Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 9702 (since 2009-07-31 13:50:35)


Showing comments 2700 - 2601

  • You won't have Ethan Bronner to kick around anymore . . .
    • We will never see the NYT or any media put out the real explainations/reasons for all Iran War saber rattleing by Israel. Israel's games are always about what they get out of the US.....a war to take out a regional threat to their desired hedgemony--or more money-- more favors. Bascially the same manufacturing Jewish hysterica and mass propaganda to create political pressure to aid them in the same kind of blackmail and con games Israel has always practiced on the US.

      Yousef Munayyer , explains how Netanyahu is hedging his bets in the 2012 election.
      Last Modified: 09 Feb 2012 15:24

      Netanyahu knows that if Israel went ahead and attacked Iran on its own before the election, he would put Obama in an extremely compromising position [GALLO/GETTY]

      Why Israel's rattling sabers

      Washington, DC - If Iran strikes Israel with a nuclear weapon, every member of my family living throughout Israel and Palestine could be killed or injured and my place of birth and ancestral homeland would likely be rendered uninhabitable. The scale of loss for me personally, and for humanity, would be immeasurable. Yet I have little fear.

      If one divorces the reactionary and emotional impulses from the rational assessments necessary for understanding geopolitics, it becomes rather clear to see that there is no persuasive argument supporting the possibility of an Iranian strike on Israel or a so-called pre-emptive strike on Iran that makes sense.

      Many of those in support of an Israeli or American strike on Iran will tell you that reason does not apply to the assessment of Iran's behaviour as the Islamic Republic's ideological commitment is paramount. Adherents of such thinking, like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will have us believe that Iran is akin to Nazi Germany and that it is anti-Semitism that fuels their desires.

      Who is responsible for US-Iran tensions?
      Most analysts, myself included, however, look at Iran's past behaviour as the best indicator of its future decision-making and note the many steps the Iranian regime has taken to ensure regime survival and act rationally as a political power in the region.

      Iran's use of a nuclear weapon against Israel would assure its destruction, as Israel could launch any of the hundreds of nuclear weapons it has and the United States could use some of the 5,000 they have as well. Not only would Iran's destruction be assured if it struck Israel, but again, if it did so, it could kill millions of Palestinians and wipe out one of Islam's holiest sites in Jerusalem.

      The advocates for war would have you believe that the Islamic Republic hates Jews more than it loves Muslims. They might also note that Palestinians are mostly Sunnis and Iranians are Shia so Iran, which is locked in a regional sectarian battle, wouldn't think twice to strike. Yet some of these same Iran hawks argue that Iran is joining forces with al-Qaeda, an exclusively Sunni organisation, in its efforts across the region. In short, Iran hawks are trying to have it both ways as most conveniently supports their bellicose plans.

      None of these arguments for striking Iran makes any sense and still the arguments and the headlines that accompany them bear a striking resemblance to those that preceded the war on Iraq. We all know how that turned out - chaos, casualties, and with Iran very much involved
      in the running of Iraq.

      Israeli strike on Iran

      A recent report noted that former senior White House official, Dennis Ross, who is known for his closeness to the Israelis, estimated an Israeli strike on Iran could come in the next nine months.

      In about nine months, the US will hold a general election to decide who shall be its President and all the noise about striking Iran could have more to do with American domestic politics than any real or perceived threat to the Israelis.

      It is no secret that the right-wing government in Israel led by Netanyahu would prefer a new US president in January 2013. This is not simply because Netanyahu had some tense moments with President Obama, but also because in a second term Obama would not face the type of electoral constraints he faces in his first term.

      It is no secret that US Presidents who have engaged in Israeli-Palestinian peace-making have been most active in their second terms as Bill Clinton was at Camp David and George W Bush was in Annapolis. Those that were particularly active in first terms - Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush - were defeated. Netanyahu does not want an unrestrained Obama demanding he halt settlement expansion in 2013. He'd rather have Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich as they are more likely to be more susceptible to the pro-Israel pressures AIPAC is apt to apply.

      Netanyahu also knows that if Israel went ahead and attacked Iran on its own before the election, he would put Obama in an extremely compromising position. Obama does not want to get into a war with Iran, nor should any American as it is completely against American interests, but Obama also knows that should Israel go it alone, he'd be obligated to participate lest he appear weak before the electorate and a Republican opponent who'd be more than happy to attack Obama on what would immediately become a major international crisis before the election.

      The spectre of an Israeli strike on Iran will have Obama asking Netanyahu what he can do to change Netanyahu's mind and put off the strike to say, at least after November. Netanyahu's response might be something like, "Mr President, I thought you'd never ask!"

      From this position, Netanyahu can ask for specific guarantees, similar to the ones George W Bush made, which Obama does not recognise, about Israel's retention of major settlement blocs in any deal with the Palestinians. He could ask for guarantees about the future of Jerusalem, which he wants to keep in violation of international law, and the Jordan Valley in the West Bank, over which he seeks to maintain a long-term military presence, rendering a would-be Palestinian state dead on arrival.

      No one benefits from Israel actually striking Iran, except for the military industrial complex, but the Netanyahu government has a great deal to gain from hanging the possibility of a unilateral strike ominously over the head of President Obama before an election. They are hedging their bets for November in the hopes that they will either get a first-term Republican facing domestic constraints that prevent him from pressuring Israel, or a docile Obama, who has already given
      away the house on Jerusalem and settlements.

      Don't be surprised if news of such guarantees emerges prior to November, perhaps even as early as the March AIPAC policy conference, where Obama is expected to speak.''
      link to

      Coincidently Israel, who earlier claimed they had a 2 billion surplus in their treasury, is now claiming their budget is so strained that it will affect their military. And gee they just happen to be 3 billion in the hole toward what they need--even with the current US 3 billion each year.
      Look for some extra billions emergency aid to Israel as part of the bribe Obama will have to give.

      link to
      Report: Israeli military strapped for cash

      link to
      IDF to fire 700 career personnel
      The Israel Defense Forces say budget cuts mean layoffs, less training, and cancelling procurements of weapons systems.

      Iron Dome, career officers on chopping block after IDF funding shortfall

      Jewish Telegraphic Agency - ‎Feb 12, 2012‎
      JERUSALEM (JTA) -- The Israeli military reportedly will make serious cutbacks due to a shortfall in funds. Despite a government decision last month not to make a drastic cut in the defense budget in order to pay for new social benefits, the department

      IDF to ground warplanes, freeze Iron Dome production over budget woes

      Haaretz - ‎Feb 12, 2012‎
      Military officials say army missing NIS 3.7 billion from promised budget; top officer: measures could severely damage Israel's preparedness for war. By Amos Harel Tags: IDF Iron Dome The Israel Air Force may stop the production of the Iron Dome and

      link to

    • It's possible this Jewish woman from the NYT could be objective about Israel and I/P. But the percentages are against the NYT picking a Jew neutral on Israel considering the track record the NYT has in appointing ones like Bronner with obvious conflicts. ..that they knew about before they assigned him.

      The NYT isn't a serious 'news' paper anyway, it writes to keep the mostly disinterested masses Ruderon admitted. So ho hum, nothing changed.

  • New book explores the history of 'New Jewish Agenda'
    • "And if your unfamiliar with the era and its official persecution of Jews, perhaps you should read a book on the subject.

      Why should I read a book on the persecution of the Jews? We'v got you to tell us about it.
      Trying to get up to speed on the 1700's I am right now reading a history of the French Revolution. Consider my amazement when I discovered that Jews went up and Catholics went down and were the ones persecuted in that Revolution, churches and their property confiscated, priest and adherents killed and hanged or beheaded, people made to convert or else.

    • "The myth of continuous Jewish victimhood is one of the weapons in the Zionist arsenal, and it must not go unchallenged.".....notatall

      I agree. I'd like to see what kind of oppression of Jews they are talking about prior to the German aberration. With some specific examples of how Jews were oppressed or persecuted in the 1700 and 1800's in England, France and European countries.
      I am not talking about typical prejudices in societies, I talking about official oppression and persecution of Jews in those years.
      I am not familiar with that era.

    • "At the very birth of the Palestinians' catastrophe lies antisemitism, the force that created the Jewish search for a modern state."

      Nope, it didn't. Sorry, but you can't shift the blame onto anti semitism in this one.
      Anti semitism created the 'idea' of a Jewish State, true.
      But zionist 'chose' a location for their state that they knew full well had inhabitants they intended to displace. And that's what they did...continue to do.
      They alone are responsible for their actions and Israel's.
      No anti semites made them do what they've done in Palestine.
      The Palestines catastrophe lies with zionist and Israel, not anyone else.
      So, nice try but no cigar.

    • Inanna,

      I don't freally requent the left (or the right) sites or pay much attention to them any more. But my impression of lefty liberals is they are very pc and touchy feely about everyone's right to their identities and religion and so forth so it's hard to imagine them conflating the religion Judaism with zionism Israel. But maybe some have and I just haven't seen it.
      Appears to me on here at least the more liberal MD's do the opposite.

    • "If someone talks about “anti-semitism on the left” I want to know exactly what he means"

      Me too. I'm still waiting to find out what anti semitism on the left he's referring to. Without some example I have no idea what he means.

    • "“The Zionist movement has included elements of racism from its early days, such as the claim that Palestine was ‘a land without a people for a people without a land.’ Major Zionist factions have implemented conscious, intentional racist policy. Regardless of individual Zionists’ intentions, Zionism as a whole has had racist & oppressive results for the Palestinian people.”

      LOL. I don't think 'diplomatic' speak is necessary.

      Why don't we just say Zionist attacked and ran off the non Jewish people of Palestine, stole their land and resources 63 years ago and continues to use violence on any Palestine resistance to the stealing of their homes and land to this day.

      See? You can describe it in one sentence. People will get what it is.

    • I talking in the sense of zionism is not " the 'definition" of racism.
      To keep straight the word game players on the zionism=racism.
      Because they like to play the confusion game.

      Yes, zionism in Israel is racist.
      I haven't read enough of Herzl to know if along with ' separatism' zionism originally also included racist policies, since it envisioned only Jews living with Jews.
      Which is I think is what the objectors to zionism=racism are harping on....that zionism =racism" implies the basis or reason for zionism' was racist from it's beginning.
      Really it's a waste of time to argue what zionism 'was' in the 1800's.
      It is what it is today, and if Israel is zionism then zionism now is in practice racist.

    • Yea, I think we getting into silly land here on word play.

      It's not Zionism IS Racism.
      It's Zionism (Israel) is being racist, practicing racist policies.

    • I still want to know where all the anti semitism on the left is.
      All I can figure that's being said by the article is that liberals are anti Israel or anti zionist Israel and so they are anti semitic.
      What am I missing here?

    • MHughes,

      You' lost me, you'll have to re explain that to me...I' m not getting what you're saying about what I said. Here are the most accepted defintions concerning what we are talking about:

      Definition of PREJUDICE
      (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

      Definition of RACISM
      1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
      Racism is popularly associated with various activities that are illegal or commonly considered harmful, such as extremism, hatred, xenophobia, exploitation, separatism, racial supremacy, mass murder (for the purpose of genocide), genocide denial, vigilantism (hate crimes, terrorism),


      The definition used in anti-racist circles is the accepted sociological definition (which is commonly used in academic research, and has been used for more than a decade now): "racism is prejudice plus power". What this means is anyone can hold "racial prejudice" -- that is, they can carry positive or negative stereotypes of others based on racial characteristics.
      'Being racist' means you have the power or institutional power to act on your racial prejudices and do so.

      It really doesn't matter what zionism ''was". Whether it's desire to seperate themselves from non Jewish others, involved any "prejudices" against non Jews or was only for the protection of Jews against anti semitism or some of both.

      What I think is, Israel as a zionist state ''Practices racism'' today within Israel.
      Not to mention what they do in Palestine...whatever anyone wants to call that.

      BTW....I drank your latte.LOL

    • What is the anti semitism of the Left?
      I have no idea what that is. Unless it's the fact that some leading individuals in the I/P issue are liberals for human rights principles.
      And why the concentration on the Left?
      I'm not part of the left, I'm sort of middle of the road politically and I see zionism in it's beginning in Israel and as it has been carried out in Israel as racist, or separatist if one likes that term better.

      The zionist have a crazy argument, particularly where it concerns anti semitism. They support/ believe in a separatist majority ethnic or religious state for a select group because they believe all non Jews are inherently bad and could holocaust Jews again any day now unless they have a state where they can self determine.
      And then they turn around and tell the non Jewish anti semite world it should embrace them, love them and support them for this, for their separateness and their belief in non Jew everyone else's badness.

      It's so bizarre. It's down right weird.

  • Israel bulldozes Palestinian community center, making way for a 'City of David' visitor center
  • UN official condemns Israel's 'strategy of Judaization' throughout Israel/Palestine
    • False Flag, False flag

      link to

      Israelis injured but identites and extent can't be revealed due to security. LOL
      Iran did it, Iran did it. LOL

      And in other Israeli pranks...did you know that Palestine is now aligned with Iran? Yep Nettie says so.
      Iran and Palestine now twin Hitlers going to destroy Israel.

    • I don't know about Judaisation- but I am ready to do some Mafia-cation on the Israel firsters.

      link to

      Will AIPAC and Bibi get their war?
      Does Netanyahu really want a war on Iran, or does he want to prove that no one could stop him if he did?
      MJ Rosenberg
      "Still, the conventional wisdom holds that it can, because this is an election year and the assumption is that no-one will say no to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
      War enthusiasm will rise to a fever pitch by March, when AIPAC holds its annual policy conference. Netanyahu will, if the past is any indication, bring the crowd of 10,000 to its feet by depicting Iran as the new Nazi Germany and by coming very close to stating that only war can stop these new Nazis. Other speakers will say the same. The few who mention the idea of diplomacy will be met with stony silence.
      From the convention centre, 10,000 delegates will be dispatched to Capitol Hill with two or three "asks" for members of Congress. One will, no doubt, be that "containment" of a nuclearised Iran be ruled off the table (leaving war as the only remaining option should Iran get the bomb). Another will likely be that the US stop all dealings with the Palestinian Authority should Hamas and Fatah permanently reconcile. A third could apply either to Iran or Palestine and will inevitably demand fealty to whatever Netanyahu's policy of the moment happens to be. I've sat in on those meetings where the AIPAC "asks" are developed, and it was always clear that the substance didn't matter all that much.
      The goal of the "asks" is ensuring that Congress follow the script. Invariably at least one of these AIPAC goals will be put into legislative language and quickly pass both chambers of Congress. In fact, usually the "ask" is already in legislative form, so that the AIPAC citizen lobbyists can simply demand that their legislators sign on as co-sponsors (if they haven't already done so). Once the AIPAC bill has the requisite number of co-sponsors, the House and Senate leadership brings it to the floor where it passes with few dissenters.
      All hell breaks loose if a member of Congress should object.
      Speaking out
      One member of Congress has actually described what happened when she voted no on an AIPAC "ask". Representative Betty McCollum (Democrat - Minnesota) refused to support a bill (opposed by the State Department) that would have essentially banned all US contacts with Palestinians. AIPAC was not pleased with her recalcitrance.
      In a letter to AIPAC executive director, Howard Kohr, McCollum described what happened next. In short, she was threatened by an AIPAC official from her district, called a "terrorist supporter" and warned that her behaviour "would not be tolerated". In response, McCollum told AIPAC not to come near her office again until it apologised.

      McCollum was not, of course, the only legislator threatened that way. She is, however, the only one in memory who went public.
      As one who worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years, I know that many, if not most, legislators who vote with AIPAC complain about its strong-arm tactics - but only in private. In fact, some of the most zealous defenders of Netanyahu and faithful devotees of the lobby complain most of all. Among staff, AIPAC's arrival in their offices during the conference is a source of dread. Hill staff, much like legislators themselves, like to think they are perhaps a little important. AIPAC eliminates that illusion. Although AIPAC calls its requests "asks", they are, in fact, "tells" - and "no" is not a permissible response. (Staffers who like AIPAC, and there are a few, tend to work with it hand-in-glove, which is how AIPAC invariably knows what is going on even before the elected representatives do.)

    • The UN has condemned this for 60 years. Wake me when they actually do something.

  • Shit Zionists say
    • I don't personally know any either but I see their stuff on the net....their favorite seems to be 'God will curse America if we don't support the Jews' and God will destroy America if we let Israel be destroyed or Americ's survival depends on Israel and other assorted twisted and made up bible babble.

    • LOL...those quotes are hysterical.
      You need some by the christo zios too, they are really wild.

  • Randa Adnan: The world must intervene to save my husband
    • "Doesn't that violate his rights"

      Palestines in Israeli prisons have rights? lol...I don't think so.

    • This maddens me . Israel wants this man to die. They could have easily put him on a feeding tube weeks ago.
      Sick fricking animals. The judge even "postponed" his hearing--hoping he dies I guess before they got around to one .
      What kind of humans watch a man shrivel up and die when they have the means to force to feed him intravenously.

  • Husband of 'NYT' Jerusalem correspondent calls for attack on Iran
    • My list of Israel firsters is getting longer and longer. I am running out of legal pads.
      AIPAC says it has 100,000 members.
      Just how many Israel firsters are there?
      Shuld we count the christo whackos?

  • AIPAC member identified as Abileah assailant during Netanyahu speech to Congress
    • “Something wicked this way comes…”

      Something could.
      I have previously put down the possibility of a serious outbreak against Jews because of Israel first policies but lately I have reconsidered. And not entirely due to the zionist and Israel issue but because of and in concert with the dominance of political fanatical and special interest in general that has percolated to the surface in an "in your face way' with no embarrassment or pretense about the extreme policies they advocate.
      What made me start rethinking was lately I have been reading Shelby Foote's 'The Civil War', probably the best two volumes ever written encompassing every aspect, and particularly the human aspect, of the Civil War. Foote puts you in the minds of brothers who fought brothers, and cousins who fought and killed cousins, those who fought for their land, those who fought for ideology, those who warred for greed..all those different motivations were part of that war.
      So although I think it would take something extreme for a violent movement against Jews or civil war between fractions in this country I don't totally discount it when I consider our past.
      And I expect the extremes, the special interest and the fanatics to keep pushing the rest of us to our limits so I am not making any bets on possibilities any more.

    • "Something happens....then you make a choice and take a side"....
      Graham Green, 'The Quiet American"

    • "It is expected that peaceful protesters will challenge AIPAC’s policies of supporting Israel’s ongoing crimes against the Palestinian people and its threats of attacking Iran.

      The AIPAC opposers might be peacful but I wouldn't count on the AIPAC'ers being peaceful. It's always ladies getting attacked at these events. Are there more women than men involved in opposing AIPAC?
      I hope they raise a big crowd for this.

  • The Israel Lobby on campus in Illinois: A challenge for BDS
    • Actually David the case of Iran is the best one you can offer for your position.
      It's also the best one for why the US hadn't previously done a regime change in the ME and none since until the exception of Bush Jr. dragging exiled Kaziar back into Afghan to install him as ruler.
      Iran was a spectular failure. Just as Afghan is now a spectular failure.
      Israel was not the factor behind that one, Britian was--because the secular dem ruler of Iran at that time had nationalized Iran oil industry and cut the UK firms out of 40% of their profits. The US joined in a plot with the Brits to install the Shah to recoup the UK oil contracts and be repaid in kind. The only thing the Israelis had to do with it was they provided some agents in return for future considerations under the Shah. However this example that you could have presented still doesn't explain or cover for the lobby on other US ME actions.

    • I hate to have to keep bringing the lobby facts into this.
      Particularly facts as given by those who use to work for the lobby and know it intimately and who also worked on Capitol Hill and knows how it all operates.
      Cause it looks like I am picking on Dan but it can't be helped.

      MJ Rosenberg

      "McCollum described what happened next. In short, she was threatened by an AIPAC official from her district, called a "terrorist supporter" and warned that her behaviour "would not be tolerated". In response, McCollum told AIPAC not to come near her office again until it apologised.

      Read more from MJ Rosenberg:

      McCollum was not, of course, the only legislator threatened that way. She is, however, the only one in memory who went public.

      As one who worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years, I know that many, if not most, legislators who vote with AIPAC complain about its strong-arm tactics - but only in private. In fact, some of the most zealous defenders of Netanyahu and faithful devotees of the lobby complain most of all. Among staff, AIPAC's arrival in their offices during the conference is a source of dread. Hill staff, much like legislators themselves, like to think they are perhaps a little important. AIPAC eliminates that illusion. Although AIPAC calls its requests "asks", they are, in fact, "tells" - and "no" is not a permissible response. (Staffers who like AIPAC, and there are a few, tend to work with it hand-in-glove, which is how AIPAC invariably knows what is going on even before the elected representatives do."

    • "Israel has its own interests, as do all mercenaries. But it’s chosen, above all, to be a mercenary for U.S. imperial interests."...Green

      I have been thru this numerous times and never get an answer from you 'it's not the Lobby" give me an EXAMPLE of any mercenary interest Israel has fulfilled for the US Imperial interest.
      Unless your opinons come from a Chomsky and Hasbara comic book you're bound to have some evidence and factual documentation, proof of what Israel has produced for the US imperial project.

      Is it a fact that Israel caused the Arab embargo of oil to the US in 1973? Yes.
      How do we know this? Because the Arabs said they were embargoing us because of Israel's war. If you aren't old enough to remember it look it up.

      Has Israel ever secured any oil interest for the US. No. In fact the US under the MOU of 73 has to guarantee Israel US oil becuase the ME countries won't. In fact in the last 3 years we have had to ship US refined fuel to Israel 5 times.

      Did Israel's attack on Lebanon secure any US interest. No. It produced no material benefit to the US and cost us in UN donations to repair oil slick environmental damages caused by Israel bombing of Lebanon fuel depots.

      Did the US get any control of Iraq's oil after a trillion dollar war? No. In fact US companies got one contract out of 7 contracts let for Iraq oil production, the rest went to the EU, Russia and China oil production companies.

      Did the US get any resources or material benefit from Egypt during Mubarak? No. Israel got gas at reduced prices, the US got and gets nothing for it's aid to Egypt except the peace agreement for Israel by Carter that initiated the aid.

      Did the US get any benefit from changing Egypt's free trade zones and imposing the condition that their cotton products must contain 12% Israeli made products if they were to be imported as free trade material into the US. No, the US got nothing from that, no change in price, no change in amount,no up in US exports to Egypt, nothing ,nada, zip, zero. The only thing that changed and the one who benefited from that US requirement was Israel.

      Surely you who claim that the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with our support of Israel and that Israel serves the US can come up with ONE real example of Israel ACTUALLY producing or securing some mercernary interest for the US. Especially a better one than a shared interest in preventing Arab nationalism when resentment of Israel is one of the inspirations and rallying cries for Arab nationalism.
      If US imperialism was goal and actually "controlling" the ME for oil or any other reason was the goal the US would be an ally of Iran, who 'is' a major influencer in the region and 'could secure some real US oil interest, just as it does with Saudi and UAE...instead of Israel.

      Come on...if you want to prove it's not the Israel lobby --because that is the claim you are pushing , that the Lobby has nothing to do with our support of Israel ---then give me a concrete factual example of what Israel has secured for, how it serves the US Imperial project.
      Otherwise you're full of crap.

    • "I don’t for a minute belive that someone like Sheldon Adelson or Michael Kotzin believes for one second that anything that they support would possibly undermine U.S. interests as they understand them–or that USFP would be conducted in a a manner that undermines U.S. interests. They’ve completely absorbed the idea that what is good for Israel is good for the U.S.; or that what is good for Jews is good for western civilization."...David

      Wrong. What those like Adelson believe is that Jews and Israel come before the US . What they also believe along with this, and what they think gives them protection and safety in promoting the Jews and Israel first, is that the vast power and resources of the US can withstand any drain on it or damage to it caused by Israel.
      That is not the same as believing our interest are identical.
      It is the same attitude and belief as Eric Alterman expressed when he said....that in a toss up between Israel and the US interest, America would have to take the hit because it could withstand it better than Israel.
      They also believe that the US government will ignore and could control or contain any citizens or public outburst or protest against Israel or their influence or activities so they feel protected in their very public activities and agenda.
      Whether the Adelsons are justified in believing these things over the long term we have yet to find out.

    • " My view, as I’ve stated before, is that there is general consistency on an economic level between elite “state interests” in the U.S. and Israel, based on both economic and military relationships. I also think that Max Ajl and others you’ve mentioned, based on the work Nitzan-Bichler, etc., make a compelling case that both military and oil interests (petrodollar-weapondollar) benefit from a certain level of “instability” in the region. My agreement with Chomsky that Israel is accurately viewed as a strategic asset by elites still stands."...David Green

      I would challenge the idea that there is some "intersection" of US elite interest and Israel elite interest that is responsible for support of Israel. There is a US elite interest and an Israel elite interest --but there is nothing Israel 'offers" that US elites can't find elsewhere if you are talking about arrangements where US elites profit.
      You'll need to give me some concrete examples of where US Elites have profited by supporting Israel and gained anything from it they couldn't have gotten in some other country.
      If you talking about elite 'businesses"--both the US arms industry and US pharmaceutical industry opposed the US-Israel free trade agreement as detrimental to their interest.
      Provide a specific example of how US elites in general profit from supporting Israel. It can't be one where the "already existing" US support provided Elites a 'opportunity' after the fact---it has to be where a elite urged support of Israel for a specific profit not obtainable elsewhere.

    • "What that means for Americans is constant warfare on behalf of an extremely dangerous, racist and proto-fascist foreign country" ............... ..T Rutherford

      I am afraid you are right. No conspiracy theory necessary. The whole invasion web is traceable. Was just looking again at AIPAC and JINSA's campaign to convert ethnic niches and minorities to Israel loyalty--no sense pretending this is benign. It is a deliberate invasion and takeover of the US for Israel.

  • Hasbara PennBDS wrap-up: Pro-Israel students are ignorant
    • "Self-determination is the right of a nation to sovereignty. Jews are a tiny minority in the US and UK. They are free citizens, but are ultimately held to the decisions made by a greater majority."

      Well Shakti, should every ethnic have a nation for self determination like the Jews or zionist do?
      How would it work if the US sent all Jews to Israel, all Blacks back to Africa, all Asians back to Asia and so on, and just kept white Europeans so white Europeans had their own self determination not affected by laws for minorities and such.
      Surely if you think it is necessary for Jews to have nation in order to be able to practice self determination then you think others have that right and need also.
      Exactly what have Jews in Israel self determined?

  • MSNBC: Israel trains Iranian terror group to kill nuclear scientists
    • The main troll at Walt's is a poster calling himself USMarineSniper. He makes 2 wild, idiotic and profane comments to every one comment by someone else.
      I was trying to think of some way of getting rid of him. It's illegal to impersonate a military member, like wearing a uniform ,but not necessarily illegal to call yourself one on the net. Some young guy was arrested in Calif for pretending to be a marine. However under the possibility that if someone is claiming a identity on the net they might also be making false claims in real life then there are some people who might be interested enough to take a look at it and contact Walt, although I don't know if he would reveal the guy's IP.
      Anyway these people are the ones who might be interested enough to check out his crap:

      link to

      United States Marine Corps Scout/Sniper Association
      PO Box 762
      Quantico, VA 22134

    • Let me quote some of that just in case people don't go to the link. It's important. People need to see how politicians are the real terrorist.

      link to

      ''One of the most under-reported political stories of the last year is the devoted advocacy of numerous prominent American political figures on behalf of an Iranian group long formally designated as a Terrorist organization under U.S. law. A large bipartisan cast has received substantial fees from that group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and has then become their passionate defenders. The group of MEK shills includes former top Bush officials and other Republicans (Michael Mukasey, Fran Townsend, Andy Card, Tom Ridge, Rudy Giuliani) as well as prominent Democrats (Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark). As The Christian Science Monitor reported last August, those individuals “have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK.” No matter what one thinks of this group – here is a summary of its activities – it is formally designated as a Terrorist group .

      Yet here we have numerous American political figures receiving substantial fees from a group which is legally designated under American law as a Terrorist organization. Beyond that, they are meeting with the Terrorist leaders of that group repeatedly (Howard Dean told NPR last year about the group’s leader, Maryam Rajavi: “I have actually had dinner with Mrs. Rajavi on numerous occasions. I do not find her very terrorist-like” and has even insisted that she should be recognized as Iran’s President, while Rudy Giuliani publicly told her at a Paris conference in December: “These are the most important yearnings of the human soul that you support, and for your organization to be described as a terrorist organization is just simply a disgrace”). And, after receiving fees from the Terrorist group and meeting with its Terror leaders, these American political figures are going forth and disseminating pro-MEK messages on its behalf and working to have it removed from the Terrorist list.

      Then there’s long been the baffling question of where MEK was getting all of this money to pay these American officials. Indeed, the pro-MEK campaign has been lavishly funded. As the CSM noted: ”Besides the string of well-attended events at prestigious American hotels and locations, and in Paris, Brussels, and Berlin, the campaign has included full-page advertisements in The New York Times and Washington Post — which can cost $175,000 apiece.” MEK is basically little more than a nomadic cult: after they sided with Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, they were widely loathed in Iran and their 3,400 members long lived in camps in Iraq, but the Malaki government no longer wants them there. How has this rag-tag Terrorist cult of Iranian dissidents, who are largely despised in Iran, able to fund such expensive campaigns and to keep U.S. officials on its dole?

      All of these mysteries received substantial clarity from an NBC News report by Richard Engel and Robert Windrem yesterday. Citing two anonymous “senior U.S. officials,” that report makes two amazing claims: (1) that it was MEK which perpetrated the string of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and (2) the Terrorist group “is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service.” These senior officials also admitted that “the Obama administration is aware of the assassination campaign” but claims it “has no direct involvement.” Iran has long insisted the Israel and the U.S. are using MEK to carry out Terrorist attacks on its soil, including the murder of its scientists, and NBC notes that these acknowledgments “confirm charges leveled by Iran’s leaders” (MEK issued a statement denying the report).

      If these senior U.S. officials are telling the truth, there are a number of vital questions and conclusions raised by this. First, it would mean that the assurances by MEK’s paid American shills such as Howard Dean that “they are unarmed” are totally false: whoever murdered these scientists is obviously well-armed. Second, this should completely gut the effort to remove MEK from the list of designated Terrorist groups; after all, murdering Iran’s scientists through the use of bombs and guns is a defining act of a Terror group, at least as U.S. law attempts to define the term. Third, this should forever resolve the debate in which I was involved last month about whether the attack on these Iranian scientists constitutes Terrorism; as Daniel Larson put it yesterday: “If true, the murders of Iranian nuclear scientists with bombs have been committed by a recognized terrorist group. Can everyone acknowledge at this point that these attacks were acts of terrorism?”

      Fourth, and most important: if this report is true, is this not definitive proof that Israel is, by definition, a so-called state sponsor of Terrorism? Leaving everything else aside, if Israel, as NBC reports, has “financed, trained and armed” a group officially designated by the U.S. Government as a Terrorist organization, isn’t that the definitive act of how one becomes an official “state sponsor of Terrorism”? Amazingly, as Daniel Larison notes, one of the people who most vocally attacked me for labeling the murder of Iranian scientists as “Terrorism” and for generally arguing that Terrorism is a meaningless, cynically applied term — Commentary‘s Jonathan Tobin — yesterday issued a justification for why Israel should be working with Terrorist groups like MEK. As Larison wrote about Tobin’s article:

      In other words, Israeli state sponsorship of a terrorist group is acceptable because it’s in a good cause. . . . Because Israel is overreacting to a perceived threat from Iran, Tobin believes it is entirely defensible for Israel to partner with a recognized terrorist group. In other words, Tobin believes that terrorism is “entirely defensible” so long as it is committed by the right people and directed at the right targets. It’s as if he is going out of his way to vindicate Glenn Greenwald.

      Of course, as I documented in my last book, those who are politically and financially well-connected are free to commit even the most egregious crimes; for that reason, the very idea of prosecuting Giuliani, Rendell, Ridge, Townsend, Dean and friends for their paid labor on behalf of a Terrorist group is unthinkable, a suggestion not fit for decent company, even though powerless Muslims have been viciously prosecuted for far less egregious connections to such groups. But this incident also underscores the specific point that the term Terrorism is so completely meaningless, manipulated and mischievous: it’s just a cynical term designed to delegitimize violence and even political acts undertaken by America’s enemies while shielding from criticism the actual Terrorism undertaken by itself and its allies. The spectacle whereby a designated Terrorist group can pay top American politicians to advocate for them even as they engage in violent Terrorist acts, all while being trained, funded and aided by America’s top client state, should forever end the controversy over that glaringly obvious proposition.

      * * * * *
      This move to delist the MEK started about 5 years ago...first I saw of them was in 2005 in WP article about a big rally in DC for the MEK led by Bolton, Brownback, Schumer, Feith and the usual suspects. Last time I looked the MEK had killed 5 Americans. They use to target US ambassadors and US Military officers at overseas bases.

  • Where is the Bedouin Intifada?
    • "there’s a dissonance between the reality and its protrayal here. " ..Winnica

      Theres's no dissonance here. We all have Phd's in hasbara nuancing.
      The Israeli Arabs are better off than the US Blacks in the days of the KKK. But Israei Arabs are still in practice officially and legally discriminated against by Israel in many areas.
      We recognize this.
      As for your other problem, I'll have to look up the number of blacks killed by Jim Crowers and compare it to the number of unarmed Palestines shot in the head, imprisoned, killed by Israelis.
      I'll get back to you when I find a reliable source and you can get some typing practice by nuancing that comparasion.

    • Winnica,

      Your need to claim Jews or Israelis are innately superior to Arabs and others is actually proving the opposite.
      You're providing us the negatives you object to.

      Witness the stupidity of this statement:
      "Mya posted: If things are as awful as she says they are, there ought to be a Bedouin Intifada – yet there isn’t"

      Ah yes, the absence of a Bedouin intifada is proof they appreciate Israel.
      The absence of an American intifada against Israel is proof Americans don't resent Israel. Yea right.

    • Winnica says:
      Here’s another possible answer to the question about the lack of a Bedouin Intifada: Mya’s depiction isn’t true. Or rather, even if most of the facts may be, the larger picture is carefully ommited. The fact that literacy among Israel’s Arabs, Bedouin included, has skyrocketed since 1948, the life expectancy even more so, as well as the wealth per capita. Infant mortality is very low, especially when compared with most Arab societies. Career options are much better than they were in the “good old days”. There has to be a reason that large numbers of Israeli Bedouin men voluntarily serve in the IDF, including many who serve in career capacities.""

      So what is your point? Literacy has increased world wide acording to UNESCO. Literacy depends on availability on learning opportunities.
      So are you saying that Jewish Israelis-- who got their literacy/educations from "European created institutions" --have made the opportunities they got from others available to Arabs now?
      As far as life expectancy increasing that has to do mostly with money and health care availability.
      Imagine what the life expectancy for non Israeli Arabs would be if we gave them all money and aid we give Israel.
      Israel firster Cong. Ackerman earmarked 10 million for Israel hospitals in 2010 so if you're trying to claim some kind of superiority for Israelis you would have to give the credit to their agents in the US superior talent for siphoning off US taxpayer money to Israel.

  • Musings on Post-Apartheid Israel
    • @annie

      "For members of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox Gur sect, sex is a sin"
      lol...wonder how they intend to keep the faith going? artifical insemination?

    •'s another goodie to brighten your day. Assault charges filed against the AIPAC'er by Rae Abileah.

      AIPAC Member Assailant of Peaceful Demonstrator During Netanyahu's Speech to the U.S. Congress


      A recent response to a subpoena from the United States Capitol Police has revealed the main assailant of a peaceful demonstrator who was physically attacked and injured on May 24, 2011, to be Stanley Anthony Shulster, allegedly a member of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). According to the lawsuit, Mr. Shulster, a retired lawyer, admitted to assaulting Rae Abileah, a member of CODEPINK, in the House of Representatives while she protested the Israeli occupation of Palestine during the speech by Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel.
      The Capitol Police issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Shulster for this attack.

      Mr. Shulster's biography on the Jackson County, Oregon Republican Women website identifies him as "an Unpaid Lobbyist," and a "Volunteer in the Israel Defense Forces Medical Unit and a member of AIPAC." The bio states:
      "At the last AIPAC meeting in May of 2011 Stan was present to hear the
      stirring address that Prime Minister Netanyahu gave to Congress and he
      grabbed the woman who heckled the Prime Minister while he was speaking."

      Rabbi Shmuley Boteach also attested to the assault when he wrote in his
      blog, "The elderly gentleman to my right, whom I had been talking to just before the speech started, pulled the flag out of her hands, cupped his hands over her mouth, and assisted in subduing her." Additional witnesses have been identified by the U.S. Capitol Police.

      According to the complaint, Mr. Shulster grabbed the banner held by Ms.
      Abileah, used his hand to attempt to gag and suffocate Ms. Abileah, and
      yanked her head back, injuring her neck. As a result of the attack, Ms.
      Abileah sustained a neck strain, swollen neck and muscle strain, and has
      since suffered from frequent head and neck aches as well as emotional

      Ms. Abileah is a 29-year-old American Jew of Israeli descent, who works as the Co-Director of CODEPINK, a women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice organization that seeks to end U.S. wars and the U.S. funded occupation of Palestine.

      "I was shocked that the biography of the person who attacked me would brag about his use of violence. This lawless behavior echoes the routine actions of the Israeli government and military in carrying out violent acts daily against the Palestinian people.

      I am hopeful that my filing suit will be a clear signal to those who attempt to silence peaceful protesters, that they will be held accountable for their illegal actions," said Ms. Abileah.

    • Everyone practices BDS..each in their own way. Hooray.

      Rock musician Cat Power cancels Israel show, citing Israeli ...‎
      Washington Post - 2 hours ago
      JERUSALEM — American musician Cat Power has canceled her show in Israel, joining a list of artists shunning the country over its conflict with the

      Turks torpedo Israel Navy participation in NATO op‎
      Jerusalem Post - 5 hours ago
      By YAAKOV KATZ AND HERB KEINON 02/10/2012 05:39 Exclusive: Ankara prevents first instance of active Israeli participation in one of Western military

      'Anonymous' hacker group threatens 'reign of terror' against Israel‎
      Haaretz - 9 hours ago
      Group uploads video blaming Israel for committing 'crimes against humanity,' and criticizes its treatment of Palestinians.

  • 'Commentary' covers its eyes and makes Palestinians disappear
    • Exactly annie,......I haven't followed this whole conversation but one of the conditions the UN requires is that Palestine prove it has a 'unified" government for it to be "a recongized country"...naturally.
      So of course that has to include Hamas who controls Gaza as part of Palestine.
      Abbas and Hamas have been trying to unite for years off and on since the US threw out Hamas's election win.
      I hope they can get something that sticks....they have to if they are to go forward at UN.

    • I like Commentary writing their nonsense. It's good for us, the more absurd and biased the better. Let them encourage their extreme little cabal to a war with Americans and US mainline religions and literally everyone in the world.
      That's how we will popular demand that will swamp our politicians.


      link to

      Will Presbyterians Repudiate Church’s Hate for Israel and Jews?
      Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary 02.09.2012 - 7:00 AM

      To which the Presbyterians previously replied:

      "The truth is that the JCPA, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and other “pro-Israel” organizations do not desire open and free discussion about these issues in America, and when they don’t want to talk about the facts on the ground, they resort to slanderous smear campaigns.
      Part of their tactics, as outlined by the Tel Aviv-based Reut Institute, is to delegitimize any opposition to Israeli government policy by accusing those who disagree with it of engaging in anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and even anti-Semitic behavior. It is a campaign known as “delegitimizing the delegitimizers” and it has millions of dollars behind it.
      For too long pro-Israel groups in the United States have promoted a two-state solution even while Israeli policy insures that such a thing cannot possibly exist. Answering every false charge leveled against IPMN by these groups accomplishes nothing......paid “pro-Israel” lobbyists desperately fight to take back control of a debate they can no longer win through their bullying behavior"

      Just as Kalle Lasn of Adbusters said:

      link to

      ''I hate bullies. I hate bullies and I love freedom fights.
      So I’ve decided I’m not going to play that game anymore. I would like to now go on the offensive, and I would like to talk about AIPAC, and I’d like to talk about the New York Times and Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner and David Brooks, and I’d like to, above all, start popping these three bubbles. The people who feel that American foreign policy has been distorted by the neocons, by the media and by AIPAC, it’s time for us to stop arguing about it and start going on the offensive. Stop defending yourself and go on the offensive right now and start popping those three bubbles.
      The people who feel that American foreign policy has been distorted by the neocons, by the media and by AIPAC, it’s time for us to stop arguing about it and start going on the offensive. Stop defending yourself and go on the offensive right now and start popping those three bubbles. '

  • A lull on this site
    • "In such an environment, though, I think it would be inevitable that, at the least, a huge split would occur among the most influential Jewish leadership – "

      Thomson....a huge "public' split would be good.
      I guess my theory in the Israel issue is what it is on all other special interest. Namely, that will always be special interest trying to buy government. The politicians are suppose to be the gatekeepers against special interest trumping the people's interest and ruling government but obviously they aren't doing their jobs.
      Even if for instance we convinced the Jewish leadership to change their tune
      on Israel-US & I/P and they pressured congress for change--it would 'still' be their Jewish-Israel voices---still be a special interest segment speaking and having the influence on a issue that affects the rest of us, just with a different tune.
      There are all kind of groups out there working on Palestine, Jewish and gentile ones and joint ones and people going head to head on BDS with zionist activist on campus and zionist-anti zionist tit for tats flying around the blogsphere and so forth. We trying to convince the ordinary zionist and Israle firsters among us in the public isn't getting us anywhere and even if we did they aren't Aldeson or the Money that talks on Israel in DC.
      But we aren't really-really getting in the individual politician's faces. Confronting them in public and in print. Calling them names, denouncing them as Israel firster, or anti American or whatever is necessary to scare them into carrying out our will not theirs, their fringes and donors. I want to see the public eating the politicians lunch in public face to face at their campaign stops, by phone and fax, a general mad as hell up rising. A occupy AIPAC type revolt so big the media has to show it to the rest of the US.
      If we ever put the fear of God and voters into the politicians on Israel-firstism as "foreign" corruption we 'd be getting somewhere.
      When Obama or some GOP candidate on the campaign trail swears his allegiance to Israel I want people to shout him down and tell him to move to Israel and run for office there since that's who he represents.
      Will the public get there on Israel-US-I/P?....maybe... but something has to galvanize them to do it and that something will be some terrible event I am afraid.

    • Evidently there is something going on more than meets the eye. It started with the unjust stoning of Donald when he made his plea for civility, a message that he seemed to be also carrying on behalf of others."

      Phooy! What about my unjust stoning by the Donald. What about me, me,me,! Hahaha..
      After all I am the one he lied about..excuse me, where are my manners...the one whose comments he "mispresented" his 'civility' plea posting.

    • Thomson Rutherford says:
      February 19, 2012 at 12:25 am>>>>

      Totally agree with Rutherford once again.
      I would only suggest regarding this:

      3)"External pressure is perceived by American Jewish leaders, inducing their conversion to anti-Zionist or at least non-Zionist positions."

      That I think it is more likely politicians would succumb to this external pressure than would the American Jewish leaders, most of whom with any actual government influence are committed zionist.

    • "I used to go to the symphony in my town, but the last time I went — Mozart violin concerto — after the conductor was introduced, several screens on the wings of the stage flashed holocaust memorial messages and someone spoke a commentary about holocaust. It was very disturbing. "..teta

      That is sick.

    • "Blankfort makes perfect sense to me — most Chomsky followers don’t."...sean

      I can't take any more Chomsky. Those discussion are as worthless as asking
      Chomsky if there has ever been any event in the universe that wasn't caused by US imperilism.
      He has one fixed, immutable point which is the same for everything.

    • @Thomson Rutherford

      Where I am coming from also Thomson.
      Well said.

      I understand how MRW feels, the pilpul is wearing and we aren't going to bring about peace for Palestine or cure the Israel first political aberration in congress in our MW comment section. But gentile American voices, ones not emotionally attached to Israel, that can be more objective are necessary and do help others really understand our Israel issue.
      Hope MRW will chime back in when he feels like it, if not, will be a big lose to me personally and all of us I think.

    • Daniel,

      To keep it short-- I think everyone with an agenda that wants to propagandize or sell the public on something, be they corporations, ideologues within or outside the media, Israel firsters, any special interest----------that has any financial clout, influence, like minded friends with in the media etc. to do it with, does it.

      Listened to Fox News the other day just to see what they were selling and it was all day long Iran,Iran,Iran.....most of it inaccurate and fear mongering.
      In the Iran propagandizing in the media I suspect that it comes from Israel first interest, whatever neo's are sleeping with them and I don't know who else. Some might say the oil interest or the weapons industry see some profit in a war. What we do know is the US Military and the majority of the population is against a war or attack Iran.

    • I sort of miss witty. I don't see anything he said as worthy of banning.
      His beliefs weren't my cup of tea and he was exasperating 80% of the time to try and read. But he took all our beatings without attacking people personally that I ever saw.

    • Don't do it MRW. Stay. Push the envelope. Nothing to lose.

    • I am in agreement with Taxi, Dan, Danaa, Chu.
      We're in danger of being nothing but a bunch of handwringers here, dancing around with the concerned tearful Liberal zionist.
      We need spark! A War of Truth, not just ideas.
      Bring on the hard core zionist and Israel firsters and give us a chance to debunk their rationals and ideology for MW readers.
      We promise not to use profanity..:)

    • Inquiring minds want to know.
      Exactly why does the media want to lie?
      Ex....the claim that the US and Isr agree on Iran working toward nukes.
      Despite....all over the news last week and this, are the headlines that Mossad and the AIE and the US all agree Iran isn't building a nuke.
      Who wants the lie?
      Do the Jewish heads at the networks direct these lies?
      Do the neocons?
      Do the network advertisers direct these lies?
      Who stands to gain?


      Years ago, I always enjoyed the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour on PBS. Whether I agreed with the news analysis and commentaries or not, I always had the sense that the personal integrity of the two anchors was on the line at all times, and that there was some greater depth to the coverage than one would otherwise find on the major networks. This was the pre-CNN and Fox 24-hour news cycle era.

      It was from this mental image that I watched, in horror, as the same PBS News Hour last night delivered a typical neoconservative propaganda line, under the pretext of giving news.

      It was a short news update on the Iran situation, centered on the announcement of new U.S. sanctions against Iran.
      In the course of the report, the news anchor slipped in the formulation that the United States and Israel are in full agreement that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.

      Hold the phone! Yes, that has been the persistent mantra of every Netanyahu government mouthpiece for months and months, and it has been echoed in every American neocon propaganda front for even longer, dating back to the bad old days of Bush and Cheney.

      But, the truth is: In October 2011, the National Intelligence Council, the premier agency of the U.S. intelligence community, issued an update to the November 2007 NIE on Iran's nuclear program. Both the published/declassified 2007 study, and the classified 2011 study reached the same conclusion: Whatever work Iran was doing on weaponization was halted in late 2003, and has not resumed. Iran is engaged in enrichment, and is constantly improving their ballistic missile capabilities. But the vital part of any nuclear weapon program--the actual work on converting enriched uranium into a bomb--has been suspended for almost a decade, and the best U.S. intelligence community estimate is that it remains suspended.

      This is no light matter. And this is not something that is based on "leaked" information. While the content of the updated NIE has not been released in declassified form, as recently as last week, General James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, issued an annual global threat assessment, in which he summarized the NIE findings, noting that there is no evidence that Iran has resumed weaponization. Nor is there evidence that the Iranian leadership has made a decision to even pursue building a nuclear bomb.

      Back to my original point: The media, including the once-respected public broadcasting network, has gone over to the dark side on an issue that is too serious to let pass. We had the experience in the year leading into the Iraq invasion of a flood of neocon propaganda, about "thermonuclear mushroom clouds" and armageddon from Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Are we going to allow ourselves to be railroaded again into a war that would have far more devastating consequences than Iraq? At least some of our taxpayer dollars go to the funding of PBS. Don't we have a right to expect some degree of accuracy and honesty on matters of war and peace?

  • Leading Zionist historian was first to say 'Israel Firster'-- in 1960
    • Hey WJ, I call this woman a Israel- firster, what would you call her?

      US Affairs: Reaching for the Jewish vote Florida

      By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER 02/10/2012 16:26 With a Jewish population of 600,000, the Jewish vote is key in the swing Sunshine State. By REUTERS/Larry Downing

      HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA – During the depths of the Great Depression, Rose Nisenbaum’s bank refused to allow her to withdraw the $400 emergency fund she had spent her life carefully saving. So she decided to appeal to a higher authority: she wrote to the president, Franklin Roosevelt, much to the amusement of her family.

      Eight weeks later, everyone but Nisenbaum was shocked when she received a response from the White House. She was instructed to take take an enclosed letter to the bank. When she arrived and rapped on the window of the locked building, the manager inside waved her off. But when he saw the White House insignia on the envelope she pressed against the glass, he let her in, read the missive and promptly gave her the money.

      Her daughter, Ruth Lynn, was with her that day and still remembers it – and its lasting political message – well.

      “To us, president Roosevelt was a wonderful, wonderful man,” she recalls from her Florida home, “and we always voted Democrat.”

      But now, at age 89, Lynn plans to break the family tradition and cast a ballot against Democratic President Barack Obama this fall. At the top of her list of reasons is his attitude toward Israel.

      link to

    • "If a congressional representative on the Senate floor gave that 216 year-old speech from George Washington'...Chu

      Would you believe congress reads Washington's speech out loud on the house floor every year?
      They do.
      And none of them pay the slighest attention to what it says.

    • But as a phrase its use usually indicates animus towards Israel, not merely animus towards those who support Israel. And animus towards Israel sometimes includes animus towards Jews."......WJ"

      ..amd animus towards Jews sometimes includes animus toward Blacks and anumis towards Blacks sometimes includes animnus toward gays and animus toward gays sometimes includes.......well WJ, you see where I 'am going with this line of thought I hope.
      You can't control the langauge and even if you could you couldn't control the sometimes or someones. You chase ghost 99% of the time.

    • The term is a derogatory way of referring to people who take perfectly justified political positions. I call these people Americans and patriots, just like anyone else who takes a political position they believe is in the best interest in our country."

      oh gawd hopmi, that's such an old discredited rationalization, you have to be desperate to drag that one out again.
      American patriots?
      It might be possible that some with the I.Q of a cabbage truly "think" they are being patriots.
      So I'll call them cabbages instead of Israel firsters LOL.
      Although I really think the cabbage I.Q.s are more prevalent among the christian zio religious fanatics.

    • So do you mind if I call you an Iran-firster?"..hopmi

      You can, I don't care, but it's silly.
      I expect Iranians to be Iran -firsters, Israelis to be Israel firsters, Russians to be Russians firsters if they are citizens of those countries. It's normal national loyalty.
      For myself ( and probably most humans)----I am a Anti Bullies-Killers-Injustice-Oppressors of People -Firster, then I am a American-Firster. When America gets in the way of my First-Firster, then I go after bashing and beating on it , as I have done.
      Life is simple.

    • No one calls businessmen who do business with China or elected representatives who supporting MFN status for China (which is virtually all of them) China-firsters. And this despite the fact that the Chinese rob us blind by stealing our intellectual property and creating a hostile climate for our products."...hopmi

      Yes we do, we name special interest...we call them the " 1%" or the "Capitalist Elites" or the "Multinational Vultures" or whatever.
      We name groups deemed determintal to some larger population's interest or welfare according to their motives and/or interest.
      The state of Israel is the prime interest of Israel- firsters.
      So we name them Israel- firsters.

      What do you think they should be called?
      They have to have a name so people know who we are talking about.

    • "You know what you’re doing, and so does everybody else. You don’t use terms like France-firster or Russia-firster or China-firster or India-firster or Iran-firster, so why Israel-firster?"...hopmi

      Because at the moment it is the Israel- firsters causing some of the biggest problems for the US.
      So why not call them Israel -firsters?
      Is there any particular reason we shouldn't?

    • Time for George:

      ''So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

      And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

      As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

      Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. ''

    • 'You’re simply being disingenuous when you try and argue that it’s somehow not a bigoted term to accuse Jews of dual loyalty.

      Sorry you have antisemitic views. I know how much it hurts the self-righteous sanctimoniousness of radical lefties to be accused to having bigoted views.".....'

      Boo hoo hoo, hophmi. If some US Jews have dual loyalty and some have single loyalty to Israel , which some do, as in Sheldon Aldeson and others. People are going to say so and point them out as undesirable to US welfare.
      As JB said if it's true, it isn't anti semitic.
      So no point in your fighting it any longer.

      I don't support strong US Israel an American why should I support favoritism to Israel ?...Israel has proven it's a liability to the US not a asset and dangerous to some other living beings as well.
      I support Israel being treated as any other country the US has dealings with.
      If Israel -firsters consider that anti semitic too bad.

    • teta,

      This has been on a long time. Created by the Israel firsters and congress. It's about diluting or splitting US Federal grants to US states by two programs BIRD and BARD so that Israel gets half of what would go to the states.
      It's also a way for Israel to siphon off or get credit for any US work or discoveries in research by so called "joint development". For example in a federal grant for some research at Duke Univ Hosp half has to go to Israelis for shared "collaboration" in that research.
      Same thing goes for business ventures.
      An example of how ridiculous this is.....a federal health grant to NC to study end of life questions for the elderly was shifted to Israel cause the Israelis sharing the grant said NC population was too 'homogeneous' to be studied.
      So we have a 'federal grant given specifically to study NC elderly attitudes' homogenous or not, that was shifted entirely to Israel.
      What good does the studying the non homogenous elderly in Israel do for the homogenous elderly in NC that the grant was given for? None.
      Just more money for Israelis benefits.

      The Israel -firster parasites at every single organ of the US.

    • One other thing Robert.

      The holocaust people, Israel, their committies, ect. have defined a holocaust surivior as... 'any Jew who lived in or escaped or fled from any country occupied by the Germans". Not just the Jews that were in concentration camps.

      So what is your stand on that? Is that definition strictly correct or not?
      The bottom line is whether they fled the nazis or survived a camp they all ended up refugees.....just like the Palestines.

    • "No one presented any evidence refuting my assertion that all but about 1500 of the 75-100,000 refugees who fled between November 30, 1947 to April 2, 1948 did so because of the increasing violence and chaos enveloping Palestine, and were not expelled by the Yishuv"

      Robert, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between fleeing the violence of the zionist immigrants and being expelled.
      What's the difference in the Jews leaving Hitler having "fled" or being "expelled"?
      Same outcome. Same reason. They ran for their lives.

      I don't know where you get most of your information , never noticed any links or supporting documents or reports.

      I suggest you go to the horses mouth, the people who were witnesses and reported and documented events.
      This is the British National Archives link.

      link to

      I have already set up the page for you. Insert your search term--like Jews or Israel or Palestine or Palestine Refugees. Insert the years you want to bring up documents for like 1939 to 1950.. Click on the documents shown that look likely to give you the info you want to get a description of the document. There will be a lot of them, hundreds, so it will be a time consuming education. For the documents you want to see in full click on it's title and then click 'add to my shopping cart'. Most of them are free. You go to your shopping cart and there you order them to be downloaded to your computer or the download links sent to you via email.

      There is history rewritten and then there is real history. Are you interested in the truth or in what you want to believe?

  • Beinart to cast Obama as caped hero of two-state-solution in forthcoming book
    • Truth.
      The US has to disappear from I/P or the rubber has to meet the road and that means treating Israel as any other country, which is 'conditionally'.
      J-Street and liberal zionism will not support that. They can voice the humanatrian issues and human rights of Palestines in I/P, but the fact is and always will be they are voices for Israel, a different Israel, but still for Israel. And if they are the main or only voices heard, then decisions will still be colored by those voices. The fact is it was primilary Zionist voices that dictated the US into Israel in 1948. So would you think that, at least and at best, different Jewish voices could dictate us out of it now, change Israel or end I/P?
      I wish, but I don't think so. Not in time. Not big enough.
      Obama finding his balls in a second term in time to save something for Palestines and even the US is a slim hope, but it looks like the only one we're gonna have.

      This where we're at now.

      By Michael Brenner
      Professor of International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh
      "Little of this registers in official Washington, or in the ante-chambers of power that is unofficial Washington. We continue to bluster and fume, we issue ukase, make declarations, scold and instruct, cast our failures as incidents in the mythic pageant of illusory triumphs from Baghdad to Kandahar to Somalia. The echo chamber keeps reality at bay. Each of these myriad failures has its own saga of hubris, incompetence, willful ignorance and flawed thinking. Iraq stands out only for the brazen deceit and mindlessness that were its hallmark from the inception.

      The kaleidoscope of broken shards that depicts the broken remnants of the American position in the greater Middle East convey incoherence and fragmentation. This is a common element. It is the Israel/Palestine – more specifically, Washington’s progressive subordination of its own interests to the compulsions of Israel’s cynical rulers. It has grown from being a dark shadow that casts suspicions over American actions in the regime to a fatal flaw that has eaten away our authority to act as underwriter, our reputation for integrity and our protestations of concern for the well-being and interests of all peoples. Thus, it aggravates relations, inflames radicalism and sows distrust about Washington’s intentions. Barack Obama’s speech to the United Nations last week confirmed the worst fears of doubters and skeptics. America no longer was just Israel’s protector; it was now Israel’s shil. The President of the United States acted as the shameless mouthpiece for an unsavory client. Obama declared before all the world that he placed his personal electoral advantage above the values and interests of the country – still the potentially most influential state on the face of the earth. His abject behavior humiliated the United States in a way that leaves American diplomacy throughout the Islamic world – and beyond – severely compromised.''

      link to

    • " relationship between American Jews and Israel must change, and with an eloquent and moving appeal for American Jews to defend the dream of a democratic Jewish state before it is too late."

      Good luck, the Israel firsters and Israel minons are swarming American Jewry and Obama like killer bees, trying to sting both into their mad Iran war scheme.

  • Bruising Judt, Fukuyama says Arabs aren't ready for liberalism
    • What does liberalism, ready for it or not, want it or not, have to do with the fact of Israel occupying Palestine and oppressing people....not a damn thing.
      Fukuyama needs to get a real job so he has less time to churn out intellectual nonsense or move to the Israel occupied territories so he can experience the 'realities of practicality and power' .

  • Jewish substitution and the white gaze
    • slay me Mooser.

    • "Subsequently a black woman in the audience rose to observe that the same thing had taken place during the civil rights struggle. "We call that the white gaze," she said, poetically. "

      Whew! I never heard that expression before but she's right.

  • New York's Muslim community fights back against NYPD Islamophobia
    • Exile,

      Here is last years. It went down some from previous years when it was closer to 90% when the DHS was first established after 911.

      link to

      DHS awards $19 million to nonprofits for security
      Published 25 August, 2011 - 02:06Share | Email to a friendOn Tuesday DHS announced that it had awarded nearly $19 million to nonprofit organizations around the country that are considered to be at high risk of terrorist attack.

      On Tuesday DHS announced that it had awarded nearly $19 million to nonprofit organizations around the country that are considered to be at high risk of terrorist attack.

      The grant money comes as part of the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NGSP), which according to DHS “provides funding support for target hardening activities to nonprofit organizations” and is also aimed at “[integrating] nonprofit preparedness activities with broader state and local preparedness efforts.”

      80 percent of this year’s funds, roughly $15 million, were disbursed to Jewish communal organizations and institutions considered vulnerable to attack.

      The Jewish Federations of North America welcomed the announcement.

      Cheryl Fishbein, the chairwoman of the Federations’ Domestic Affairs Cabinet, said, “The Department of Homeland Security has demonstrated a great commitment to protecting the Jewish American community.”

    • Exiled,

      I've seen it in several places. The Forward was one of them, but I didn't save any links.
      You can probably google it and find several reports.

  • Would you buy a used metaphor from this warmonger? (Niall Ferguson's 'creative destruction' echoes Rice's 'birth-pangs')
    • link to
      Use the Mp3 player

      Intersting interview with Gareth Porter of IPS.
      Porter says a flag officer at the pentagon who was on Dempesy's trip to Israel says that Dempsey message to Israel from Obama really was that the US WOULD NOT join in or come to the defense of Israel if Israel attacked Iran unprovoked.
      Another point Porter made was the Mossad report I saw last week-- that the Mossad has found and intends to report to and agree with the US and IAE that there is no sign that Iran is building or will begin to build a nuclear weapon.
      *Wonder if the Mossad told Mrs. Feinstein that in their private meeting?

      Lots more info in the interview.
      Porter worried O doesn't have the balls to stick to what he told Israel.
      Israel military knows it doesn't have the ability to attack Iran and accomplish anything...must have US do it. And some question even US could get to the core of the facilities without ground troops actually going into them. Which seems to be true because last week pentagon said current bunker buster wouldn't do the job and they were looking at building a new bigger bomb.
      Must have US do it-- is why the US Israel firsters are churning out dozens of propaganda articles a day like this one.. ''Israel Can't Act Alone on Iran Nuke Threat: Jeffrey Goldberg''....demanding US attack Iran, and running hysterical Iran is targeting US Jews and US articles and commanding Jews to rise up and overpower Obama so the US will attack Iran.
      To get US involved, Israel would have to set up something to provoke Iran into attacking some US asset or set up a false flag attack themselves on some US interest that would be blamed on Iran.
      Probably the only thing worth pondering now is what Netanyahu would set up to do would have to be something covert, a assassination of some US official or bombing of some US embassy or installation, maybe assassinating a US Ambassador or even blowing up some commerical passanger plane they could lay on the Iranians.

    • Well if this Israel- First excerise of their 'US democratic rights in behalf of their foreign homeland' doesn't gag you nothing will.

      OP-Ed: American Jews, Seize the Day!

      Published: Monday, February 06, 2012 10:05 AM

      Stopping the Iranian madmen is not Israel’s responsibility - it is America’s as the Defender of the Free World. If Israel moves, she will become the scapegoat for any conflict that results. Where is US Jewry?

      Iran is on the verge of securing a nuclear terrorist state and President Obama is stalling. Stopping the Iranian madmen is not Israel’s responsibility - it is America’s as the Defender of the Free World.

      Jews in America, it is our obligation as citizens to demand that Obama end the impending global threat posed by Iran. If we, American Jews, declare our support for Israel’s right to attack Iran, we will be absolving him of his duty to defend our Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.

      Once he does that, Israel becomes the scapegoat, because any steps Israel takes to defend her nation against Iran will appear as though she, not Iran, will have instigated a global conflict.

      Yet not one Jewish organization points out this fact or demands that America not Israel destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure now.

      Israel has been treated like the dregs of the Earth because, for more than 60 years, not one Jewish group or organization ever stood up to Congress and said, “How dare you force the people of Israel to negotiate with terrorists?” This is the great stain and shame on American Jewry. Because of our complacency and neglect in supporting Israel, she is now surrounded on all sides by her enemies and facing a nuclear holocaust.

      Our job in America is to take the boot forcefully from Israel’s neck, but we didn’t do it. We failed to stand firmly against one President after another who believes that America would achieve peace and financial security with the Islamic world that strives to annihilate Israel.

      What a betrayal to America’s core values! And American Jewry said nothing!

      Ahmadinejad is now constructing chambers of death where nuclear bombs will replace Zyklon B to finish Hitler’s work in their hell on earth. How dare any nation, especially Germany and France, say we should not immediately demand the destruction of Iran’s nuclear war machine – but even my fellow-American Jews don’t demand it. How dare they speak of their love for Israel and remain silent? It’s time we take a firm stand!

      I call on all American-Jewish leadership to create a firestorm so that all Jews from the national Jewish community call Congress, demanding they end the sanctions and take action against Iran now. While we must be polite and firm, we must not be deterred. Hound your representatives daily as though it were Israel’s last day on earth.

      I’ve been warned numerous times, “Don’t push this agenda. It might upset our Congressional representatives who now support Israel. Don’t push them too far.” Is this what Emma Lazarus had in mind when she composed, ?Give me your tired, your poor," that immigrants who left their oppressive homelands for the new world might once again live in fear in America?

      More specifically, that an American citizen of Jewish descent would dread abandonment by a Congressional representative because we dared to criticize proposals that do not go far enough to secure Israel’s safety. Why is it that the Jewish people, victims of hatred and terrorism, feel we must hold our tongue when we are being short-changed, and be grateful for whatever favors we’ve been granted?

      The Jewish Federations and religious leaders who represent us have adopted the same victim mentality that delivered our brethren directly into the gas chambers of World War II. Now, as in the past, these same groups hold in contempt those Jews who demand unrestricted action against those who planning our extermination. As if that were not enough, we now have new heirs to the thrones of leadership who say, “Wait until 2013,” but offer no positive hope or direction to overcome this Iranian threat.

      If we are to survive this final worldwide onslaught against the Jewish people, American Jews must reject the mindset of compliance that made us victims in every nation and every generation. The time has come to demand for ourselves what every other American takes for granted since the birth of our nation – that we have the right to be fearless, bold, boisterous when calling our leaders to account when dealing with Iran.

      As American citizens, we can be rightly proud of Nathan Hale who said, “Give me Liberty, or give me death.”

      We need our own American Natan Halevy! – someone who has the courage to declare publicly, risking his life and his fortune, that the policies that the President of the United States is pursuing are leading to the destruction of the Jewish state and the persecution of the Jews worldwide.

      He must be stopped.''

      link to

    • Hum....I wonder why the other side, the anti Iran war and anti Israel firsters, don't use the Appeasement and Preemptive argument?

      Why aren't they writing articles for grass roots consumers saying...


      Too politically correct I suppose to indulge in such. Much better to be dragged into a war than to have any tinge of offensiveness to anyone. Oh well, I guess we can comfort ourselves with how we took the high road despite how many people it put six feet under.

      I was watching a movie the other night about how the irregular guerrillas outside the American Revolutionary army changed the course of battles by breaking the rules of war that opposing armies don't target each other's battle leading Officers.
      Maybe we need more guerrillas and less Queensbury's rules in this battle.

  • Organizers say pro-Israel filmmaker with controversial past deceives, disrupts Penn BDS conference (UPDATED)
    • teta mother me says:
      February 5, 2012 at 6:59 pm
      Israel took a pounding on C Span Washington Journal this morning"

      I've been hearing criticism of Israel on c-span for years now... ..enough to tell me there's a lot more awareness of the out of whack US-Isr and ME policy than we think there is. And the thing is, these people calling in and making the comments aren't ranting idiots, they actually know a bit of what they are talking about...and they aren't all on the same song sheet,--- meaning they don't appear to be part of any group like the hasbara crowd that organizes to call in to programs on Israel related issues and sound like they are all reading the same prepared speech.

    • Winnica,

      I give mondo permission to give you all my deleted comments too. LOL
      We all go down the rabbit hole occasionally when we get too hepped upped so I don't think you'd have much of a case for censorship discrimination.

  • Live tweeting from the Penn BDS conference
  • Both sides are wrong in the ‘Israel Firsters’ debate
    • I'm not talking about witch burnings Mooser, just 'political' bonfires.
      Although there are a few Israel- firsters I wouldn't object to seeing roasted.

    • But I don’t see the distinction as being between “national” and “foreign”
      ( American says we are talking about foreign interest of a minority here I want to add just to be clear) interests. ".....Shumel

      O.K. Shumel, if you still don't get the difference-- then I'm gonna have to resort to hiring an exorcist to cast out the demon controlling your mind. lol

    • O.K. Shumel, I'll accept you meant withing reasonable limits as you said...
      '' (within reason, and law and constitution permitting).''

      But that qualifier doesn't seem to be much of a roadblock on your slippery slope of ....''I don’t see voters’ “foreign” concerns as being fundamentally different from any other parochial interests'' does it?
      You don't see the Israel foreign issue as different from say, Social Security or SEC Regulations or US Health Care or the NRA?

      Point me to where the law and constitution has had the slightest effect on the activities of the Israel firsters or prevented congress from ignoring laws or making up laws to benefit Israel foreign elements, like for a small example, IRS lLaws --allowing fully deductable tax free individuals donations to Israel, but not for any other US citizens individual donations to any charitable or interest group...not Cure Cancer, Not Save the Whales, none, nada, zip. Care to explain that?

      A slippery slope has only a down elevator, not a up elevator.

    • @ Citizen,

      It's true that German, Scot and Irish have always made up the majority of US armed forces, in particular the Southerners of Scot-Irish. Sen. Jim Webb's book 'Born Fighting' was a pretty good accounty of the military demographics.
      For some reason the elites hate this Southern military majority and the AEI last year was complaining about it.

      ''In a WSJ op-ed titled “The Military Should Mirror the Nation,” AEI scholars Gary Schmitt and Cheryl Miller lament the Southernization of the officer corps and worry that the ROTC system is exacerbating the trend. The statistics are indeed rather stark:

      Few Americans today have a personal connection to the military. Veterans represent 9% of the total population (a number that continues to decline), and less than 1% serves in any of the military services, active duty or reserves.

      Soldiers also come from a narrower segment of society—geographically and culturally—than ever before. Nearly half of all Army recruits come from military families. Southerners disproportionately populate all the branches, while the middle-class suburbs surrounding the nation’s largest cities—New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia—produce relatively few service members despite having a large percentage of the nation’s youth population."
      link to

      This is actually a conspiracy we Southerners cooked up called The Protocals of the Southerners. When the US falls we will already be in control the US military forces and take over the US. lol

    • "Where did I imply anything of the sort? Are you intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote?"...Shumel

      No I didn't misrepresent what you wrote.....I took it to it's logical conclusion....if a politicians constituency has a specific wish, then that's what he's going to champion.
      Has it escaped your attention all the calls for attacking Iran by politicians with specific constituencies? How about all the presidential candidates swearing to attack Iran if elected....what specific constituencies are they promising that for? The Jewish zionist, the Pro Israel donors, the Christian fundies, the Israel firsters? It's definitely not for the majority who don't want a war.
      Who are you trying to kid? Yourself or us? This is the exact phenomenon of specific constituencies we are seeing right now re Israel and Iran.
      Promising a war for a specific constituency is apparently not beyond the limits.

    • I don’t see voters’ “foreign” concerns as being fundamentally different from any other parochial interests "...Shmuel

      "Elected officials are another matter – although one would expect elected officials to look out for the concerns of the specific constituencies they represent. A rep. from a predominantly Muslim or Polish or Hispanic (or rich or poor or rural or gay or black) district would have the interests of those communities close to heart".......Shmuel

      No limit to elected officials representing their specific constituencies... eh?
      Including championing a US war for the specific constituency that wants one for their favorite foreign country.... eh?

      Have to say Shumel you fit in with the Insidious Agenda crowd just fine. lol

    • "Do you really think that Jamie Stern-Weiner is a “vicious person”?""..........Shmuel

      Is a "insidious agenda" vicious? I don't know.
      But a insidious agenda is a insidious agenda.
      There are plenty of Stern-Weiners in the insidious agenda movement whether they know that's exactly what they are doing or not.
      US zionism and all their activities in the US for 60 years has always been an insidious agenda.
      We could call them the Insidious Agenda People....would that be better than Israel- firster? But then how would the public know which Insidious Agenda People we were refering to?

    • "No more politically correct philosophy for at least three minutes!"

      (sigh)....I hate always being the bad cop MH, but politically correct and 3 bucks will get you a latte coffee and not much else.

      What for instance is the politically correct description or term for house members using their position to profit by insider trading?....."misguided public servants"?

    • Consider the outcome of ''legitimizing'' the foreign country attachment, what would happen if became accepted as right and normal.

      We have more Greek-Americans than we do Jewish-Americans.
      Do you see any Greek Americans lobbying for or demanding the US use taxpayer money to bail Greece out of it's bankruptcy?

      How about Black Americans, Africian -Americans, second largest group in our population, do you see a organized African American lobby for Africa, for the US to give billions to Africa or promote democracy or protect Africians from all it's conflicts?

      How about hispanic- Americans for Mexico?

      See any rich US Greeks or rich US Africian Americans giving milllions to politicians to control US policy toward Greece or Africa?

      What if all hyphens in the US, every immigrant , which would be all Americans except Indians, had a attachment to their original homeland and a lobby like AIPAC to lobby for it.

      What would be the point or purpose of America except as a factory of workers forced to put their money in a pool to be parceled out to foreign countries in proportion to each hyphened-Americans favored country's lobby influence.

    • Short poll.

      How often have you seen a zios activist claim..." What could be more American then organizing and making your views heard at the ballot box?" a justification for the Israel Lobby or Israel first voting?

      I know I have seen this dumbed downed reasoning about a thousand times over the years, that use to be their favorite argument...that they are just exercising their democratic rights, yada,,yada....can't believe they are still using it.

    • Yes, Israel firster is definitely the way to go. Because is no cure for the kind of people with the agenda in this article. What this writer is espousing is a direct threat to any nation's first purpose and reason for being---the wishes and welfare of it's own citizens. Obviously this is aimed at US Jews to encourage or reassure them that putting Israel first is as American as apple pie.

      link to

      Latest update 05:38 06.02.12

      U.S. Jews who put Israel first are merely exercising their democratic rights
      There is nothing neither wrong nor un-American in being a single issue voter.

      By Joel Braunold / Jewish World blogger
      Tags: Jewish World US Jews US elections Diaspora

      With the loathsome term ‘Israel-Firster’ coming back into the journalistic vernacular in some parts of the U.S. press, an opinion is forming that elections bring the worst out of Jews. Whether through the Republican candidates’ fixation on Israel, or vocal elements of the communities myopic focus, some are questioning whether it is right to be such a single issue voter at a time when there are so many problems plaguing the United States. By voting on the basis of how a candidate for office views Israel, are you somehow showing you have dual loyalties?

      First and foremost it is vital to make clear that there is nothing neither wrong nor un-American in being a single issue voter. Many in the environmental lobby made clear to the president that if he had green-lighted the Keystone Pipeline then they would not have voted for him. They boiled their selection down to a single issue. Whether on a woman’s right to choose, the second amendment or nuclear disarmament, being intensely motivated by a single issue is normal in many settings. Why cannot those whose issue is Israel be considered in the same way?

      Some may retort that Israel is a foreign country, not a domestic policy choice; a vote based on a foreign countries interest is clearly not something that a loyal citizen would do. There are many responses to this accusation, I will lay out two.

      The first is to say that how the U.S. treats Israel directly affects the United States values and ethics. Israel is the test case for Western values and its abandonment will ultimately lead to America’s downfall. Judging candidates' worth based on their views on Israel therefore would be upholding American values. I personally do not subscribe to this view, but there are many on the political right who do.

      Alternatively, one could truly believe that Israel is in mortal danger and, as a person who feels a deep affinity with the people there coupled with your concerns about their welfare, you choose to prioritize their physical safety over your domestic problems. Again, this is not a position to which I ascribe but there are plenty of American Jews, often older segments, who do believe that Israel’s very survival is dependent on a strongly pro-Israel U.S. government. This elder generation lives with the belief that just as in the 1930’s the Jewish community risked much to prioritize Jewish welfare over other concerns, so does the duty fall on their heads. Does this act of compassion, as they see it, make them any less loyal to America?

      These dual-loyalty claims are as bizarre as they are offensive. What could be more American then organizing and making your views heard at the ballot box? There are plenty of Diaspora communities, who care about their national homeland. Should the Norman Tebit cricket test be applied to all before we accept their pledges of allegiance?

      As a newcomer to America I do not have the ability to cast a ballot in the forthcoming elections. Yet, back in my native city of London I too am faced with an electoral problem. As a Labour Party member, the candidate standing, Ken Livingston, is a marvelous technocrat. I greatly admire his handling of London’s many services. Yet his unhealthy obsession with Israel and all things anti-Zionist make it impossible for me to vote for him with a clean conscience.

      Does this imply my loyalty to the U.K. is in question, or that someone who I believe hates a country to which I feel a deep emotional connection is not deserving of my vote? Israel, in my case, is the determining factor in my decision at the ballot box, yet my loyalty to London, the U.K. and to the Queen is never in question. My problems as a Jewish Londoner are similar in type if not scope to those of the Jewish Swede in Malmo.

      However one decides to judge the merits of a candidate for public office, their expression of their preferences through the ballot is both a function of good citizenship and loyalty to the institutions of state. Voting - whether based on a single issue or a multitude of issues - are both the expressions of a free citizen exercising their rights in the democratic process.

      Joel Braunold is a Bnei Akiva alumnus and a former staff member of OneVoice Europe who is currently studying at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

    • "Basically, the entire American establishment, period, supported the invasion of Iraq.".....David Greene

      Hu oh! Red Alert!
      That is so untrue it sounds like trolling.
      Maybe you better explain what you are calling the entire Amerian establishment.

    • "First, to address a theme that has cropped up several times: I wasn’t trying to whitewash apologists for Israel, I was making an argument about the basis on which they ought to be criticised."...Stern -Weiner

      That's not exactly an totally honest statement is it? What is woven in your entire piece is a fear that Israel- firster will tar all Jews.
      You want us to criticize Israel I/P in general humanitarian terms without pointing out a core cause and what enables it.
      What do you think will happen if Jews in general were criticized and or blamed on I/P or US-Isr or Iran? You think there will be some nights of broken glass or whatever or mass attacks on Jews? Won't happen. Any more than the US anti -Iran war'ers for example would en mass attack the US pro war'ers. Might some Jews be uncomfortable with Israel- firsters being discredited because of the Jewish association with Israel? Yea they might, some of that is probably unavoidable.
      But a period of discomfort only with no real threats to their actual welfare or position is better than letting the Israel thing go on and on to some worse conclusion for Jews, Isr, USA, Palestine and everyone else.
      What I am curious about in some people I see putting out this worry about Jews in general being affected is ....are they really concerned with the Jewish communities feelings or protection?......or are they concerned with protecting the Israel influence individuals so Israel will continue to be a pampered US client, maybe reformed in it's humanitarian problems, but still a pampered US client state?

    • Citizen says:
      February 5, 2012 at 7:22 am
      Agree (again) with Thomas Rutherford

      Me too. Excellent explanation of the problem.

    • "It (Stern Weiner) also reflects basic perspectives put forward over the years by Chomsky & Finkelstein, which are sound, regardless of the “state...."

      Greene.....the problem in arguing from a Chomsky pov is, yes, he is accurate in his criticisms of Israel and holocaust misuse and minces no words.
      But then he attributes all Israel's actions to US desires and Israel as just a paid agent/servant of the US hegemony with no real influence on US policies.
      And he does this by just ' stating it', with no evidence or examples or examining...he offers nothing to show for example his claim that the US wanted Israel to bomb Lebanon...or why the Israel occupation of Palestine benefits the US, other than just indulging our hired hand in their land grab.
      Some of his claims are outlandish, like saying the US considers Israel a strategic asset of the United States because it will do what we want like support genocide in Guatemala. Yea he really said that. Whether the US wanted to genocide Guatemala or not we wouldn't need the support of Israel to do it, so that's plain absurd.
      Why Chomsky refuses to acknowledge the "Lobby"- the loose collection of Israel'll have to ask him. Maybe it has something to do with his own anti semitism experience he has written about and he's afraid to raise any canards about any kind of Jewish influence.
      He talk and talks about the evils of US-Israel and implies they all come from something 'general" floating around in the US and other evil countries.
      The fact is nothing comes out nothing, everything starts somewhere.
      The antidote to Chomsky's US-ME-Isr-I/P theory of just floating evil in general is the hundreds of pages of footnotes in W&M's The Israel Lobby. They are facts. Chomsky's belief in the non existence of the Lobby influence, is just that, his chosen belief,unanalyzed.

    • "You are part of a Mondoweiss affinity group which attacks those who espouse a more overarching perspective than simply that the lobby made us do it. "...Keith

      Let me say it doesn't matter what your ''perspective'' is.
      You can roll around in the all the psychological, philosophical, geo -political universal humantarian prespectives you want to and pick whatever you suits you as a reason.
      All that matters is the most effective way to get change in US-Israel policy and settle I/P.
      I told you the most effective way. The fact that 'you' don't like it does not change the fact that that is the "perception" that will get you the most public weight on changing US policy.

      I don't recall you being in the Chomsky conversation Dan, Sean and I having so I didn't refer to you as a apologists for Israel or Chomskyite. Neither did I refer to Dan as a apologist for Israel. I made the case for why Chomsky's claim that everything is US imperialism and in specific that the ME US imperialism for oil control is full of crap.
      I think I more than proved it with my step by step illustration of the facts, exactly how the US got zip in oil control or oil benefits out of Iraq or got any more oil out of Iraq than we did prior to our 1990 first military and sanctions encounter with Iraq or since then.
      If you or Chomsky have some secret facts unknown to the rest of the entire world oil industry feel free to prove me and them and the Iraq and the US reporting agencies wrong.

      I am not going to repeat all the reasons and evidence of why the US is not interested in controlling Iran or ME oil, is only interested in assuring it isn't 'disrupted' for the sake of our own and the world economy and isn't in a stand off war between Israel and Iran because it fears either Iran attacking Israel or the US.
      You can believe whatever you chose to, it makes no difference to me or to anyone or has any effect on the real Iran-Israel issue or the US part in it.
      I don't attack people, I attack factless pie in the sky claims when there are real facts and real evidence that prove those claims false.

    • "What could be more obvious?".....Sean

      I don't know how the Israel-firsters could be more obvious either. It's part of their delusional hubris--the idea that if they control congress they control all Americans and they are untouchable. I hope they keep being obvious...the more obvious the better.

      BTW...this...."In complex multicultural societies like the United States, each group is allotted only so much attention, solicitude and tender loving care. "......reminds me I saw an interview with a hispanic leader on the news the other day who said no one was including or talking to or about the hispanic community.
      So there you go.

    • "By comparison, there isn’t a chance this would have happened under Clinton or Bush. Not a chance. Neither the House nor the Senate would have allowed a sitting US President to be preempted that way."

      I'm not so sure MRW, although I agree there's racism in their treatment of Obama. You got a bunch of closet and not so closet bigots that want to keep the black boy in his place.
      But both Bush and Clinton got pushed around by the zionist congress and their own parties.
      And congress is even worse today regarding Israel because they haven't been punished for it.....and AIPAC has set it up so both parties are pro Israel so who can we punish when our choices are Israel first repubs or Israel first dems.

    • Keith says:
      February 4, 2012 at 1:20 am

      "“The use of the term “Israel Firster” reflects a broader trend which chooses to frame opposition to Israeli policies, and US support for them, in terms of defending or protecting US “national interests”, and which appears increasingly disposed to criticising apologists for Israeli occupation on the grounds that they are being disloyal to these “national interests”, rather than on the grounds that they are enabling a profound injustice."

      Listen, some of you keeping missing the fricking point of all this.
      The point is it doesn't make a damn whether the national interest crowd or the I/P humanitarian crowd 'want to own and dictate the reasons' for opposing US- Israel or I/P.
      This your typical liberal kindergarten squabbling over the color of crayons to use.

      The fact is the answer for both crowds is ending the influence of Israel first in US policies..1) that affect the US national interest and ....2) enable I/P.

      I am a fan of W&M but they are a planet away from grass roots psychology.

      What would incite the public, the average Joe, the most to oppose current US policy on Israel?
      The idea or belief that their country and therefore their personal welfare is being manipulated/affected by some foreign entity special interest.
      Or an appeal to help correct some injustice abroad that isn't and can't even be revealed to the general public by the US media.

      Humm..? where do you think you are going to get the most traction for a public push back on US-Isr and therefore I/P?

      The general public can and does hear pledges to Israel by Israel firsters, particularly during election seasons on public ms media. The general public does NOT ever see or hear about the Palestine plight or Israeli atrocities on the public msm.

      So unless you think the smaller pool of more informed net civilian activist alone can swing the entire political establishment policy on Israel or that appeals to politicians humanitarian better natures will work, and work soon enough, to keep Palestine and Palestinians from disappearing you are gonna need a bigger movement.

    • "It seems more and more people are getting tired of this constant hystery about the state of Israel and their well being.".......Theo

      I think there is a general weariness in the public of the whole Israel thing. Increased even more so in the US because of the Presidential candidates constant Israel pandering.
      When I was looking thru the comment sections on the Adler-Obama assassination story on CNN I saw a one sentence comment that said..."I am so tired of Israel and the Jews." I didn't point out that comment in my comments on the story at the time because I thought, well someone could take the 'tired of the Jews' as anti Jewish----but I don't think the commenter meant it as anti Jew, she was referring more I think to the whole ball of wax around Israel, saying what a lot of people feel.....that everyone is just so tired of Israel dominating all other concerns of people and their countries.

Showing comments 2700 - 2601