly thought out, totally hopeless, pointless waste of life and resources, war. But war not terrorism. One can reasonably argue that a war so hopeless cannot qualify as a just war, but that’s about as far as I would go.

    • Bandolero
      September 22, 2017, 4:01 pm

      Jeff

      I think that American jewish voters may switch partly to the Republican party if the Democratic party would go with human rights and the Palestinian point of view. However, I think that would be a minor issue. What would be more important is where American jewish donors would go.

      Jews are a wealthy group of white voters, and more important, donors, but I doubt this wealthy group of white donors will be all welcome in the Republican party if they don’t abandon meddling in US foreign policy for the Near East, especially pushing the US to engage in wars in that region.

      There may come more articles like Philip Giraldi’s recent “America’s Jews driving America’s wars” and I think such arguments find fertile ground in Trump’s base. This time it was just Valerie Plame who retweeted this argument, and she apologized later for that. But next time this argument may be forwarded by someone from team Trump, or Trump himself, and without a following apology.

      I think Pat Buchanan and his way of thinking is quite popular with Trump’s base. And it’s no long way to remember this statement from Pat Buchanan:

      “Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.”

      So, even if more rich jewish donors will switch from Democrat to Republican, they may meet a lot of opposition inside the Republican base, even more than in the Democratic base.

      The only way rich jewish American donors can come out of that hole, may be to stop lobbying for the support of Israel. And that’s what democratic BDS and Republican Buchananist’s are all about: putting pressure on Israel to strike a peace deal, and stop Israel using the US military as a proxy force for Israel’s wars.

      • JeffB
        September 22, 2017, 5:03 pm

        @Bandolero

        I’m going to end up disagreeing with a lot of your premises which is probably frustrating. I don’t think Jewish American donors are particularly militaristic nor do I think they were interfering. The most military aggressive group of people towards the middle east are female evangelicals. Jews, including Jewish donors, are some of the least.

        At the time the Iraq war started 73% of the American population supported having a war with Iraq. The numbers among Jews, including Jewish donors were well below that average. American Jews contrary to those articles broke with Israel on the issue of Iran and supported Obama.

        Take me for example. I’m certainly not a soft zionist and you can look at my posts here from the time to confirm what I’m saying. I supported Obama and disagreed with Netanyahu on the nuclear deal and the need for a war (or just short of a war). I thought Obama was acting like an ass in how rudely he was treating Netanyahu. I think Congress has the right and the duty to call whatever witnesses it wants to testify before it on matters of policy, especially war including foreigners. Obama threatening a witness for appearing bordered on criminal interference with Congress. So I disagreed strongly with the Mondoweiss take and debated that. But on the actually underlying policy I agree that the nuclear deal was rather excellent and a foreign policy success for Obama. Quite happy about it. Quite unhappy that Trump is undermining it. And that’s coming from a Jew to the right of most Jews and most Jewish donors on foreign policy.

        The fact is if Jews had anywhere near the power that paper claims they had the USA would have recognized Israel’s claim to all of mandate Palestine. UNRWA would be defunded and the Palestinians resettled. The countries in the region would all be at peace with Israel. The Palestinians living in Israel would be seen as minority group represented in foreign affairs by the government of Israel.

        Let me go further not only does USA intervention policy not reflect Jewish American opinion it doesn’t reflect Israeli opinion. Israel does not benefit from a strong USA presence. The best thing that’s happened to Israel was the effect of the American withdraw that blew up the Ba’ath in Syria. Had the USA not stepped in Iran’s side Israel would have had a much freer hand to work with the anti-Ba’athist groups they really support and kicked Iran out of Syria, or at least made sure the Iranian intervention was as long and expensive as possible. They are extremely unhappy the USA and Russia sided with Iran and Iran won that war easily and cheaply. Similarly if it wasn’t for USA involvement I think the Israelis would have troops in Iraqi and Syrian Kurdish territory by now. The Israelis would like nothing better than for the USA to go away and let the middle eastern powers: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt and Turkey fight out their proxy wars and build political structures among their neighbors they can sustain long term. All the powers in the region agree they essentially all want their own proxy wars in the region like the USA and Soviets Union had 1-2 generations ago in Latin America and Africa. None of them want us there, Israel included.

        Israel like any other foreign country is going to try and work the USA to its advantage as much as possible. American Jews are going to bend USA policy that exists to Israel’s advantage and keep Israel within the USA orbit (they have to work both sides). But its the Christians not the Jews who are your problem with having an isolationist foreign policy. Jews want something not much different than what Pat Buchanan wants. The analysis in that paper is just plain silly. There is no dark Jewish conspiracy. We don’t have that much juice.

      • Bandolero
        September 22, 2017, 5:47 pm

        Jeff

        I understand your premises. However, I think they are demonstrably false, and more important, more and more people, Democrat and Republican, don’t accept them anymore as true.

        “The most military aggressive group of people towards the middle east are female evangelicals. Jews, including Jewish donors, are some of the least. ”

        You sound like joking. Just as if the people don’t remember the “Project for the New American Century” and their goals, participants and donors.

        “We don’t have that much juice.”

        Challenge for you: name the top non-jewish donor to the Clinton campaign. Hint: here is the top donor list:

        https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contributors?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f

      • RoHa
        September 22, 2017, 8:32 pm

        “if the Democratic party would go with human rights and the Palestinian point of view. ”

        … if the Democratic party went with human rights and the Palestinian point of view.

      • JeffB
        September 22, 2017, 10:55 pm

        @RoHa

        You sure on that. Would go is conditional present, went is past tense. They obviously didn’t do such a thing in the past. Not great at this stuff but I think I got the verb tense right. If not I’m unclear where I’m off.

      • JeffB
        September 22, 2017, 11:35 pm

        @Bandolero

        OK 2 points to you on that list. Wow! Certainly makes me feel better about holding the line on BDS. Guess I wasn’t that unusual in being enthusiastic about Hillary it sometimes felt that like she was the Democrat’s Mitt Romney candidate to most.

        You sound like joking. Just as if the people don’t remember the “Project for the New American Century” and their goals, participants and donors.

        I’m not saying Jews don’t have an Israeli centric foreign policy, it’s their homeland. Of course Jewish hawks are going to focus on that area. Every ethnicity has hawks. Italian Americans or Irish Americans or Chinese Americans focus on their backhome issues and their hawks sound like those countries hawks. You should expect Jews to have hawks and Jewish hawks to be a lot like Israeli hawks. There is nothing unusual there.

        What I am saying is that the reason we had a war with Iraq is the broad public support for that stance. Your theory has to explain why 73% of Americans supported the Iraq war prior to the invasion. Jews don’t own a magic convince Christians to think stuff wand.

        https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d918a6cfdd18ea83e898f1265d17ddcc

        Why Jewish hawks wanted to go to war with Iraq is obvious. What you have explain for your theory to make sense is why so many Christians wanted to go to war with Iraq.

        You also have to explain why if there is this level of Jewish control that we can move the USA army, USA policy isn’t simply one sided pro-Israel. For example why wouldn’t the USA government recognize the annexations? Why wouldn’t the USA be involved in joint nuclear weapons development? Or to take Iraq why would the USA have stabilized it rather than followed the Biden plan which is far more in keeping with project for a new american century?

        Let’s take an example where Jews aren’t involved. We are yet thinking of getting into a war with North Korea, which I have no idea why we aren’t letting China, Japan and South Korea handle. 61% of Americans want more belligerency towards North Korea. Why do they want this?

        Then on top of all that. There is also the issue that Jews were disproportionately dovish. Support among Jews was under 50%. Iraq was unusual in that Jews were vastly less dovish than normal but they are doves. Why would one of the most dovish groups of voters be the cause of lots of wars?

        As an aside. I think the ambivalence in the peace camp a good deal of which came from Saddam Hussein funding suicide bombings did have an influence on Democrats. But what you are talking about is what happened among Republicans.

        Finally Republican voters are way more hawkish than Democrats. The data shows this across the board. If Republicans want less wars then why are they the ones pushing for them?

      • Bandolero
        September 23, 2017, 2:05 pm

        Jeff

        I’m not saying Jews don’t have an Israeli centric foreign policy, it’s their homeland.

        Wow. And I thought the homeland of US jews was the USA.

        Of course Jewish hawks are going to focus on that area. Every ethnicity has hawks.

        Enthnicity? And I thought judaism was a religion. You sound a lot like Richard Spencer.

        Your theory has to explain why 73% of Americans supported the Iraq war prior to the invasion. Jews don’t own a magic convince Christians to think stuff wand.

        Since “hawkish jews” focused on Israel and the mideast also dominate the MSM there is no magic wand needed. It’s easy to whip up support for war for “hawkish jews” when they dominate the donor class, the MSM and via AIPAC the US congress.

        You also have to explain why if there is this level of Jewish control that we can move the USA army

        Well, that one the hawkish US jews focused on Israel and the mideast lost. While they succeeded in moving the US army into disastrous wars on Iraq, Libya and Syria, they failed to make the US army win these wars, and they also failed with their projects to start even more horrific wars, on Iran and Ukraine, just to name a few.

        I think in the end the effect of these wars will be quite the opposite of what Israel and the “hawkish US jews focused on Israel and the mideast” – as you call this group of super influential US warmongers – wanted. Instead of expanding Israel’s power with the aim of creating Greater Israel instead of having to strike a peace deal with the Palestinians, this group of super influential Israeli and US jews is just turning large parts of the world population – including in the US military – against Israel.

        But while we totally disagree as how to see Israel and powerful jewish-American warmongers, I want to say that in one point I agree with you: pulling the US military back from the middle east would be a good thing to do for Trump. I just support the for different reasons than you do. I think without having the US army permanently fighting proxy wars for Israels expansionist wishes in the region, Israel can’t sustain the aggressive and expansionist policies. Maybe we will see such a move soon. US president Trump recently said, he has nothing to do with Syria except killing ISIS terrroists there. Iranian major general Qassem Soleimani just said he expects ISIS to be completely defeated in Iraq and Syria in about two to three months. So the stage could be set for the US military to completely pull back from Syria and Iraq. I expect the usual “hawkish US jews” to go mad about this possibility.

      • JeffB
        September 24, 2017, 1:26 am

        @Bandolero

        JeffB: I’m not saying Jews don’t have an Israeli centric foreign policy, it’s their homeland.
        Wow. And I thought the homeland of US jews was the USA.

        A homeland is a person’s native land not their country of citizenship where they are from.

        The homeland for Irish Americans is Ireland.
        The country of citizenship for Irish Americans is USA.
        The homeland for Jewish Americans is Israel.
        The country of citizenship for Jewish Americans is USA.

        Of course Jewish hawks are going to focus on that area. Every ethnicity has hawks.
        Enthnicity? And I thought judaism was a religion. You sound a lot like Richard Spencer.

        Judaism is a religion. Jew is an old French variant and shorting of Iudaeus (people of the Roman times state of Judaea). Jews are Judaeans. The religion centered on the tribal god of Judaea is Judeanism ~ Judaism. If you have an interlinear bible look at the Greek words that are being translated as “Jews”.

        I’m not sure where Richard Spencer comes in. American music is the music Americans create and listen to. Its not a specific genre. That’s probably the best way to think of an analogy. What I’m saying is not terribly unusual Greeks have the Greek Orthodox church, Russians the Russian Orthodox Church, Serbs the Serbian Orthodox church… Most non-Protestants wouldn’t share some of what you are thinking when you say religion.

        JeffB: Your theory has to explain why 73% of Americans supported the Iraq war prior to the invasion. Jews don’t own a magic convince Christians to think stuff wand.

        Since “hawkish jews” focused on Israel and the mideast also dominate the MSM there is no magic wand needed. It’s easy to whip up support for war for “hawkish jews” when they dominate the donor class, the MSM and via AIPAC the US congress.

        Stay with the public. AIPAC is a lobby they don’t attempt to influence broad popular opinion. The broad public doesn’t take donations. So those two means are out. What’s left is the question, how does the MSM get 73% of the public to want to go to war with Iraq? Certainly hawkish Jews don’t dominate ESPN and the Food network. When we are talking 73% we aren’t just talking news junkies.

        JeffB: You also have to explain why if there is this level of Jewish control that we can move the USA army [USA policy is not

        Well, that one the hawkish US jews focused on Israel and the mideast lost. While they succeeded in moving the US army into disastrous wars on Iraq, Libya and Syria, they failed to make the US army win these wars, and they also failed with their projects to start even more horrific wars, on Iran and Ukraine, just to name a few.

        Syria the USA’s position was the opposite of Jewish interests. We weren’t the ones who wanted the USA to jump in on Iran’s side. The Jewish hawks wanted the opposite policy an anti-Assad / anti-Iran position.

        As for Ukraine, Jews like the current Ukraine government. Why would we want a war against Ukraine?

        Libya how was that Jews? That was the French.

        Your theory isn’t make sense even with respect to objectives. Those are all counter examples of the theory of Jewish control they aren’t examples. (with the provision that I don’t know anyone who wants a war with Ukraine, but if they did Jews would be opposed across the board).

        I think in the end the effect of these wars will be quite the opposite of what Israel and the “hawkish US jews focused on Israel and the mideast” – as you call this group of super influential US warmongers – wanted. Instead of expanding Israel’s power with the aim of creating Greater Israel

        If Jews exercised anywhere near the level of control you are claiming they do, why would greater Israel even be a problem? Israel can easily finish off the Palestinians if they wanted to. They don’t need American help for Greater Israel. They would just need the USA to stop interfering. If the Jews are able to radically change USA opinion and direct the USA military then why not change USA opinion to favor Greater Israel and be done with it? Heck they could let the Palestinians emigrate to the USA, problem solved. Again this conspiracy doesn’t make any sense if that’s the goal.

      • RoHa
        September 24, 2017, 1:41 am

        I am certain that “would go” is incorrect.

        Standard British, American, and Australian English all have the same four basic conditional constructions.

        1. Timeless/present, true condition.

        If [present tense] then [present tense]

        If it rains, the streets get wet.
        If you hear that ghostly music three times, you die.
        If I fits, I sits.

        2. Future, true condition.

        If [present tense] then [future tense]

        If you knock on the door, she will open it.
        If you build it, they will come.

        3. Present/future, untrue or improbable condition.

        If [past tense*] then [would + base form]

        If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
        If you ate sea-slug sushi, you would like it.
        If we had world enough and time, this coyness, Lady, would be no crime.
        If I were a carpenter, would you marry me?

        (*But “was” is replaced by “were”. Older and more literary forms of English replace the past tense with the “were to + base form” construction.)

        4. Past, untrue condition.

        If [past perfect tense] then [would have + past participle]

        If Clinton had won the election, things would not have been better.
        If I had joined the Army when I was young, I would have been a brigadier by now.

        You will see that there is never a “would” in the “if” clause.

        The sentence in question was:

        If the Democratic party *would go* with human rights

        then

        American Jewish voters may switch.

        The modal verb “may” counts as present tense, but its invocation of possibility rather than a certainty makes me read the sentence as a type three. Even though the past tense is used in the “if” clause, the sentence has present or future reference.

        If that is what you mean, then you could replace “would go” with “were to go”.

        “Would” in an “if” clause usually means you are a receptionist or a posh shop assistant.

        “I’m looking for talcum powder.”
        “Certainly, sir. If you would walk this way…”
        “If I could walk that way, I wouldn’t need the talcum powder.”

      • Bumblebye
        September 24, 2017, 9:23 am

        JeffB
        what a load of absolute horsefeathers.
        an Irish-American’s ‘homeland’ is America. His/her HERITAGE is Irish.
        a Jewish-American’s ‘homeland’ is America. His/her HERITAGE is that of the country his/her ancestors migrated to the US from.
        faith-heritage does NOT grant a further ‘homeland’.

      • JeffB
        September 24, 2017, 9:53 am

        @RoHa

        I see. So it should have been “went’ where “would go” was and would should have shifted to much later in the sentence after the hypothetic clause. OK makes sense.

      • JeffB
        September 24, 2017, 9:57 am

        @Bumblebye

        what a load of absolute horsefeathers.
        an Irish-American’s ‘homeland’ is America. His/her HERITAGE is Irish.
        a Jewish-American’s ‘homeland’ is America. His/her HERITAGE is that of the country his/her ancestors migrated to the US from.
        faith-heritage does NOT grant a further ‘homeland’.

        Sure because all know the American Irish didn’t support the IRA, Italians didn’t maintain strong ties for generations with Italy, blacks don’t care about issues effecting Africa… And finally we all know the American Jews spend a lot of time and focus on the internal politics of Russia, Poland and Ukraine and are completely indifferent to Israel. You can tell that by how they make sure their children learn to speak Russian, Polish and Ukrainian in their religious schools. (end sarcasm)

        All identity is a social construction. The observed behaviors don’t conform with your theory.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 24, 2017, 10:45 am

        you call that sarcasm? ah, because Jews spend a lot of time focusing on israel and not the internal politics of Russia, Poland and Ukraine means their grandparents didn’t come from Russia, Poland and Ukraine but instead a state that didn’t even exist in their grandparents time on land they had never set foot on because they now teach their children hebrew (the vast majority of words which did not even exists in their great grandparents lifetime) instead of russian or polish? but you got one thing right “identity is a social construction”.

        guess what? under your “theory” africa is the homeland of all humanity — including jews, give or take a few centuries.

      • Mooser
        September 24, 2017, 12:00 pm

        “All identity is a social construction.”

        Except, of course, for being Jewish. That’s a real, authentic identity.

      • JeffB
        September 24, 2017, 7:52 pm

        @Annie

        Yes East Africa was likely the original homeland of all humans. No argument

        @Mooser

        I think the bounds of the Jewish people is also a social construction. It can be flexible and it can expand. I also happen to think that’s likely. State churches naturally expand their definition. Sects and cults need tight definitions of membership, religions less tight and state churches need to be very expansive.

      • Mooser
        September 25, 2017, 12:53 pm

        “I think the bounds of the Jewish people is also a social construction.”

        Oh, but only at the outer “bounds” of the “social construction” where there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

        But at the center of the authentic, organic, and essential Jewish identity, where “Jeff B” is, all is serene.

  4. Mooser
    September 22, 2017, 2:51 pm

    “@ Phil”

    Or, “Why the allrightniks will all become alt-rightniks

    “Jeff b”, you’re a little late. “Yonah” and “Hophmi” have explained all that to Phil already.

  5. Citizen
    September 22, 2017, 2:55 pm

    Re: “I think most Democrats may hate Israel and still if they understand the choice is that clear will pick American Jews over Palestinian rights.”

    What does this mean?

    I think more democrats than republicans don’t hate Israel, but increasingly hate Israel’s policies and conduct regarding the non-Jews that Israel controls. I am not aware American Jews suffer from state discrimination or military occupation. I am aware most Americans do not favor any sort of government discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. I am also aware that the US mainstream media is a hasbara organ, but, thanks to brave individuals with core humanistic principles, eventually the US mainstream media will have to address in public the factual data BDS provides, both in terms of oppression and US taxpayer dollars paying for it.

    • JeffB
      September 22, 2017, 4:03 pm

      @Citizen

      Re: “I think most Democrats may hate Israel and still if they understand the choice is that clear will pick American Jews over Palestinian rights.”

      What does this mean?

      There exists no policy that is broadly reflective of current Palestinians demands and acceptable to mainstream Jewish opinion, nor will there be one in the near future. Given that the various factions that work Democratic policy have a simple choice:
      a) Choose a policy that American Jews will oppose
      b) Choose a policy that American Jews will support
      c) Do nothing

      Given no political repercussions it probably is the case that most of the more Liberal Democratic factions would choose (a). I don’t disagree with Phl here. The problem is that (a) fails to describe the situation accurately:

      a’) Choose a policy that American Jews will oppose so strongly that there is a horrific internecine fight within liberal groups between Jews, the far left and other minorities. Understanding full well that the blowback from this fight weakens the Democratic party’s electoral prospects for years. And if won during the later part and for years thereafter will be years where Jews cease being an important part of the structure of the party and instead become swing voters for a generation. Followed by the becoming a key support for the Republican party long term.

      I don’t know the Democratic party won’t choose (a’). The Democratic party has made those sorts of choices historically on other issues infrequently, as has the Republican party infrequently. Successful political parties are extremely reluctant to do that. By definition of being successful they are good at building a base of supporters and not alienating them. So even if one imagines a Democratic party a generation from now that is mostly Hispanic and Black will Hispanics and Blacks want to lose the Jewish vote regardless about how they personally feel about Israel / Palestine. Is that an issue on which they are willing to go to the mat over?

      That’s the point. The question is not do they agree with Jews on Israel, they don’t. The question is how important that disagreement is to the Hispanics and Blacks that are trying to build coalitions that can win and hold majorities in various precincts, districts and states. Which is why I think it is unlikely. Jews are very slowly migrating right. My belief is the Democratic party has no interest in speeding that migration up and will not pick the issue most likely to cause a sharp sudden shift in opinion. I could be wrong, but that still doesn’t mean there aren’t years of ugliness on this issue.

      eventually the US mainstream media will have to address in public the factual data BDS provides, both in terms of oppression and US taxpayer dollars paying for it.

      I don’t agree with you on media bias. I think if anything Jews would love coverage of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict to mirror the coverage given other ethnic conflicts involving similarly sized states. There has been a lot of activity in the ethnic conflict in Burundi this year, how much coverage do you remember this year? Heck Syria was the #1 conflict in the world over the last 3 years involving USA troops and I’ve had a very tough time being able to find detailed maps of who holds what in any particular month. When you talk about objective facts, objectively the Israeli / Palestinian conflict is an incredibly boring long winded slowly moving conflict with comparatively few deaths involving two people’s neither of whom is a substantial percentage of the world’s population.

      Why objectively does it deserve more than just the most basic surface coverage?

      And even if they do feel obligated to present the data. They can present the factual data and present the Zionist framing of that data. They can present the factual data as an aside and shift focus to issues of political contention. They can present the factual data at such a level of specificity and depth that people don’t follow.

      I am aware most Americans do not favor any sort of government discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

      Most Americans don’t have objections to France being French, Nigeria being Nigerian or China being Chinese. The BDS movement holds an unusual position that they apply only to this one case. American Jews don’t favor discrimination either. If the topic becomes “how to help Israel move away from discrimination and towards a more equitable nation” rather than “how to destroy the Jewish society in Palestine and replace it with an Arab one” you don’t have to fight the Jews on that one. They are on your side. The goal of BDS isn’t to end discrimination it is to end Israel. Ending discrimination would be a negative for BDS as it would legitimize Israel.

      BDS focus its rhetoric on attacks against the legitimacy of Israel. For example the original migration Unfixable problems. They don’t attack specific fixable policies of Israel. That’s why there is so much objection among BDSers to being complementary in areas where Israel is on the forefront of change: woman in the military 1-2 generations ago, gay rights (BDS calls it pinkwashing), strong anti-corruption laws (something the USA could benefit from emulating), the rescue operations involving the Yazidi Kurds and backing the Kurds in general over the last 20 years… If BDS were interested in positive change it would be complementary on these topics not trying to block all discussion of them.

      Someone interested in ending discrimination would want a system where Israel gets good press for doing good and bad press for doing bad. They wouldn’t want a uniform blanket on unconditional hatred.

      • Bandolero
        September 22, 2017, 5:18 pm

        Jeff

        “Someone interested in ending discrimination would want a system where Israel gets good press for doing good and bad press for doing bad.”

        I agree.

        “the rescue operations involving the Yazidi Kurds and backing the Kurds in general over the last 20 years”

        I disagree. The Israeli-backed Barzani-KRG was at the forefront of supporting the Iraqi insurgency what later morphed into ISIS. And when ISIS tried genocide against the Yezidis the Israeli-backed Barzani-KRG did nothing. So the Yezidis became enemies with the Israeli-backed Barzani-KRG, and today they lay in opposing trenches – literally. And what’s the general good in Israel stoking seperatism, Kurdish or whatever, among it’s neighbors? It just breeds conflict, where Israel then cries, US troops shall deal, fight and die for the regional mess Israel created.

        Regarding the ISIS genocide against Yezidis, I found little evidence that Israel tried to prevent this, but lot’s of evidence, that Israel supported – and still supports – the terrorism of Al Qaeda, ISIS and similar comrades:

        https://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/18/israel-sides-with-syrian-jihadists/

        https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2017/04/23/breaking-former-israeli-defense-minister-confirms-israeli-collaboration-isis-syria/

        So, as you said, and I agree, Israel should get good press for doing good and bad press for doing bad. But somehow, the main stream media press seems to hold back in reporting that Israel is in bed with ISIS, Al Qaeda and similar terrorists commiting crimes like the genocide against the Yezidis. Well, I think that has to be changed. Israel should be called out for the crimes Israel is doing. How about making a documentary for the MSM:

        How Israeli support for Al Qaeda and ISIS helped to cause the genocide against the Yezidis

        I’m sure if it was Iran, Hezbollah and comrades, who did commit such a horrible crime, the western MSM were full of it.

      • JeffB
        September 22, 2017, 6:38 pm

        @Bandolero

        I disagree. The Israeli-backed Barzani-KRG was at the forefront of supporting the Iraqi insurgency what later morphed into ISIS.

        I’m missing this step and disagreeing with some. Since when were the KRG not pro-American during the period of American occupation? Iraqi Kurdistan was the safe place for Americans to be stationed it was friendly. So I’d disagree with you they were supporting the insurgency. As for the ISIS claim how did a KRG who aren’t even Arabs morph into ISIS?

        Anyway the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) were Kurdish dominated. I’m not quite sure what your complaint is here.

        . So the Yezidis became enemies with the Israeli-backed Barzani-KRG, and today they lay in opposing trenches – literally.

        the Yezidis fled from ISIS to KRG territory for safety. Sorry but simply not true.

        And what’s the general good in Israel stoking seperatism, Kurdish or whatever, among it’s neighbors?

        I was pointing to general goods like helping avoid a genocide. On this particular issue people can be mixed. But in general I support self determination for all peoples. I think holding Iraq together is a sham and agreed with the Biden plan during the Bush administration. We could have avoided years of war if we had partitioned Iraq. I think the Iraqi Shia government we left behind is an ethnic tyranny and the Kurds and Sunnis had every right to object to it. We, the USA, lied to the Sunnis about the guarantees we made. While ISIS may not have been the best means of objecting the underlying grievance is quite legitimate. As for the Kurds they have been mistreated for centuries. They deserve their own state and am glad the USA has at least been indirectly supportive. I’m even happier that Israel, while less effectual has been less mixed in being supportive.

        So as far as I’m concerned Israelis actions there are completely on the side of the angels. Though I understand people of good faith can disagree.

        US troops shall deal, fight and die for the regional mess Israel created.

        As I said above, don’t. US troops don’t need to intervene here. Stay out. Let the Israel set the Kurds free.

        but lot’s of evidence, that Israel supported – and still supports – the terrorism of Al Qaeda, ISIS and similar comrades:

        Hold on a second. There is no evidence that Israel supports the terrorism of Al Qaeda or ISIS. None. There is evidence that Israel supports their regional political objectives. That’s not remotely the same thing. That being said another country that made that distinction was the USA. That’s was the Syrian opposition groups like Al-Nusra. Al-Nusra is part of Al-Qaeda and we backed them when we want a non-ISIS non-Assad solution. Had it not been for USA pressure the Israelis would have jumped in whole hog on their side once the Iranians joined.

        The USA was inconsistent about what it wanted in Syria. At first it wanted Assad gone. Then it turned on ISIS and backed Al-Qaeda. Then the USA turned on ISIS and supported both Iran/Assad and Al-Qaeda. Then the USA mostly backed Assad/Iran with Russia’s help. The fact that we had an incoherent policy is not Israeli’s fault.

        Israel sacrificed its own interests (Al-Qaeda / ISIS either winning or fighting for many years) to supporting the USA’s policy against ISIS. That’s a perfect example of them being an excellent USA ally.

      • oldgeezer
        September 22, 2017, 8:38 pm

        @jeffb

        Backing the kurds is part of the yinon plan to break up and destabilize the middle eastern states that are near Israel. It’s hardly out of the goodness of their hearts as the motive is malicious and mendacious interference in the soveriegn nations that have the right to live in peace.

        Enough of this Israel wants peace crap. It’s a malign entity and influence in the region.

      • JeffB
        September 22, 2017, 10:48 pm

        @oldgeezer

        Backing the kurds is part of the yinon plan to break up and destabilize the middle eastern states that are near Israel. It’s hardly out of the goodness of their hearts as the motive is malicious and mendacious interference in the soveriegn nations that have the right to live in peace.

        Let me start off by saying that Kurdish independence is such a huge net good, I honestly don’t care what the motives are. If Kim Jong-un were helping the Kurds be free I’d be thrilled.

        Even forgetting what a great thing Kurdish freedom is the Iraqi government set free by Americans has continued the declared hostility towards Israel as Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi made clear. As an American taxpayer I’m furious, same as with Kuwait.

        Iraq is not entitled to anything from Israel until they make peace. They want respect for their sovereignty they have to show respect for Israel’s. I have no sympathy and no apology for Israel getting as rough as it wants with countries that war upon it and Iraq fits the bill. There is no reason that Israel should make their disgusting behavior cost free. The Arabs have been atrocious to the Yishuv and Israel for a century. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Qatar are improving.

        So couldn’t disagree with you more.

      • oldgeezer
        September 22, 2017, 11:04 pm

        @jeffb

        Even the UNSC is against.
        http://www.france24.com/en/20170922-united-nations-security-council-says-opposes-kurdistan-iraq-independence-vote

        And you think Israel deserves a pat on the back for helping to destabilize the region. Zions is a scourge, destroying millions of lives. Vile for the same reasons as other 19th century racist belief systems.

      • oldgeezer
        September 23, 2017, 12:58 am

        @jeffb

        There is a ton of evidence that israel has been supporting both isis and al qaeda in this fight. It can’t be argued against. Witnessed and reported.

        israel is a terrorist staye. Born out of terrorism. Enlarged through terrorism and the major world supporter of terrorism.

      • Talkback
        September 23, 2017, 5:04 am

        JeffB: “BDS focus its rhetoric on attacks against the legitimacy of Israel.”

        What is this “legitimacy” based upon, again?

        JeffB: “But in general I support self determination for all peoples.”.

        Yes, as long as their right to self determination is not violated by Jews, right? Because then you support settler colonialism and the creation of an Apartheid Junta by seperatists whose majority were not even citizens of Palestine and without any referendum but through war and expulsion. That’s what you call “legitimacy” in the post-Nazi era.

      • jon s
        September 23, 2017, 5:28 am

        oldgeezer,
        Do you oppose the Kurdish people’s right to self-determination?
        Why shouldn’t they have the right to a Kurdish state, if they so wish?

      • JeffB
        September 23, 2017, 10:22 am

        @oldgeezer

        Even the UNSC is against.

        The UN is probably the foremost opponent of self determination in the world. Why would you expect them to be for Kurdish freedom?

        And you think Israel deserves a pat on the back for helping to destabilize the region.

        Yes I do. I think helping people be free of tyrannies deserves a pat on the back. I think all people deserve a government that represent that represent their interest. The Kurds have not had one for centuries and so they are more than entitled to their own.

        And not only that I fully support destabilizing the region. I want the people in that region to have a chance for decent government. To get that there need to be states among people whose common interests are aligned. Without massive moving of people that requires massive changes to the borders and dissolving most of the states to replace them with new states that are capable of being prosperous democracies. I’m not thrilled with the amount of damage its doing to Iraq and Syria but what was happening was ultimately a good thing for the people of the region. I’m not at all happy the USA thwarted the process of self determination emerging.

        To quote Sec Rice, an American official who got it, (who unfortunately worked for a boss who didn’t): ““[w]hat we’re seeing here, in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one.

        So yes, you and I totally disagree on this. I want freedom and good government for all the people’s who live there. Stability of the dictatorial, economic non-productive and social regressive states that exist there now is a pure negative. I’d like this process to be peaceful and not destructive. I’d like to minimize the amount of violence required to get to a better world. But that may not be possible, and if it isn’t, if civil wars need to happen, let them happen. Let the people of the region draw their own maps based on the nations that live there not based on French and British colonial interests. The hundreds of millions of people in the middle east should not be forever enslaved to preserve Sykes-Picot. In particular with Iraq, the reason a tyranny emerged in Iraq multiple times is because the people of Iraq do not share common interests and thus can never create a good government. Joe Biden was 100% right. Iraq needs to be dissolved are replaced / merged into states that are capable of forming good government.

        israel is a terrorist staye. Born out of terrorism. Enlarged through terrorism and the major world supporter of terrorism.

        Israel doesn’t make the top 50 in terms of state sponsors of terrorism. Get a grip. Make a list of how most states emerged. Terrorism evolves into guerilla warfare evolves into civil war evolves into a new government. Of course Israel emerged out of terrorism. With few exceptions how else do people win their freedom? The Yishuv had to kick the British out of their country.

      • JeffB
        September 23, 2017, 10:51 am

        @Talkback

        This is starting to get too repetitive. I’ll try again but I’m not sure how fruitful this is going to be if you insist on claiming I’m contradicting myself because I don’t agree with definitions and concepts that I’ve already explained multiple times I reject. If you want to claim contradiction you need to work from within the definitions I’ve provided and prove a contradiction given those. Otherwise you are just asserting I disagree with your rather idiosyncratic definitions.

        What is this “legitimacy” based upon, again?

        Self determination: the right of nations powerful enough to stand alone to form a sovereign government that represents their interests. The proper meaning of self determination.

        Nation means a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. That’s the criteria. That’s the only criteria. Nothing about citizenship or “legitimate inhabitation”. That is a clear cut rejection of the notion that there exists such a thing as legitimate and illegitimate people. It also rejects the idea there are legitimate and illegitimate nations. All nations without discrimination have this right.

        And finally people means all people. It doesn’t mean people Talkback likes. It doesn’t mean people the UN likes. It doesn’t people of the right race or right ethnicity. It means all people, period.

        That is what I mean. That is what I’ve been saying round after round with you. I get you totally reject that. But if you want to have a conversation where you claim a contradiction. Those are the definitions I’m asserting.

        That also means that “settler colonialism” which I would call mass migration is not a disqualifying factor. People migrate to new territories and having done so do not lose their right to self determination. More importantly their descendents do not lose that right. Everyone born in a territory regardless of how their parents got there is an equally legitimate resident of that territory. I don’t think America should still be governed by the Welsh, Quakers, English puritans… that formed the original inhabitants. I’m very happy that Irish, Italians, Chinese, Mexicans who moved here get the vote and are allowed to participate in the nation. And again we disagree, which is fine. I think your system is disgusting racist and inhumane you think my system is a crime against international law.

        But if you are going to claim a contradiction then how people got there doesn’t matter.

      • Mooser
        September 23, 2017, 11:42 am

        “What is this “legitimacy” based upon, again?”

        The power and resources of Zionism. As they wane, Israel’s “legitimacy” lessens.

      • Bandolero
        September 23, 2017, 11:50 am

        Jeff

        “The Israeli-backed Barzani-KRG was at the forefront of supporting the Iraqi insurgency what later morphed into ISIS.”

        I’m missing this step…

        Let me help you out. The leaders of the “salafi insurgency” in Nineveh and Anbar all was based in Erbil, as well as their so called mufti of Iraq, and they made absolutely no secret about that they were plotting together the armed overthrow of the government of Iraq, and this while welcoming ISIS. They even held conferences in Erbil to coordinate and motivate their ISIS-linked fighters on the ground to conquer Baghdad. See here for example a report from Al Monitor on such a conference of the Iraq’s Revolutionary Tribal Leaders:

        http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/07/tribal-revolutionary-conference-erbil-rage-maliki.html

        Much of the western MSM had ignored Erbil collusion with the salafi forces that morphed into ISIS, but people in the region remember.

        . So the Yezidis became enemies with the Israeli-backed Barzani-KRG, and today they lay in opposing trenches – literally. the Yezidis fled from ISIS to KRG territory for safety. Sorry but simply not true.

        It may not be what the western MSM reported at theat time, but it’s just what the Yezidis say.

        Clashes between Yezidi YBS units and Barzanis Peshmerga were widely reported. See here Al Jazeera, eg:

        http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/rival-kurdish-groups-clash-iraq-sinjar-region-170303071119811.html

        For the reasons why they clash, you may have a look at this documentation from 1st German state TV for example:

        http://www.daserste.de/information/politik-weltgeschehen/weltspiegel/sendung/irak-pkk–jesiden-100.html

        The Yezidis explain there why they fight Barzani’s Peshmerga. Barzani’s Peshmerga did nothing to help them from being massacred by ISIS, just sitting together with the ISIS backers in Erbil, gleefully happy. That is while PKK helped them from being massacred by ISIS. And that attitude of Barzani to the Yezidis didn’t change yet.

      • MHughes976
        September 23, 2017, 3:44 pm

        I’m seeking to insert this into the discussion of Israeli legitimacy rather arbitrarily – it bears on the claims to legitimacy based on ancient history. The Khirbet Queyafa discoveries have been mentioned before. They include a bit of inscribed pottery claimed as early (and religious) Hebrew, but really next to unintelligible. The Bible and Ihteroretstion website has reference to an article by Nadav Naaman which is very comprehensive and informative.

      • Talkback
        September 23, 2017, 4:18 pm

        JeffB: “This is starting to get too repetitive.”

        It’s not my fault you are educionally impaired. You can’t even put my quotes in quotation marks.

        JeffB: Self determination: the right of nations powerful enough to stand alone to form a sovereign government that represents their interests. The proper meaning of self determination.”

        The proper meaning of self determination of PEOPLE is that a country’s PEOPLE (its real nation) have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status. They don’t even need to form a goverment if they don’t like want to or if they are not “powerful” enough to stand alone and therefore want to merge their country with another state.

        JeffB: “Nation means a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. That’s the criteria. That’s the only criteria.

        You still mistake nations within citizenship (an identity based on common descent, history, culture, or language, etc.) with nations as citizenship which is ALL people OF a country, its citizens or habitual residents. The latter is what defines the right to self determination. It doesn’t matter what their “descent, history, culture, or language”, etc. is. The citizens of Palestine aka the nation/people of Palestine in 1948 had this right no matter if they were Jewish or not.

        JeffB: “That also means that “settler colonialism” which I would call mass migration is not a disqualifying factor.”

        Now you mistake settler colonialism (immigration WITHOUT consent) with “mass migration”. Settler colonialism as practiced before 1948 by Jewish foreigners under British Gun and since 1967 under Israeli gun can only happen, because the right to self determination of the mandated or occupied people is violated. They can not freely choose that they dan’t want these settlers in their country. It is a disqualifying factor since the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis,.

        JeffB. “People migrate to new territories and having done so do not lose their right to self determination. More importantly their descendents do not lose that right.”

        You are confused, JeffB. First of all its in post colonial times the people of a country exercise this right by defining who they are going to allow to immigrate or not. Secondly if they allow someone to immigrate this person acquires the same right within this country. If not neither does their descendant in more than 160 countries in the world, including Israel.

        JeffB: “Everyone born in a territory regardless of how their parents got there is an equally legitimate resident of that territory.”

        Nonsense. Jus soli is granted by only 30 countries in the world and rare outside the Americas. Jus sanguinis prevails which you simply don’t prefer, because you need to argue that children born in illegal settlements have the right to citizenship of Palestine and descendants of the first generation of Palestinian refugees don’t have the right to citizenship in Israel.

        JeffB: “I think your system is disgusting racist and inhumane you think my system is a crime against international law.”

        It’s your personal “system” that bases the right to self determination on national identities (Jews) instead of citizens despite their heritage/faith (Palestinians, Jews and Nonjews). It is your personal “system” that supports settler colonialism (of Jews) which violates the right of self determination of the native people (Palestinians, Jews and Nonjews) of a country, which happens without consent and can only be established through violence against and dispossesion of the natives. It is your personal “system” that claims that birthright citizenship is a given while citizenship by descent is not and only to support the descendants of illegal Jewish settlers while rejecting the patriation of the descedants of Palestinian refugee as if illegal settling is more humane than repatriation.

        And you of all people call my system which is based on international and humanitarian law and human rights “disgusting racist and inhumane” and not your personal system which is based on Zionist racism? It couldn’t be more dishonest, JeffB. You are perveting every humane principle to support an agenda that is based on supremacism and settler colonialism and a policy which is considered a crime since the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis. So much for your disgusting and racist “system”.

      • gamal
        September 23, 2017, 5:32 pm

        “they fight Barzani’s Peshmerga”

        when Kurdistan emerges I would think South Sudan and its current state would be good a pointer as to how Kurdistan will look after its ascension to nationhood,

        Important names to learn will be Barazani, as above, and Zebari and Talabani, the bitter accusations below characterise a good deal of inter-Kurdish relations,

        “As known publicly that Massoud Barzani was trained by Israeli Mossad (intelligence agency for the Israeli government) according to “Israel-Kurds” publications in Kurdistan. Massoud are accused of killing his own brother Idris Barzani.
        The Barzani Sheiks bring the tribal Kurds under the control by the marriage of the tribal chef daughters. They done that successfully with Sherwani tribe and they tried to do that with Zebari tribes too. The Barzani Sheiks married few Zebari girls and Mullah Mustafa Barzani married daughter of Mahmood Agah Zebari by name of hamial khan before departing to Russia. Hamial khan gives birth to Massoud in Mehabad Iran before the departure of Mullah Mustafa Barzani. She returns to her father home and Massoud Barzani grow up under the teaching of trader Mahmood Agah Zebari. He learns to betray Barzani from his grandfather.

        Massoud Barzani is half Zebari and Half Barzani and Mullah Mustafa knows about the animosity between Barzani and Zebari very well. In 1958 when Sheik Ahmed Barzai got out of Iraqi prison, he ordered the assassinations of Ahmed Agah Zebari the older brother of Mahmood Agah Zebari because of his support to Iraqi Governments. This assassination of Ahmed Agah Zebari put frictions between Mullah Mustafa Barzani and his older brother Sheik Ahmed Barzani plus his older sons too. Is Mullah Mustafa Barzani picked Massoud Barzani under the pressure of his wife hamial khan or he just hated Kurds and his own family? Yes Mullah Mustafa Barzani did lot of good things. But he had many fault too. He appointed younger son with half Zebari, He did not send Abraham Ahmed and Jalal Talabani to the Kurdish people court to be executed for their betrayal and crime against the Kurdish people.

        Mullah Mustafa Barzani betrayal of yesterday, we Kurds and Barzani are paying for it today. We Kurds do not have research and analysis to point out the truth about those who lead us. We love leaders unconditionally that is the reasons we do not have country. Are we making the mistakes today? The Kurds should answer these questions.

        First the Kurdish people should know that Massoud Barzani have the same age as mine. When I was Peshmergah, he was known to be pro-Talabani in his early age. He was fund of Talabani lie and monopolizations just like his nephew Nechirvan Idris Barzani does today.
        The year was 1961 the Kurdish people revolted under the leadership of Mullah Mustafa Barzani. The First casualties were from Jaff people he was brother of Koaxai Ishmael Talin from Dukan region. Mullah Mustafa promised us Kurds an independent country and democratic system with rule of laws. He was exiled for thirteen years before coming back to Kurdistan. They wrote books about that how hard it was to be away from family and relative for thirteen long years. I am personally now exiled for thirty three years and most of the Kurds are more or less the same as mine. Thanks to Mr. Massoud Barzani and Mr. Jalal Talabani,www.ekurd.netthe entire Kurdish populations want to get out of the country.
        Mullah Mustafa was very assured about himself any Kurds defected to join the Iraqi Governments or any other Governments in the regions; he called them “Homo”. That was the insult for people in the region. It is not like western society which does not make any sense. He was always calling Abraham Ahmed and Jalal Talabani a homo because they joined enemies of Kurdish people.” ”

        http://ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2010/2/independentstate3490.htm

        the reality is a Kurdistan will in all likelihood mean war and chaos, all against all, but no doubt within a few weeks Americans will be sagaciously discussing the PKK, PYD, KRG, prospects are not great, so this is an amusing little summary,

        “What is the difference between the PKK, PYD, YPG, KRG, KDP, and the Peshmerga?”

        “The Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq = KRG is the family business of the Barzani Clan, even though elections are generally considered free and fair. President is Massoud Barzani, Prime Minister is Nechervan Barzani while the security chief is Masrour Barzani. The Barzanis are Iranian Kurds.

        Iranians are cultured people and born politicians, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Massoud Barzani is one of the most gifted politicians in the region. Barzani is also a very cruel man, e.g. he has sacrificed the Yazidis to be slaughtered by the Islamic State in order to force Obama’s hand to intervene against ISIS – when that didn’t work he withdrew the Peshmerga from oil fields run by U.S. oil companies (which did force Obama’s hand).

        Turkish Kurds are naturally born fighters, neither cultured nor born politicians, while the Iraqi Kurds are somewhere in between the two.

        The Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê (PKK) with its military wing Hêzên Parastina Gel (HPG) operated from 1978 – 1999 from Syria and afterwards from the Qandil-Mountains in the PUK-part of the KRG.

        The Barzanis and the PKK profoundly hate each other.

        The Yekîneyên Parastina Gel (YPG) is the military arm of the Partiya Yekîtiya Demokrat (PYD), the Syrian affiliate of the PKK. Most of the YPG commanders and fighters are Qandil-Kurds, i.e. PKK.

        When the Islamic State overran Syria and Iraq, the PKK saw its chance for a make-over: from terrorists (fighting against Turkey) to freedom fighters (fighting the Islamic State) by protecting the oil fields of U.S. oil majors in the Kirkuk area as well as defending Kobanê or resupplying the Yezidis on Mount Sinjar.

        30+ years of insurgency warfare has battle-hardened the PKK into the best fighting-force of the Middle East. They are feared by Islamic State fighters as they have won every single battle against them while all other armed forces are happy if they can stand their ground”

        https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-PKK-PYD-YPG-KRG-KDP-and-the-Peshmerga

      • RoHa
        September 24, 2017, 12:56 am

        Indeed, Talkback.

        Insofar as there is a right of self determination, it the right of all the people in the territory.

        It is not a right of n-nations, “peoples”, adherents of a particular religion, or cheesecake photographers.

        (It cannot be an absolute right, but must be limited by other moral considerations.)

        I have argued, at length, for this position on moral grounds. Hostage has argued for the same position on legal grounds.

        The devastating counter-arguments have not yet appeared.

      • echinococcus
        September 24, 2017, 3:08 am

        John S and his obscene cluelessness once more:

        Do you oppose the Kurdish people’s right to self-determination?
        Why shouldn’t they have the right to a Kurdish state, if they so wish?

        Do you oppose the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination?
        Why shouldn’t they have the right to a Palestine free of Zionist interlopers, if they so wish?

      • JeffB
        September 24, 2017, 8:57 am

        @echinococcus

        You missed the part about “stand alone” in the right of self determination. That’s what avoids the XYZ little league club from being able to declare itself a nation able to exercise self determination.

        The Palestinians currently have the right to self determination in a place free of Zionists in Gaza. That’s where they were able to stand alone.

      • JeffB
        September 24, 2017, 10:00 am

        @RoHa

        Insofar as there is a right of self determination, it the right of all the people in the territory.

        Cool so when are you going to start denouncing this incessant talk about how Jews got to Israel and how that delegitimize their presence since they are certainly people in the territory now and thus are entitled to self determination?

      • echinococcus
        September 24, 2017, 12:34 pm

        Is that “Jeff” earning his propaganda stipend by being so thick?

        “You missed…” No I didn’t. This is as of the colonization declaration at the Basle Congress, 1897. Confirmed by a promise by the major colonial power of its time, 1917.

        Any immigration after that is illegal.

      • jon s
        September 24, 2017, 3:37 pm

        echi,
        As you should know by now, I support the Palestinian right to self determination.
        Jews are not “interlopers” in the Jewish historic homeland. We’re quite at home here.

      • Talkback
        September 24, 2017, 5:21 pm

        JeffB: “You missed the part about “stand alone” in the right of self determination. ”

        Why shouldn’t one miss a part you just made up? There is nothing in the definition of the right to self determination that requires that a people can “stand alone”. If they want they can exercise this right by choosing to put themselves under a goverment of a different country and merge both territories. Especially people that can’t stand own their own can be put under a mandate and today under UN trusteeship. And if a people is occupied they obviously can’t stand own their own.

        Stop making up international law, JeffB. The state of Palestine was recognize within the UN in 2012.

        JeffB: Cool so when are you going to start denouncing this incessant talk about how Jews got to Israel …”

        What??? They are not natives?

        JeffB: “… and how that delegitimize their presence since they are certainly people in the territory now and thus are entitled to self determination?”

        Immigrants who enter a territory without the consent of the country’s population have no right to exercise their right to self determination in this country. The country has the right to deport them.

      • eljay
        September 24, 2017, 6:08 pm

        || jon s: As you should know by now … Jews are not “interlopers” in the Jewish historic homeland. … ||

        As you should know by now, geographic Palestine was not and is not the “historic homeland” of every person in the world who chooses to acquire and/or hold the religion-based identity of Jewish.

        If those Jews who…
        – migrated to and colonized geographic Palestine;
        – ethnically cleansed part of its indigenous population from it;
        – refused to allow refugees to return to it;
        – established a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in it;
        – proceeded to colonize outside of their state’s / Partition borders; and
        – continue to commit a never-ending series of (war) crimes,
        …are not interlopers, they are at the very least hateful and immoral supremacists.

      • echinococcus
        September 24, 2017, 7:22 pm

        John S yet again:

        As you should know by now, I support the Palestinian right to self determination.

        No shoot. If you did, you would never even set foot in Palestine against the will of its owners –to say nothing of your conscious complicity in crimes against humanity. Out.

      • RoHa
        September 25, 2017, 2:21 am

        The right is the right of all the people legally resident in the territory, not of any sub-group or extra-territorial group.

        Israeli Jews legally resident in Israel (if they are) have rosd as Israelis, just as Israeli Arabs do. But no other rosd.

        Australian Jews legally resident in Australia have rosd as Australians, just as Australian Sikhs do. But no other rosd.

        Jews and Sikhs do not have a right of self-determination.

        And,naturally, the right cannot be a right to do wrong.

        So when the Zionists foisted themselves upon the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians of Mandate Palestine, against the wishes of the latter, this was a denial of the rosd of the Palestinians.

        When the Zionists declared the State of Israel, and carved up the country, they were acting against the wishes of the majority of the legal residents of the territory. This was a denial of the rosd of the Palestinians.

        You might argue that the maintenance of the State of Israel in its current form is supported by the majority of the legal population, and thus legitimate in terms of the rosd.

        However, the rosd does not imply the right to maintain a state which behaves unjustly towards either its own minorities or against other states or people outside its borders. This would be claiming a right to do wrong.

        Israel behaves unjustly towards its own minorities and against other states and people outside its borders.

  6. Annie Robbins
    September 22, 2017, 5:15 pm

    great article phil, the dem party definitely needs a big public fight over israel. long long overdue. should have happened years ago — remember the jerusalem vote at the 2012 convention? too bad that wasn’t squeezed into the article somewhere. anyway, it’s about time!

  7. rhkroell
    September 22, 2017, 6:39 pm

    I would like to believe that Phil and Annie are correct in suggesting that it’s about time (or long long overdue) that members of the Democrat Party establishment in the U.S. examine their official position with respect to Israel’s illegal policy/practice of “endless expansion” of Israeli-only settlements in the West Bank. This anti-BDS legislation may actually present U.S. politicians with an opportunity to make clear their position on things like universal human rights and U.S. citizens’ constitutionally-protected freedoms. I’d like to think so.

    It’s encouraging to see NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand withdraw her support for this anti-BDS legislation. I didn’t anticipate that change of position.

  8. JWalters
    September 22, 2017, 7:00 pm

    Kudos to the young Jews asking the Jewish establishment why “you never told me” about the occupation. They might also ask why virtually all the key “facts” provided to Americans about Israel have been glaring lies.

    1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Zionists overpowered and victimized a defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor shape and would be unable to resist the zionist army.

    2. Muslim “citizens” of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.

    3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.

    4. Israel does NOT share America’s most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of equal human rights for all, which Israeli blatantly opposes.

    How has this giant package of outright lies has been foisted upon the American public for so long?

    To paraphrase Josh Marshall, “Truly the main thing the Democratic Party and the country needs right now is a toxic and decisive fight that defeats Israel.”

    • JeffB
      September 23, 2017, 6:56 am

      @JWalters

      1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Zionists overpowered and victimized a defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor shape and would be unable to resist the zionist army.

      Two questions about this “glaring lie”.

      a) If it was so obvious that the Arab armies were in poor shape and couldn’t defeat the Yishuv, then why didn’t the Arab governments know this. Why did they tell their population and the entire world they were going to crush the Jews, send in their armies and invade? Why didn’t they just tell their population, “ I know it may sound odd but those 650k lightly armed Jews are vastly more powerful than we are and we simply lack a military option. The Yishuv is vastly more powerful than our combined strength and we intend to work with the British and the UN on exclusive diplomatic solutions to the crisis“? Because the external behaviors they engaged in seem to indicate they thought they could win.

      b) If it was the case that this was an easy war that was no substantial threat what explains the heavy death toll among the Zionists? The Yishuv lost 1% of their population. The same proportion that died in the USA civil war (where we took casualties on both sides). Or about 30% less than what Belgium lost in World War 1. That appears to be consistent with a rather ferocious war not a easily won trivial conflict against a obviously inferior enemy. So what explains the heavy death toll among the Yishuv?

    • Misterioso
      September 23, 2017, 11:30 am

      To be brief:

      By late March 1948, the superiority of Israeli forces and the territorial objectives of the Jewish Agency were known to British and American officials. “Harold Beeley, a British representative at the United Nations (specializing in Palestinian affairs), reported to Loy Henderson, the State Department official responsible for the Middle East, that the Israeli forces were markedly superior and that it was their plan to exploit that advantage in an effort to expand beyond the territory allotted to them in the [Partition Plan].” (George and Douglas Ball, The Passionate Attachment, p. 24)

      George Marshall, the United States Secretary of State and author of the Marshall Plan for Europe, assessed the Arab states’ degree of military preparedness.  (As a former United States Army Chief of Staff he was certainly qualified to do so.)  On May 12, he stated that “internal weaknesses in various Arab countries make it difficult for them to act. [Iraq can] send only a handful of troops; [Egypt has] insufficient equipment [which in any case is needed] for police duty at home.”  He described Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia as militarily unimportant and pointed out that “jealousies between Saudi Arabia and the Syrians, on one hand, and… Transjordan and Iraq, on the other, prevent the Arabs from making best use of existing forces.”  (Foreign Relations of the United States  Documents  1948, vol. 5,part 2, p. 1158; quoted by Simah Flapan, The  Birth of Israel… p. 191-92  and  Michael Palumbo, The Palestinian Catastrophe, p. 118). 

      General John Bagot Glubb (Glubb Pasha), the British commander of Transjordan’s Legion, calculated that the total number of troops committed by the Arabs on 15 May 1948 was 21,500 and those of the Jews numbered 65,000 (i.e. Haganah plus others).  (Simah Flapan, The Birth of Israel….p. 195-96) 

      Just how unprepared for war the Arab regular armies were (other than Jordan’s experienced, but inadequately armed small Arab Legion), is well illustrated by the comments of Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, Egypt’s foremost journalist and political commentator: “[On May 15] I went to Gaza….There I found that the Egyptian army had entered Palestine.  But no one seemed to realize that they were entering a war, nor were there enough maps of Palestine for the troops.  Worse, the troops were transported in old and broken tourist cars provided by a travel agency.  They did not know the directions, so they were forced to follow the railroad track.  The Egyptian army entered the war without really knowing what it was facing.” (“Interview with Mohamed Hassanein Heikal: Reflections on a Nation in Crisis, 1948;” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. XVlll, Autumn, 1988, p. 117)      

      On May 15, a total of just under 14,000 soldiers from Egypt (2800), Syria (1876), Jordan (4500), Iraq (4000) and Lebanon (700) along with a token contingent from Saudi Arabia under Egyptian command entered Palestine to join forces with poorly armed ALA volunteers and nearly 2500 Palestinian irregulars, bringing the total number of Arab troops in the country to slightly more than 20,000. 

      Waiting for the Arab forces were at least 27,000 first-line Haganah troops (including 8000 in the Palmach). The Jewish Agency also had under its command an additional 90,000 fighters made up of some 55,000 second-line reserves in the Settlement Police, Youth Battalions and Garrisons along with about 35,000 in the Home Guard, the Irgun and the Stern Gang.

      Except for a minor defensive bridgehead established and held by Syrian forces in the upper Jordan valley, the Arab state armies never managed to successfully carry the battle into the Partition Plan’s designated Jewish state throughout the entire war.  (Jon and David Kimche, Both Sides of the Hill; London Secker & Warburg, 1960, pp. 172-73;  Balls, The Passionate Attachment, p. 318) 

      So much for the Zionist canard that Israel faced mortal peril at the hands of the Arabs.          

      • JWalters
        September 23, 2017, 8:55 pm

        Misterioso,

        Thanks for that overwhelming and conclusive body of facts.

        For new readers, JeffB thoroughly shredded his credibility, unable to deal honestly with facts or logic, in the extended discussion here:
        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/times-rudoren-selma

        JeffB appears to have two purposes. One is to give young zionists the impression that there are reasonable sounding responses to the deep criticisms of Israel’s crimes and atrocities. The second is to entangle people in endlessly meandering word games.

        As he states above, his bottom line is that Palestine is the “homeland” of “Jews”. This outweighs all modern, rational notions and standards of simple justice. Hence the situation needs to be “complexified”. He remains oblivious to the fact that the “God wants me to do it” claim could be used to obliterate Israelis as easily as Palestinians.

      • Jack Green
        September 23, 2017, 10:53 pm

        “The Jews will be able to hold out no longer than two years,” the CIA predicted.17

        Gordis, Daniel. Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn (p. 147). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

      • JeffB
        September 24, 2017, 1:28 am

        @Misterioso

        None of this answers my 2 questions. Even if all of it is true, it just shows why the Arabs lost.

      • Marnie
        September 24, 2017, 3:49 am

        To all who stand up to Jeffy’s lies, half-truths and hasbara by providing thoughtful and factual responses, I salute you.

        #BDS

      • Mooser
        September 24, 2017, 1:17 pm

        “To all who stand up to Jeffy’s lies, half-truths and hasbara by providing thoughtful and factual responses, I salute you.”

        It’s obvious to me that “Jeff b” is here because he has been 86’ed from every Zionist site. He is an embarrassment, and a time-waster. And a better Jew then all of them put together!

        (Don’t worry “Jeff b”, that won’t happen here. You can’t embarrass anybody but yourself here.)

  9. Keith
    September 22, 2017, 7:05 pm

    PHIL- “Yet in those 50 years, we have seen countless other once-marginal progressive questions enter the mainstream and gain establishment approval, from women’s rights to same-sex marriage to the embrace of transsexual rights.”

    Indeed, in the age of neoliberalism when the Democrats have nothing of substance to offer their base, identity politics has risen to fill the void. And “nothing of substance” includes issues of war and peace where the Democrats have become neocon-led ferocious war mongers and AIPAC sychophants. And the Democrats are leading the drive for imperial hegemony to contain China and destroy Russia. Blaming Russia for Hillary’s defeat isn’t merely an excuse for Hillary’s defeat, rather it is imperial agitprop to justify anti-Russian militarism. Fully supported by Hollywood “liberals.” I now provide two links concerning the outrageous anti-Russian, anti-Putin video with Morgan Freeman, which has to be seen to be believed. The second is a link to Tucker Carlson interviewing Rob Reiner who along with other Hollywood liberals such as Morgan Freeman and Norman Lear have joined forces with neocons such as Max Boot, David Frum, James Clapper, etc. to form the Commitee to Investigate Russia. In the second video, Rob Reiner sets a new low for dishonesty. Suggest viewing both videos to appreciate the depths to which neoliberalism has corrupted an already corrupt political system. Notice how no one mentions empire.

    Morgan Freeman “War with Russia” video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2av__s-598

    Rob Reiner link: http://deadline.com/2017/09/rob-reiner-tucker-carlson-russia-investigation-china-1202174917/

    • JosephA
      September 22, 2017, 11:15 pm

      Our political system is a two-headed monster. The republicans and democrats are merely twins, but non-identical. The American people have been divided and conquered. Our political system was not designed for just two dominant parties. The best ideas always come from the “third parties”.

      Also, that Morgan Freeman video was a riot! Crazy. Also, it was the first time I have seen a YouTube video with 5 times the amount of dislikes than likes.

      P.S. https://williamblum.org/aer

    • RoHa
      September 23, 2017, 3:17 am

      “the depths to which neoliberalism has corrupted an already corrupt political system”

      You will probably like this.

      http://patriotrising.com/2017/09/22/trump-hardly-knew-ye-bad-camelot-brief-shining-moment/

    • marc b.
      September 24, 2017, 11:22 am

      Morgan ‘I’m not screwing my granddaughter!’ Freeman. What could be his motivation for being the Hollywood spokesperson for starting WWIII?

      • Keith
        September 24, 2017, 6:37 pm

        MARC B- “What could be his motivation for being the Hollywood spokesperson for starting WWIII?”

        The same as Rob Reiner for forming the “Committee to Investigate Russia?” It is a power struggle with the Koch brothers on one side and the Soros/CIA neoliberal internationalists on the other. The neoliberal internationalists want to destroy Russia so that they can control China as we transition from the hydrocarbon era of manufacturing to the financial control era of neofeudalism. Unless the empire achieves absolute hegemony and financial control, the empire will collapse. The Democrats/Soros/CIA/Wall Street led group of elites will risk a high probability of war to maintain their power.

      • RoHa
        September 24, 2017, 10:53 pm
      • Keith
        September 25, 2017, 10:15 am

        ROHA- “A bit from Pilger you may like.”

        Thanks, I have already read it. I can’t remember the last time Pilger said anything which I didn’t agree with.

  10. yonah fredman
    September 23, 2017, 3:35 am

    From what I read today Bernie Sanders has spoken about the need to use aid to Israel in order to push things in a particular direction and this is rather new in American politics and it needs to be expressed. Unanimity about the type of support America should give to Israel seems to be based upon the campaign financial situation of the Congressmen and presidential candidates and even other elected officials and thus does not represent a well cogitated position.

    BDS and its famous spokesperson? Certainly she represents American Jewish left wing divorcing itself from Zionism. Jewish Voice for Peace, though, now that it has found itself allied with the Palestinians, needs to learn how to dialogue with the enemy, which is us Zionists. There is no chochma in just echoing the Palestinian position and preaching to the zionists. There’s a plethora of finger wagging preachers without Rebecca Vilkomerson. If she cannot figure out how to talk to Zionists, what has she achieved with her “jewish” voice for peace. The idea of speaking to the enemy is valid, I believe, and Vilkomerson should consider it, now that we Zionists are her enemy. She should talk to us.

    • Donald Johnson
      September 24, 2017, 12:31 pm

      Yonah, most of the finger wagging preachers within the US have been Zionists telling everyone precisely how much criticism of Israel is allowed before it becomes antisemitism and they generally see the boundary somewhere long before people got anywhere near antisemitism.
      You’d need a couple of generations of BDS proponents working hard to achieve parity in fingerwaving, assuming the Zionist side put down their fingers for that period of time.

      Attempt at humor aside, I mean all that seriously. But I also agree that some dialogue between different factions would be good. People like Beinart or better, David Shulman in the New York Review seem like natural people to talk to. People further to the right– well, it’s complicated. Yes, talk, but if people are wedded to their view of Israel as a state which has to be supported no matter what then politically they are acting like the white Southerners who hated MLK and saw the civil rights movement as a personal insult to them and their ancestors and heritage. I knew people like that when I grew up down South– we probably all had some subconscious racism, but with a lot of people it was right there out in the open. You can try to change everybody’s mind in favor of equal rights for everyone, but you can’t expect to succeed and shouldn’t wait to apply pressure until all the ideologues on the other side have been won over.

      What sort of things would you want to see JVP doing that would win some Zionists over to supporting Palestinian equal rights? I guess I should have started with that.

      Gotta google ” chockma”, unless that was a typo.

      Found it. Chokma meaning wisdom.

      • yonah fredman
        September 24, 2017, 7:59 pm

        I found jvp’s embrace of rasmea odeh distasteful. I heard the rationalizations and I accept the justifications of “innocent until proven guilty” and given the biased nature of the system that convicted her, I understand the point of view, but in terms of the optics, the optics were pro Palestinian and in your face. Maybe they should rename it “a voice for palestine”, but Jewish voice for peace? implies something other than the full embrace of her.
        I watched ten minutes of some speech at their convention, utterly ignorant of judaism, some nonjewish woman stood up to tell me what judaism is. Which is par for the course for the comments section of mw, but totally antithetical to the concept of dialogue. They are devoted to rallying their forces, which is fine. But change the name.

      • JeffB
        September 24, 2017, 8:00 pm

        @Donald

        What sort of things would you want to see JVP doing that would win some Zionists over to supporting Palestinian equal rights?

        They have good relations with domestic Palestinian groups. Use those.

        a) Negotiate with Palestinian groups a fair sketch of agreements on specific issues (like housing and education). Vet it with other Jewish groups. Create a set of agreements on various topics that civil representatives of both sides can live with that can draw greater support from governing parties. Show what agreements are possible. In particular prove to Israelis that some agreements are possible.

        b) Provide an avenue for Palestinians to engage constructively with American Jewish organizations of all types if they want to. If Palestinians believe AJC or AIPAC or whomever should change policy create a road at least for Palestinians to engage directly.

        c) Provide an bridge for Jewish groups who want to engage Palestinians on specific topics.

        Those would all be constructive roles JVP could play.

      • Mooser
        September 25, 2017, 1:16 pm

        “some nonjewish woman stood up to tell me what judaism is.” “yonah fredman”

        You better listen, “yonah”. There’s way, way more of them than there is of us.

      • JeffB
        September 25, 2017, 3:28 pm

        @Yonah

        They are devoted to rallying their forces, which is fine. But change the name.

        Agree Jewish Voice for Peace is neither.

      • Mooser
        September 25, 2017, 4:27 pm

        “They are devoted to rallying their forces, which is fine. But change the name.” “Jeff b”

        Not a goddam thing you can do about it, “Jeffy”. Gonna sue, and claim ownership of the name “Jewish”?

        So this “Jewish nation” doesn’t even own its own name, and cannot prevent anyone, anywhere, from calling themselves or their organization “Jewish”?
        You have no more control over that than you do over the tide or wind.

      • JeffB
        September 25, 2017, 7:42 pm

        @Mooser

        “They are devoted to rallying their forces, which is fine. But change the name.” “Jeff b”

        Except JeffB isn’t the one who said that. Learn to follow a thread.

      • Mooser
        September 25, 2017, 7:53 pm

        “Except JeffB isn’t the one who said that.”

        You are now. I changed it. You’ll need to e-mail the Editors and apply to have it changed back. I don’t hold out much hope, but you can try.

  11. jd65
    September 23, 2017, 11:15 am

    Hello Phil.

    “This week the Jerusalem Post listed Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace as one of the 50 most influential Jews in the world. Vilkomerson supports BDS; and there were no liberal Zionist leaders on that list.”

    Schumer and Greenblatt aren’t liberal Zionist leaders?

  12. rhkroell
    September 23, 2017, 3:21 pm

    Did you notice that Morgan Freeman — in the video posted above by Keith — is wearing similar lifestyle enhancement jewelry on the lobes of his ears to those that Rebecca Vilkomerson of JVP is wearing in the photo above? Do tony Hollywood brothers have similar style preferences to those of liberal Jewish women? What (if anything) does this tell you about his professed fear of Russia’s meddling in U.S. elections? Do his right-wing, Zionist fearmongerings clash with his fashion choices?

    • Marnie
      September 24, 2017, 3:53 am

      1. I think you were first.
      2. ‘tony Hollywood brothers’ – know any?
      3. Don’t know. What’s it telling you?
      4. Morgan is never out of style. Can’t say the same for your ‘brothers’.

      • rhkroell
        September 24, 2017, 6:28 pm

        Marnie:

        1. Thanks. I’ll take that as a compliment.
        2. By using the term “brothers,” I meant: black (or African-American) men. By using the term “tony Hollywood brothers,” I meant: stylish/chic “brothers” in the public imaginary (of privileged non-black men/women who by and large have never known any African-American men, I would think, except indirectly through the mainstream mass media as celebrities). Guys like: Morgan Freeman, Will Smith, Jamie Fox and not guys like: Tupac Shakur, Spike Lee, Ice Cube, Mike Tyson).
        3. It’s telling me that I don’t like Morgan Freeman because he seems kind of lame in trying to be posh/cool/sexy/swank/trendy.
        4. I think fascists look much better in black leather.

      • Marnie
        September 25, 2017, 12:01 am

        1. You can have it. .
        2. Most everyone knows the term ‘brothers’. Too black or not black enough, black folks just can’t make some folks happy. So glad they don’t give a damn.
        3. He is sexy, no matter how old. .
        4. No change to original #4.

      • Keith
        September 25, 2017, 5:08 pm

        MARNIE- “3. He is sexy, no matter how old. .”

        Stand by your man come hell or high water? If watching the despicable agitprop video I linked doesn’t cause you to re-evaluate your opinion of Morgan Freeman, then you are part of the problem.

      • Mooser
        September 25, 2017, 8:13 pm

        “If watching the despicable agitprop video I linked doesn’t cause you to re-evaluate your opinion of Morgan Freeman…”

        “Keith”, you are doing the right thing, “Marnie” has got to choose between you and Morgan Freeman, once and for all.

      • Marnie
        September 26, 2017, 12:27 am

        Wow Keith. What a lame ass thing to say. I didn’t see it before and now definitely won’t look at it. Nice job!

      • echinococcus
        September 26, 2017, 1:15 am

        Stand by your man…

        Nah… men pass, the Party remains.

      • Marnie
        September 26, 2017, 4:00 am

        Why bashing Morgan Freeman, of all people, is suddenly the rage in …
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/why-bashing-morgan-freeman-of-all-people-is-sudd

        “Morgan Freeman’s honey-kissed baritone has narrated dozens of documentaries and public announcements in the Oscar-winner’s long Hollywood career.

        But the 80-year-old star’s tenure in the business probably failed to prep him for the Russian reaction that greeted a two-minute online video he recorded recently for a group hoping to keep alive concerns over Kremlin meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

        Freeman is being portrayed as a tool of the U.S. establishment trying to bring down Trump, and as a man suffering from a “Messianic complex” from movie roles playing God and the president of the United States.

        A “#StopMorganLie” hashtag is circulating aimed at discrediting the actor.”

        Unbelievable. Morgan Free-man is fine as long as he dances to the right tune. I hope this doesn’t keep him awake at night. Lord knows, trying to make liberal white folks happy is a thankless, fucked up job. Ask Barack Obama!

        Sadly, LeBron James is right: ‘Being black in America is tough’ – The …
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/sadly-lebron-james-is-right-being-black-in-america-…

        LeBron James: Despite money, admiration and fame, ‘being black in …
        https://www.cbssports.com/…/lebron-james-despite-money-admiration-and-fame-bein…

        Yeah. You piss off the wrong white guy and find yourself knee deep in it.

      • Keith
        September 26, 2017, 11:52 am

        MARNIE- “Wow Keith. What a lame ass thing to say. I didn’t see it before and now definitely won’t look at it. Nice job!”

        Morgan Freeman is being justly criticized for that disgusting agitprop video he made promoting war with Russia and chocked full of neocon lies and you defend him WITHOUT watching the video? And it is my “lame ass” fault? A two minute video to see what has so upset so many? That says volumes about you. Nothing to be proud of. Freeman is also associated with the “Committee to Investigate Russia,” a group of “liberal” interventionists and neocon warmongers. And you defend this? Are you a Soros Democrat? The empire is on a rampage and you make light of this? The current imperial warmongering for hegemony is an existential threat to the survival of the species. I used to like Morgan Freeman and Rob Reiner, but after this if they came in a room I was in I would leave the room. And trying to twist this into something racial (piss off the wrong white guy) is so intellectually dishonest you should be ashamed. Seriously.

      • Marnie
        September 26, 2017, 12:28 pm

        “Are you a Soros Democrat? The empire is on a rampage and you make light of this? The current imperial warmongering for hegemony is an existential threat to the survival of the species. I used to like Morgan Freeman and Rob Reiner, but after this if they came in a room I was in I would leave the room. And trying to twist this into something racial (piss off the wrong white guy) is so intellectually dishonest you should be ashamed. Seriously.”

        I guess I’m knee deep in it.

      • Mooser
        September 26, 2017, 12:43 pm

        “I used to like Morgan Freeman and Rob Reiner, but after this if they came in a room I was in I would leave the room”

        And in a marked manner, too! Leaving their presence glaringly uncountenanced by your own.

  13. Marnie
    September 25, 2017, 4:37 am

    Talkback
    September 23, 2017, 4:18 pm

    JeffB: “This is starting to get too repetitive.”

    Bingo! The first honest statement to fly off yer fidgety fingertips. Most people, after an epiphany like the one you had would have icksnayed on the osting pay but not a diehard true believer like yourself. Apparently you aren’t paying close enough attention to what your Freudian finger slips are telling you and everyone else.

  14. Marnie
    September 25, 2017, 4:55 am

    Jeffybee

    “I’ll try again but I’m not sure how fruitful this is going to be if you insist on claiming I’m contradicting myself because I don’t agree with definitions and concepts that I’ve already explained multiple times I reject”

    Shorter Jeffy:
    Haven’t you cucks ever heard of alternative facts before! Sheesh!

    • Mooser
      September 27, 2017, 2:34 pm

      ” I’m contradicting myself because I don’t agree with definitions and concepts that I’ve already explained multiple times I reject”

      “”The question is,” said “Jeff b”, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

      ‘That’s a great deal to make one word not mean,’ “Marnie” said in a thoughtful tone.
      ‘When I make a word do a lot of work like that,’ said “Jeff b”, ‘I always pay it extra.'”

  15. Nathan
    September 25, 2017, 7:30 am

    Talkback – I read with great surprise your suggestion (somewhere on this page): “How about Jews apologizing for Zionism since 1919….” Some time ago, the USA apologized for the illegal annexation of Hawaii. I thought it was quite humorous. There is no suggestion of restoring Hawaii to its former independence under the rule of its own royalty. It seems that “we apologize” is good enough; i.e. everything stays the same through the uttering of empty words. I don’t recall if there was ever an apology for the theft of the entire continent and the destruction of the Indians (and all those silly John Wayne movies glorifying it all) – but if there had been such an apology, it surely was along the similar lines of apologizing for the annexation of Hawaii: “Gee, I’m sorry, and now everybody’s very, very happy”.

    Anyway, since you are demanding that Jews apologize for Zionism since 1919, I organized a little group of Jews (my grandchildren and me) and we wish to tell you something very important: “We apologize for Zionism since 1919”.

    • Talkback
      September 25, 2017, 9:33 am

      Very good, Nathan. Now to the second part. Ask your grandmother and yourself:

      How can we end Zionism and repatriate the Palestinians so as to facilitate a good relationship and rebuild the Palestininians trust in Jews?

      • Mooser
        September 25, 2017, 12:57 pm

        “How can we end Zionism…”

        All fads come to an end.

  16. JeffB
    September 25, 2017, 3:25 pm

    I’m going to address the stand alone criteria:

    Article 22 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
    To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant…. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

    • Talkback
      September 25, 2017, 7:07 pm

      Thank you JeffB for reminding us that people under Class-A-Mandates did not only have the right to self determination, but where even provisionally recognized as independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

      And thank you for also reminding us that the mandate for Palestine was a perversion of this mandate system and that the wishes of the Palestinians were never considered who prefered the US over GB.

      Please continue making a fool of yourself.

      • JeffB
        September 25, 2017, 7:43 pm

        @talkback

        Your claim was I made up the stand alone criteria. Claim falsified.

      • Marnie
        September 26, 2017, 12:28 am

        JeffB

        Time for your tantrum. Don’t do the thing with the remote though.

  17. Maghlawatan
    September 27, 2017, 9:21 am

    I think a number of irreversible trends are coming together
    1 Trump is destroying the US tax Base for the benefit of the 1%
    2. The financial system is in chaos
    3. The next crash is likely to involve the collapse of the dollar. See point 1
    4. Guess who will be blamed for the collapse
    5. Guess who won’t have political power to support Israel in DC.

    • catalan
      September 27, 2017, 11:11 am

      “4. Guess who will be blamed for the collapse” Mag
      The Jews, and for good reason – Cohn, Mnuchin, Kushner, Yellen and others are the chief architects of tax reform. Their quest for power at the expense of the poor knows no bounds. That’s why I have joined the brotherhood of Christians (the Unitarians); because that way I can both enjoy the fruits of tax reform – they will benefit those like me beyond my wildest expectations – and watch those that think they are special (i.e. “chosen”) be blamed. It’s a win-win and I highly recommend my approach to other Jews.

      • Maghlawatan
        September 27, 2017, 11:51 am

        Your mother must be so proud, Catalan. Are you a dentist from Long Island?

      • Mooser
        September 27, 2017, 12:13 pm

        “That’s why I have joined the brotherhood of Christians (the Unitarians”

        “catalan”, take a tip from me. I doubt they call it a “brotherhood” any more. More likely “fellowship” or possibly “faith community”.

        In the US, religion is a matter of personal choice. One may attend the church of his choice, and no one may attend your choice of a church!

      • Mooser
        September 27, 2017, 2:00 pm

        “Are you a dentist from Long Island?”

        “catalan” used to be an advocate of painless irredentistry. Now, he will transcend dental medication.

      • catalan
        September 27, 2017, 2:52 pm

        “Your mother must be so proud, Catalan. Are you a dentist from Long Island?” Mag
        Actually I don’t talk to my parents. Horrible people. Self absorbed and abusive (maybe something to do with their religion?) I am a businessman from New Mexico. I get to benefit immensely from tax reform AND to blame others for it. I am a happy man now that the Good News has arrived.

      • Maghlawatan
        September 27, 2017, 3:35 pm
      • Mooser
        September 27, 2017, 4:16 pm

        “Actually I don’t talk to my parents.”

        If your parents are still alive, you should attempt a reconciliation. Unitarian-Universalists, bless them, are big on that.

        Remember, “catalan”, if violent anti-Semitism should come, it most likely to be based on who is perceived as Jewish, not exempting the membership rolls of the Unitarian-Universalist fellowship, in which you no doubt are enrolled.

        Oh wait, “catty” I just checked, and the Unitarian-Universalists are not averse to multi-faith identities, like ‘Jewish Unitarian-Universalist. So your bridges aren’t burned.

  18. Maghlawatan
    September 27, 2017, 2:10 pm

    The Dem party is rotten. So is Zionism. If Hillel was around today he would be labeled a self hater and denied tenure.

  19. Maghlawatan
    September 27, 2017, 2:12 pm

    The Dems have fallen a long way since Reagan

    https://youtu.be/VsDqdGsoSW8

  20. Maghlawatan
    September 27, 2017, 2:18 pm

    JoshTPM is rabid, swiveleyedy when it comes to Israel. It is his Achilles heel. Heel, boy. Heel.

Leave a Reply