Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 707 (since 2010-04-23 03:59:57)

Just doing the internet ;-)

Showing comments 707 - 701
Page:

  • Tulsi Gabbard's screw-the-neocons meeting with Trump sparks anger, derision, encouragement
    • andrew r

      For the sake of better argument, let's just examine the first half sentence of the AP fake news from 31.5.2011:

      "Until now, the opposition against Assad has taken the form of peaceful protests by unarmed demonstrators"

      It's clearly a lie. For example on April 10, 2011, what AP describes as "peaceful protests by unarmed demonstrators" killed 10 military personnel in an ambush in Banyias. Find a short report in that here:

      http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-baniyas-ambush-of-syrian-soldiers.html

      Years later, the terrorists even celebrated the anniversary of that murderous ambush.

      Some other incidents of these 4th generation warfare tactics are a bit harder to prove, like terrorists massacering peaceful demonstrators in false flag terror attacks with the intention to blame the government, but since I have now proven that the AP report you cite already starts with a big lie, the onus is now on you to prove that anything in that AP fake news is true. And, be aware, citing even more fake news is not a proof.

    • andrew r

      No, that khaleejtimes AP article is just proof that the mass media, the UN and associated western NGOs did spread lot's of fake news regarding Syria and Libya, just like they did it regarding Iraqi WMDs, babies throwns out of incubators and so on. Probably nothing is true in that report except that foreign-backed terrorists killed four Syrian soldiers. I personally debunked dozens, if not hundreds, of such baseless hasbara news reports targeting Syria.

      Such PSYOPs are a typical element of 4th generation warfare, the main method used by the US-led coalition to attack Syria.

    • andrew r

      No. The historical CIA Operation Cyclone against Afghanistan was quite similar to the current CIA program Timber Sycamore.

      And it had similar devastating effects - which last until his very day.

    • Jon66

      You said "It’s a dichotomy because it’s based upon the question of whether or not the US has achieved a change for the better."

      I agree with you, that this is the important question. And the answer in Eastern Germany is more and more "no." What I hear more and more is the opinion that when we did this in 1989 we thought we would end up better off, but in fact life got worse. And that's on the left and on the right, old and young.

      It wasn't always that way since 1989, earlier there was a clear majority in the East for "the western way" but it changed a lot since. Who is currently the majority is difficult to say since that depends how you ask in a poll.

      But for a hint here a fact, where that public opinion currently goes: three of five Eastern German regional presidents have publicly come out to be against sanctions on Russia despite that there is huge western elite pressure for the opposite position. From what I hear I think a clear majority of people in East Germany seems to be against sanctions on Russia. And many of those are quite the same ones who say in hindsight that under Soviet rule life was better than under US rule, only their number grew a lot.

      At the same time ever more western German - and western Berlin - people seem to be fine with having annexed the GDR. So see, what I said before, your simple question whether the regime change in Eastern Germany 1990 was good in the view of the people is quite complex to answer from a Berlin point of view.

      I wouldn't wonder if next year the Russia friendly parties strong in Eastern Germany, especially the AfD, but also The Left, get majorities in Eastern Germany while the classical transatlantic parties SPD and CDU/CSU continue to rule due to their western dominance.

    • Maghlawatan

      I don't disagree with you if you are saying that Syria had a lot of problems, including sectarian tensions. I also do agree with you that a lot has to be done to improve that. However I strongly disagree with you that the Assads - or how you seem to call the Syrian presidency, the Allawite regime - are worse than that, what is billed as "the opposition." Part of my preference is that I think Basher Al Assad has proven to be a hero of the axis of resistance, but besides that I also believe he is the best choice Syria can find now for internal politics for the presidency.

      So what I do think what must be done regarding Syria is make a deal or deals for peace with the political opposition whereever possible, with the government giving concessions regarding most of what all oppositions could agree on, then defeat terrorism, meaning Al Qaida and all others who want no peace without their undemocratic grabbing of full power what so ever, and then hold democratic elections for the parliaments and the presidency, inviting all and everyone, terrorist or not, to participate active and passive. Whomever the voters put in charge then shall rule.

      And, as I am decided as I wrote above, I may add that I think Bashar Al Assad, if he centends, will win those elections big time and those who claim to be opposition will come out very weak. But if Syrian voters would prove my opinion wrong, I would agree those shall rule - so whomever the Syrian people voted for shall rule. I understand it's difficult to think people like the Kurdish PYD/YPG/SDF and "Sunni" fighters favoured by Erdogan agree on anything, but to live peacefully in one country, which is both their home country, they must do that. In other regions problems are similar, say for example with Druze people and the figthers preferred by Saudi Arabia and Israel. And as far as such a political solution doesn't happen, I think the Syrian army must fight terrorism, meaning those who don't want no peace whatsoever.

      You say "it (apperently Syria) could be doing a lot better."

      Would you please by so kind to explain how and who has to be doing what to make it happen?

    • Maghlawatan

      "Saudis push wahhabi filth but you do not get traction on a war without compelling local grievances."

      I don't believe that. I believe the petro-dollars of the Saduis get traction everywhere spreading wahhabism where there are Sunnis.

      Where there are grievances, like, say economic hardship due to political differences with Israel and the US empire, draughts due to climate change or a quadrupling poplation the Wahhabis try to exploit that. But where there are no such problems they invent problems of their own making and get traction anyway. Just have a look to the "Islamischer Zentralrat der Schweiz." If there are sectarian grievances the Wahhabis exploit them, if there are none, they go on killing sprees anyway, saying they purify the land, just look at Pakistan.

      But I agree with you that when there is peace in Syria and Iraq there will be another iteration of Sunni nihilism - like you call it, or sectarian frustration, like I would call it. This time, however, I think it's likely to turn against the Wahhabi masters who are responsible for the unsuccessful sectarian carnage they created, and I'm not sure the Saudi-wahhabi regime will survive that. But that fills me with hope for Palestine because the Saudi regime is Israel's most important Arab ally.

    • Jon66

      As I live in Berlin you may believe me that I have spoken with many, many people who lived in Eastern Germany in Soviet times - and also quite some people who lived in the USSR, but for the sake of argument, let's stay in Germany for now.

      What I can say it's that was that regime change was good became a complex question for many people. I would confidently say that many would reject your argument as a false dichotomy. Really many people in Eastern Germany wanted some really serious change in their incrusted Soviet-socialist dictatorship, but today many of those people regret they ended up with what they see as kind of a US-neoliberal dictatorship. Many I know say they wanted a better economy, more products in the shops and cleaner air, but not the kind of elbow society and predator regime they ended up with.

      In the East of Germany the rejection of the US-led world order and US-style FRG capitalist system today is much stronger than in the West. And in elections the transatlantic parties combined get hardly their 50% together to govern in East Germany on the local and regional level.

      Believe it or not, given the current state of affairs, there are quite many people in Eastern Germany who have kind of nostalgia for the GDR. It's even kind of hip for youngsters, with bars in GDR style, food, stores, furnitures etc, and there is a German word for it: Ostalgie. Sure, not a majority, but it's quite popular here in Berlin.

    • Page: 7
    • echinococcus

      I think you are misreading the adherents of the wahhabi ideology. They just hate everything except themselves.

      From what I have seen most adherents of wahhabism are openly and even vulgarly anti-semitic, and they do make absolutely no distinction between jews and zionists.

      But I agree with your observation that they rarely attack Israel or Israeli interests. In south-west Syria quite the opposite is true: the wahhabi types of jihadists are in a rather open alliance with Israel. So what do they say why don't they attack Israel? From what I heard most say the "time is not right" for doing that. First they need to cleanse all the muslim umma from impurity, and then they can go further. In a more practical note, I also heard them saying they have "no funding" and "no big player support" for going after "the jews" occupying the core muslim land of Filistin - so they simply can't do it.

    • Maghlawatan

      I think this sectarian narrative for Iraq and Syria pushed by Saudi Arabia, the Israel lobby and the mass media is mostly nonsense. The opposite is true: many Sunni communities are intoxinated with a vile hatred on everything and everybody which comes from the Petro-Dollar-financed spread of wahhabi ideology emanating from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

      In Iraq people adhering to this vile ideology of wahhabism regularly put car bombs in crowded places - especially Shia places, but also Sunni places who don't subscribe to wahhabism, with the fake justification that Sunni minority is allegdly excluded from power. But the opposite is true: influential Shia clerics like Moqtada Al Sadr publicly constantly advocate for bringing Sunnis into the national government and work hard to get this done but the Saudi-Turkish backed minority Sunni tribes rejected power sharing, instead saying they will conquer Bagdad and take all power in Iraq by force.

      In Sunni-majority Syria in the government are mostly Sunnis - with the exception of Bashar Al Assad, who has a Sunni wife, but is himself a Alawite. But the defense minister, the foreign minister, the head of the government, and many more are Sunni. And in the last presidential elections people could have chosen a Sunni president, but they chose Assad, while the US/Saudi/Turkish-backed wahhabi insurgency doesn't want any power sharing, but simply conquer all power by force. And they justify a campaign of terror and false flag terror by falsely claiming to be a suppressed Sunni majority.

      That the wahhabi claims of fighting for a suppressed Sunni minority or majority is all false, is easy to see when one looks into other contries. In other contries, like Nigeria, Libya, Somalia or Pakistan, there are no Shia to speak off to "suppress" any Sunni, but still the wahhabi types run huge campaigns of terror against the population and tiny powerless minorities like Christians, Shia and Sufi. Here the real vile nature of Wahhabism is easy to see because there justification is just "cleaning the lands from the dirty minorities to make it more pure."

      And that's what's really going on, adherents of a vile medieval Saudi ideology are on rampage. Did the Iraqi Yezids "suppress" in any time or in any way any Sunnis? No they didn't, and the Yezids were a quite powerless minority. But the ISIS wahhabi types still killed them and enslaved their women with the "justification" they were "infidels" and so they deserve it. That's the reality going on from Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Caucasus, Egypt, Libya, Mali and Nigeria, from Syria and Iraq to Yemen and Somalia. Adherents of the medieval sectarian idelogy of Wahhabism are on a rampage, supported by Saudi Arabia, Katar and the Israel lobby, who try to mask this very bloody rampage as being driven by an alleged suppression of Sunnis whereever they can.

    • Harry

      Bill Blum's list of US-led regime changes and attempts to do so is very incomplete for recent times because most of the "colored revolution attempts" are missing. See Wikipedia for about a dozen more US-led regime change attempts in the last 15 yeras or so:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution#List_of_colour_revolutions

    • Maghlawatan

      "As a result of his alleged complicity in mass murder, he was denied a visa to the US and cannot visit Britain for fear of arrest."

      ... alleged ... I think, that's the key word in that Guardian article. It may be true, or may be not true. As my trust for politicized NGOs and mass media is close to zero, I don't give much on what they allege. I remember reading other accounts of the Gujarat events 2002, too, which gave a more nuanced picture than what I read in western media.

      Anyway, what strikes me is that Indian people in the election prefered Modi to the continued rule of the "moderate liberal left" INC which has I think quite similar problems as the US Clintonist Democrats. And so, has Modi so far ruled so bad? I don't think so, and he even stood up against the WTO pushing through an Indian exception for food subsidies: Modi said to the WTO he cannot risk that markets fail to provide food for his more than a billion people, most of them poor. He sounded like a communist on the very left in front of the WTO. The WTO was angry, but Modi stood tall and he got his exception for India food production. Modi neatly works with Russia and BRICS, too. He at least shows that tries to improve relations with Pakistan and China, though that's really not easy. So, has Modi ruled badly so far? I don't think so. And a better government hadn't been in the cards under the INC. Also, I don't think it's bad that there are changes of those people holding power from time to time, quite the opposite.

    • Annie

      What's wrong with Modi? I know as Modi came to power neocons and the Israel lobby were very happy. But as he made India to become part of SCO and keep India friendly with Iran instead of making India a US controlled "counter weight" to China, neocons and the Israel lobby were very unhappy.

    • Harry

      Yes, Tulsi Gabbard talks sense. A year ago as I saw her on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and I was completely shocked. I hadn't imagined that such a sensible person could appear in any major US media. She looks like a little nice girlie, but she spoke like a major of the US armed forces - and with lot's of courage. Here's that video:

      https://youtu.be/u7Q8X60KQ9Q

    • I would find it very good if there were Democrats in the Congress, especially the Senate, who would work positively with Trump on issues like peace and dressing down Wall Street so that Trump won't be hostage to neocons like MCain & Graham in the Congress, but got majorities to govern against the neocons.

      That is not to say that I think Trump shouldn't be criticised for all his bigotry and so on, but if Trump-Sanders cooperation would make it possible to break the neocon & Wall Street chokehold it could be a very good thing anyway.

  • Keith Ellison seeks to placate Israel lobby, by saying he is against BDS
  • Why 'give him a chance' is not an option
    • RoHa

      I'm not sure whether it's official that Putin facilitated the Russian bank to give credit to the FN, but I don't think it's an important distinction. What is proven beyond reasonable doubt, is that Putin didn't intervene to stop that. After fierce Western criticism the Russian bank instead gave the FN even more credit.

      Btw, if you don't know Marine Le Pen, the radical rightwing presidential candidate of the FN, here's a recent interview with her in CNBC:

      https://youtu.be/cX4bSCnxIfE

      As you can see she's so radical rightwing that all pollsters agree she has no chance of winning the Presidency anyway - at least no bigger chance than a referendum victory of the British Brexit camp or Donald Trump being elected President of the United States. It's simply an unimaginable horror.

    • RoHa

      All these rightwing parties are unique, and supporting one of them doesn't mean supporting others, too, and especially not in the same way.

      Take the French Front National for example. What seems to have happened there looks to me like the following: Socialist French President Hollande wanted to dress down that French rightwing party, and therefore he informally instructed all French banks not give the Front National a credit, so it couldn't campaign and compete well at the ballot box. And the French banks complied with Hollande's informal wish: despite balance sheet not being that bad, no French bank gave the Front National a needed credit and so political victory over the Front National at the ballot box seemed sure for Hollande.

      But the Front National complained that Presidential move to be a bit undemocratic, went beyond French borders to look for a credit and found a Russian bank willing to give the Front National credits French banks denied them. So that's the proof: Putin has undermined French democracy by allowing a Russian bank to give credit to the Front National despite the French president's best efforts to make sure they don't get credit nowhere. And now the Front National says Putin is a fine man who thinks himself instead of simply following orders from the Western establishment.

      Can there be any more obvious proof that Putin undermined French democracy?

    • Antidote

      A lot of questions Hitler asked are surprisingly rational, and modern.

      Oh, really? I didn't know that. Maybe we all should build momunents to honor Hitler as a vanguard of modern thinking?

      So, to get your argument against my view right, when the Ukrainian revolutionaries would not only hold ceremonies to honour the Waffen SS, but also would build a monument to honour Hitler in Kiev, we should all praise them for being the vanguard of "rational, and modern" thinking? Great idea. And what about building a monument to honour Hitler and his "rational, and modern" thinking in Washington, say directly next to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum? I guess that would be appropriate for you, too, wouldn't it?

    • W.Jones

      Instead of writing articles for MW, I would want to recommend you to read Consortium News where Robert Parry does an outstanding job at outlining world politics with carefully chosen words.

      Regarding Ukraine, some last words. It seems to have become a bit less a hot topic recently, so even Wikipedia starts to become helpfull again. Take the Wikipedia entry for Azov Battalion for example, a fighting squad openly Nazi, admiring Hitler, displaying openly Nazi symbols like the Swastika and having the SS Wolfsangel as their sleeve badge. Just read it at Wikipedia:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Neo-Nazi_ideology_and_symbols

      So, who was paying this band of Nazis - and others similar to this? Go to Wikipedia and lookup Igor Kolomoisky, aka Benya, who is also dubbed the "godfather" of the Maidan revolution, "a Ukrainian-Cypriot-Israeli business oligarch of Jewish descent" and the former Governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and find it there:

      He also is believed to have spent $10 million to create the Dnipro Battalion, and also funds the Aidar, Azov, Dnepr 1, Dnepr 2, and Donbas volunteer battalions.

      There it is, Benya paid for the Azov Nazi battalion. For those who don't know Benya, I think it's worthwhile to read the full Wikipedia entry about him, especially after reading what I said here how things are in Ukraine:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihor_Kolomoyskyi

      How Benya conducts state affairs and his business affairs was revealed in an audio tape of a call he made to member of parliament Oleg Tsarev from a synagogue in Dnepropetrovsk:

      https://youtu.be/feRPvceBurY

      The Saker put a transcription of that call into English:

      http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/05/ukrainian-news-two-phone-call-leaks.html

      One may say he doesn't sound like a governor there, but more like a godfather of the mafia. Well, that's how Ukraine is governed, most people in Ukraine know it, and that's what many ordinary people in Ukraine are fed up with.

      So, whom the Ukrainian-Cypriot-Israeli business oligarch and godfather of the Ukrainian revolution Benya is internationally connected with? Of course, it's Victoria "f**k the EU" Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan and the neocon & Clintonist lobby backing her.

      And that brings us back to Israel/Palestine, which is in the center of the neocon drive for ever more war. Robert Parry did it well comparing that neocon thinking and behaviour to a “little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly” quality for ever more and bigger war:

      https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/27/why-neocons-seek-to-destabilize-russia/

      This neocon/liberal hawk band for ever bigger war must be stopped, may it cost what it costs.

      And than look what US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said after Russia and China said no to regime change in Syria:

      “I do not believe that Russia and China are paying any price at all – nothing at all – for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime. The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price,” Clinton warned.­

      https://www.rt.com/news/clinton-russia-china-syria-569/

      It sounds a bit like the busniess style of Benya to me.

      While the neocons and Clintonists worked on a regime change in Syria by using Al Qaida terrorists as their proxy force, Russia & China must be punished for saying "no" to that idea. Well, and then, after Clinton said Russia and China shall pay a price, there started lot's of strategic troubles with Russia and China, regime change in Ukraine & TPP being in the center of that.

      So, now Clinton didn't get the US presidency, but Trump got it, and Trump made already clear that he doesn't want to follow the neocon war path in international politics. I think that's a really good thing.

    • W.Jones

      The articles you linked show that neither of the authors or of the western organisations they covered had any understanding of how the Ukraine works, and in a way it's similar to how the same people misunderstood the fake "people's revolutions" against oligarchy in the middle east, especially in Liby and Syria. Of course what's happened in Ukraine was not in the best interest of the people in Ukraine, and neither was it in the interest of the EU or Russia.

      The exposed "fake leftist" organisations as described in Annies link came as a shock to them, but many people in Ukraine understand how oligarchs work - as I wrote they play it left and right, even simultanously. Setting up a "Left Action group", a fake "Union" or fake "Workers Rights" groups staffed with their lackeys are cheap things for the oligarchs. Owning one or some fake leftist groups is generally not a bad thing for an oligarch, because these groups may prevent the establishment of a real left group against the oligarch, and also they may make hostile take overs of their assets by a competing oligarch more difficult.

      As far as I know common Maidan protesters were paid about $9 USD per day, about the double of the average Ukrainian wage - lot's of money for many of the poor in Ukraine, but nothing for the billionaire oligarchs, even if 10.000 protesters needed to be paid. Of course, if the guy who pays them says, I want to see some red flags today, so we can claim we have the left on board, some of them come up with red flags singing leftist songs. And when the cameras are off then they put the red flags back in the box.

      I got know one of the maidan protestors from Germany, he was a schoolmate of my friend's child and a young full fledged German Nazi youth. He went to the Maidan with his friends because it was the largest Nazi party he had ever seen and so they liked it a lot and they were even paid to be there. And they even had "fun" with the police, and if they were arrested they knew they would be released soon by a judge with no charges. As I said, judges and prosecutors in Ukraine are often on the payroll of one or the other oligarch.

      Making a big nazi party out of the maidan was a clever idea by Kolomoisky, Paruby and Yarosh, because that way they attracted many people, and good street fighters. A bit strange was that they imported commanders for these Nazi street fighters from Israeli IDF veterans, but generally they had no problems that they had Nazis work for them. As the Maidan was started, Kolomoisky was in exile, due to legal trobles in Ukraine, reportedly no in Israel though he has an Israeli passport, but his buddy Boris Filatov, whom he made his vice governor in Dnepropetrovsk after the coup was in exile in Israel, so he had likely some contacts there.

      Importing IDF veterans was even a clever tactic to be able to claim in western media that the Euromaidan was not anti-semitic, like here in this German mass media report: The jewish commandant of the Maidan. As is noted there, The Head of the Jewish Community in Ukraine, Josef Zissels, who happens to be also WJC Vice-President Chairman, was also "a strong Maidan supporter" and he also did his best to play down worries of Anti-semitism on the maidan, though many demonstrators there were openly using the Neonazi Wolfsangel as their symbol.

      So, what I've seen was that it was a Zionist coup in Ukraine using Nazis as their foot soldiers. But many people in Ukraine and elsewhere didn't get that. Jews wouldn't work hand in hand with full fledged Nazis to stage a violent coup, wouldn't they? I had no doubt they could, but for many people that was beyond comprehension, like today they are baffled about the ZOA is fine with Trump's top advisor Steve Bannon.

      So, what I believe what's really behind regime change in Ukraine? Former senior professional staff member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Clifford A. Kiracofe put it well in a mid February 2014 article in the Chinese Global Times:

      ... A Western confrontation with Russia over Ukraine serves no useful purpose, and can only lead to revival of Cold War tensions. ... Should major power cooperation with Russia be set back by Washington's improper interference in Ukraine, it will inevitably become difficult to find diplomatic solutions to pressing Middle East issues. ... There are broader international implications. The present crisis could lead to a serious US confrontation with Russia, which would mean that major power cooperation in other parts of the world would be called into question. US and Russian cooperation in the Middle East on Syria and Iran could well be set back. This in turn could lead to heightened regional tensions and lead to the possibility of regional war. ... It is well known that the staunchly pro-Israel neoconservatives express deep political and cultural aversion to Russia, and promote Cold War perspectives. Such a mindset undermines US global diplomacy and US national interests. ... Using the Ukraine crisis to subvert major power relations between the US and Russia and their constructive joint action in the Middle East serves Israeli interests. It helps Israel and its neoconservative allies in the US and in Europe push for unilateral US military action against Syria and Iran.

      I think that's the major motive for what has happened in Ukraine. Israel and the neocons wanted to sabotage the US/EU relations with Russia, so that no deal US/EU-Russian deal for the middle east could be made, and the used Ukraine for this. But many people still can't imagine so much evil.

      I was several times in different places in Ukraine (Lviv, Kharkov and Kiev) long before the Maidan, and I do speak Russian quite fluently and a bit Ukrainian, which is not so much diffrent from Russian, so I had no problems to talk to ordinary people there. Since I had also some business in Ukraine (software development) I also know a bit about how the economy works in Ukraine.

    • W. Jones

      In hindsight: I don't think it's true that the left generally participated in Euromaidan.

      The Communist party of Ukraine led by Petr Simonenko - the main organized left force in Ukraine and in a coalition with the Party of Regions government under President Yanukovich - was all against Euromaidan, and they spoke loudly against the Euromaidan, even if they were beaten up. And leftists in the Party of regions were also all against the Euromaidan, take Oleg Tsarev for example.

      But in a way you are right that there were some "liberals" groups - liberal in the sense of financed by "liberals" like Victoria Nuland, George Soros or Igor Kolomoisky - which supported the Euromaidan, and which were presented as being left wing. And they had really some liberal/left grass root support. They presented the Euromaidan as a struggle of the people against the Ukrainian oligarchy, a typical color revolution theme. The communist party instead presented the struggle correctly more as a struggle between two oligarchic clans, one pro-Russia and one pro-US, but that was of course no clever tactic to mobilize the left.

      From what I understand most left people in Ukraine stood on the fences, thought it was one more of these permanent protests in Ukraine organized by this or that oligarch using cheap activists to carry it out and they were surprized that Yanukovich was stupid enough to pull police out of Kiev after some bloody fascist/neocon false flag terror in Kiev and let another coup after the 2005 coup/colored revolution succeed. I was surprized, too.

      What has to be known about Ukraine is, that political wings based on political positions like left and right are quite weak in Ukraine. Politics in Ukraine is more like a ruleless game between various oligarchs, which recruit "activists" for demonstrations from football hooligans and other poor people paid a bit to make a demonstration good for some headlines. The political position of a Ukrainian oligarch is usually quite difficult to guess, often they played politically on both, left and right, sides simultanously, and they hardly had any problems switching sides with the weather. So instead of a game of left or right, pro-EU/US against pro-Russian, politics in Ukraine was more seen as a struggle between Yanukovichs political empire against Kolomoisky's Privatbank empire against Akhmetov's mining empire against Pinchuk's steel empire against Firtash's Energy empire and so on, meaning oligarchs fighting each other in various coalitionseach of them commanding his own forces in media, government, bureacracy, prosecutors and judges, street fighting squads aka security services, soccer clubs for a fan base for "political activism" and so on. I'ld not even be very surprized if some of the same ruling pro-EU/US oligarchs would try soon to switch back to a pro-Russian position when pro-EU-reforms threaten their power. While Kolomoisky and Poroshenko successfully mobilized the anti-Russian ultra right for the coup, the left mostly stood idle, feeling they had better things to do than doing street fighting for this or that oligarch, believing police will deal with the violence, though in the last days before the coup there were counter demonstrations organized against EuroMaidan in Kiev, people even came with buses from Crimea.

      After the coup had succeeded the left tried hard to do counter activism, but it was largely too late and the junta's repression was vicious, not everyday and everywhere like in Odessa, were more than 40 leftwing activists were massacred in the union house, but quite vicious. Today there are no major liberal or left wing forces left in post-coup Ukraine showing their face in public, except in the Russian-backed separatist DNR & LNR regions, of course. Kiev's politics became different colors of right and extreme right, and the old game of various oligarchs fighting each other with all means is back, too. Georgian neocon darling Saakashvili, whom I believe has brought in the special forces commiting the false flag terror on Maidan, seems to have fallen out of favor of Kolomoisky, lost his governor post in Odessa and may even lose his newly aquired Ukrainian citizenship.

    • W. Jones

      "how the Postwar West German system was set up to prevent a change in policy, by design?"

      First of all, Germany was set up as a federation of states, so each election in the states and in the Bund has only a limited infkuence. The private mass media in Germany was set up based on licenses from the military command of the occupying powers USA, Britain and France - whom the US Commander didn't like simply got no license. The FRG started being with the US Governeur for German occupation McCloy naming his brother-in-law Adenauer as candidate for the strongest party CDU - though the public wasn't told that he was the brother in law of McCloy.

      Elections are partly based on party candidate lists, so when the party lists are done, the election is mostly over because most candidates are pro EU/Nato and on election day only minor flavor changes of the government are decided. There is a threshold of 5% to keep small parties out of parliament, so it's hard to found a party and get a voice in parliament.Public media leaders and judges are appointed by the government for long terms in advance, the prosecution is not independent but it's defind by law that it has to act on order of the government - so the government has the say who shall be prosecuted and who not. Censorship rules and libel laws are very strict, and punishments harsh - eg an 88 year old granny was just sentenced to two and a half years prison for "denying the holocaust." Usual libel suits cost many thousands of Euros, so for small people it's dangerous to say anything specific about the corruption of the powerful. Advocating against EU/Nato is usually summarized as extremism, and parties who advocate against EU/Nato - be they left or right - are systematically infiltrated by intelligence agents of influence in the name of fighting extremism. Courts with government appointed judges help the intel agents of influence in taking over parties critical of Nato/EU. Such take overs of peace parties by NATO-friendly agents we have already witnessed three times: the SPD in the 50s, the greens in the 80s/90s and currently the Left party is taken over. Politicians of major parties who give up major NATO positions are attacked by a vicious mass media system who doesn't have to bother with libel and censorship laws.

      So, in result, for example while polling usually shows that about 70% of the German population is against having German military in Afghanistan, all leading politicians have to do it anyway, or their career is finished. Similar is it with TTIP. Who comes out with a US-critical and Russia-friendly position is accused of anti-americanism and treated as traitor to the Western alliance and Germany.

      SPD-chancellor Schröder did it anyway because he was to be replaced by a CSU politician and he won the election 2002 with the rejection of the Iraq war, but it took the media only 3 years to take his government down after that. Since he signed up with Gazprom after leaving politics, he's still treated as traitor, though his policy of friendship with Russia and China was very successful for the German industry. Here is a typical report with the "enemies of the republic" - see how the traitor branding is done by our leading policy institutions, and don't miss that it's published in a US think tank, because the US opinion is what counts in Germany.

      http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/The_Kremlins_Trojan_Horses_web_1116.pdf

    • echinococcus

      It feels more like the mafia is ruling, no one in the EU government is hold accountable for nothing, despite their completely failed policies from the financial meltdown 2009 over sometimes very bloody Anti-Russian expansion up to currently supporting the overthrow of the Libyan & the Syrian government by largely Al Qaeda driven gunmen and trying to get back to a kind of cold war status with Russia and China, so a bipolar world is created. So there are good reasons for a serious change of government - meaning to break the ruling cartel. But it's hard to do. The guys running the show run it like a cartell.

      Just imagine: unlike US presidential elections where the people elect the President, the EU president is elected by the rulers of the EU member states. It would be a bit like if the US President would be elected by the governeurs of the US states, with the major difference that most people in the different EU nations from Romania to Sweden can't even speak with each other to organize to bring power to account.

      For those who really hold power the term "The second German occupation" is bit misleading, I think. That's because Germany itself is under some kind of occupation, too. It's the US occupation which began in 1945 for at least partially good reasons and which was formally ended already, but de facto lasts still up to this day.

      The ruling class here is a kind of occupation by those who believe in enduring Pax Americana and feel free to suppress all those who's opinion is that it would be better to have a world where there is more than one power center and act like that. While in Germany one such incident, that some one in the top power position left the Pax Americana camp to go to the multipolar Russia/China camp, happened with Schröder in 2002, Germay is still overwhelmingly ruled by the guys in believing in enduring Pax Americana, or like we call them here, Transatlantiker. It's expectionally hard to bring these people to account, and the German political system was designed by the occupying powers in a way that politically change is especially hard to reach. Merkel is just going from 12 years chancellorship to 16, and Adenauer and Kohl reached similar lengths of terms.

      The German system was intentionally designed by it's inventors to be hard to change in the name of being not open to take overs by forces of communism or fascism, and the ruling power here comes quite close to Wall Street, the Clintonists and the Israel lobby.

      So, in the end one may better say it's an American occupation than a Second German occupation. There are some German people, who would like to change that and do what's neccessary to change that, me for example, but in Germany we are a clear minority until now.

      But in other EU countries that movement is already stroger, though some of the people there and here still haven't really understood who they are really up against. But the people who does understand this grows.

    • W.Jones

      EU citizens vote for their delegates in the EU parliament, but that so-called parliament is largely a "consultative" body, similar to a "parliament" in Saudi Arabia.

      The real EU parliament is called the EU Council. It's members are the heads of government of the EU member countries. The EU council does the important things, like chosing the EU government and passing the real EU legislation, like sanctions on Syria and Russia, expansion to the east, legislation to build a EU army, treaties with other countries and entities like CETA, the anti-migration agreement with Turkey and so on.

      The actual "EU government" is called the EU Commission. It's elected for five year terms by the EU Council. The head of the Commission is called the President of the Commission, currently Jean-Claude Juncker, a transatlantic German stooge from Luxembourg. Before Juncker it was José Manuel Barroso, a non-executive chairman at Goldman Sachs International. In their 5 year terms the Commission and their President can largely do what they want, like squeeze Greece, give money to EU governments they deem following good policy and give no money to governments following what they deem bad policy.

      So, if the people in one EU member state don't like their national government anymore, and put in charge instead a government that follows policies more for the interests of the people than the interests of Goldman Sachs, the US and Israel they can change their national government, but in the EU council they switched just one vote with that. And than the EU Commission retaliates against the government which puts the interests of their people before the interests of Goldman Sachs, by the method an economic crackdown against the popular national government until it's on it's knees while continuing business as usual - ie transfering wealth from the people to the corporations and their own pockets and expanding the US zionist empire.

      So, for the people in a EU nation who want a change in policy in the interest of the people - like a state sponsored investment programm, an effective job programm or peace and good relations with their non-EU-members - it's easier to try leaving the EU than inducing a real policy change in the EU - because for a change in EU policy they would need to change at least half of the diverse EU member states governments from Bulgaria to the UK and than wait and survive years until next EU Commission elections, a near impossible task.

      That's what's behind all the new "anti-EU populists" left and right, from Syriza over M5S and UKIP to FN. People across the EU are fed up with Goldman Sachs and the like running their politics, but they deem it easier to leave the EU than to change the EU.

    • John O

      The nobel peace prize winner EU wages one war after the other to expand, mostly against Moscow. The war on and destruction of communist Yugoslavia & sometimes quite bloody regime changes in Georgia, Ukraine two times already, Moldavia, Armenia, Belarus, it's all the work of "peaceful democracy promoting" EU and it's military twin sister NATO in the service of anti-Russian western empire expansion. Plus the terrorist destruction of Libya & Syria right now, of course all under the cover of "transitions to democracy" - but in reality in the service of western empire expansion.

      If the EU really promoted peace I would still be all for EU, but since EU promotes war eastwards like Nazis did, I started to become all against EU. A further problem with EU is that it is very hard to reform it for peace, since it is only very indirectly democratically controlled. Reform of EU seems hardly possible, that's why it must go.

      Btw: British media reports that team Trump meticulously planned out 'Farage for ambassador' tweet:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3962704/Trump-s-Farage-ambassador-plot-meticulously-planned-out.html

    • W.Jones

      my main fear about Trump is ... that he would turn out to be a secret Neocon running as an Antiglobalist.

      If Trump would be a secret Neocon running as an Antiglobalist, he now would not have promised to follow through with his promise to abolish the TPP, but would have promised to follow through with his promise to label China a currency manipulator on day one, a promise Mitt Romney also made in 2012. That could have also ignited a new cold war - what's exactly the reason why neocons want it.

      However his promise to label China a currency manipulator Trump forgot now, while he didn't forget his promise to scrap TPP. That's a decision which strongly indicates Trump's direction for a multipolar world order, or how you call it, anti-globalist. The Wall Street establishment isn't happy at all with that.

    • Alice

      Trump just promised again to abolish TPP on his first day in office.

      If he follows through with that promise - and I think chances are really good because if he didn't want to do that he'ld just shelved or forgotten that promise by now - his election already paid off.

      TPP is more than about the economy, it was a strategy to start a new cold war to prevent an emerging multipolar world. In other words: without TPP the American empire is dead. China takes over as the world's leading country.

      Whatever Trump or Bibi or whoever follows them will do else will not be able to turn this changed world back to an American dominated world. Israel might hang on for a while, but since the apartheid regime of Israel is dependent on American supremacy in the world there is no way Israel can evade that reality of changed world power configuration.

      But there is more: Regarding Flynn, he looks to me quite good, as I saw the videos where some of these quotes are said to come from, and I think you misquoted him a bit. He seems to me to be out to take down Israel's most important Arab ally, the wahhabi regime of Saudi Arabia. And by the way, he seems to be on good terms with Putin, what is a really good thing.

      And take a look on the Israel lobby, despite Bibi making a nice face with Trump they are frightened by Trump. They understand already that under Trump "America first" will rule, and the times of "Israel first" are over.

      Another great thing Trump has done is proposing Farage as british ambassador. Doing this Trump is on the path of destroying the European Union, the second biggest backer of israel after the US, because that pushes Britain out of the EU.

      And, Trump is also on the path of destroying the mainstream media hasbara machine, just read about his meeting with the leading media figures on Monday.

      However, I agree that Trumpism shouldn't last forever. To make the end of Trump a success, it's needed to get back the Dem party from Wall Street & the lobby, Clintonists and Chuck Schomer types, so it really serves the people it is supposed to serve. If I would be American and opposed to Trunmp that's where I would put my energy on: conquer the Dem party to make it serve the people instead of Wall Street. If that change in the Dem party happens Trump will soon be history.

  • General under consideration by Trump for Defense has slammed Israel for impending 'apartheid'
  • Donald Trump picks anti-Muslim intel officer to be national security adviser
    • Trumps pick of Flynn not only raised red föags with Jennifer Rubin, but with the Washington Post "Editorial Board" aka Fred Hiatt, too. The Post's View it's called, the title is "Trump has made some dangerous appointments," under the title is a picture of Flynn and then the Washington Post states:

      Mr. Flynn has attracted attention with his rhetorical assaults on Islam and Muslims. He has described Islam as not a religion but a “political ideology” that hides “behind what we call freedom of religion.” He once tweeted that “Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL.” ... the appointments of Mr. Flynn and Mr. Pompeo suggest a turn toward policies that could deeply alienate U.S. Muslim allies, including Sunni states whose assistance is critically needed to forge political alternatives to the terrorists in Iraq and Syria ... The general ... has accepted payment from the Russian propaganda network RT, and his consulting firm has lobbied for a businessman close to Turkey’s autocratic president.

      So, if I may summarize that stance of the Washiongton Post. Mike Flynn is so anti-islamic, that he "could deeply alienate U.S. Muslim allies, including Sunni states whose assistance is critically needed to forge political alternatives to the terrorists in Iraq and Syria" - and his biggest sins are being on RT and lobbying for Erdogan - who happens to be the president of the most important U.S. Muslim ally, and of course Turkey is a Sunni majority state.

      The Washington Post can't decide: is Flynn ugly because he's anti-muslim or is he ugly because he's too cozy with muslim president Erdogan. It seems to me proof that the neocon Washington Post is hiding why they are really against Flynn.

      But I think I know a part of why the Washington Post is so much against Flynn. It's this story, and all what's linked with it: Former DIA Chief Michael Flynn Says Rise of Islamic State was “a willful decision” and Defends Accuracy of 2012 Memo. Flynn didn't shut up on this, even when pressed.

      Whether it is criminal to aid Al Qaeda terrorists - who also happen to be the enemy in the war on terror - may be a decision for courts. But I remember well the chants of "Lock her up" and it looks to me some people are scared it could happen - and not only to her.

    • With well-known blogger Jennifer Rubin Trump also raises red flags with his Flynn pick. She writes:

      Flynn’s personal testiness, unhinged zealousness, rash judgment and anti-Muslim hysteria echo Trump’s deficiencies.

      As far as I remember Jennifer Rubin was always a great friend of Muslims, wasn't she?

      So, what's going on? Maybe with his statement that the creation of an ISIS caliphate in Syria and Iraq happened due to a "willful decision" in Washington he hasn't made himself not only friends? I think that he wants to talk with Russia couldn't be it, because virtually nobody I know would prefer throwing nuclear missiles at each other instead.

      For people not familiar with Flynn I think an interview with Flynn by Sophie Shevardnadze from about a year ago can give some answers on what kind of worldview Flynn holds:

      https://youtu.be/4RIUE68cpGc

  • Neoconservatives warm up to Trump (maybe they have an agenda)
    • Yonah

      I would more think that Donald Trumps agenda is America First.

      As I see it jews are fine for him to accomplish this, but America First is the measure in the lobby test. Anyone who cannot demonstrate he is an America Firster is out. I think that's the basics.

      And I think Trump is hardly doing more than running an Apprentice to figure it out.

      But - see the apprentice, Trump is not a layman to HR decisions.

  • Trump may kill Netanyahu with kindness
    • I think Jonathan Cook missed one important point.

      The next "peace talks" between Israel and Palestine may well be hosted in Moscow. It may well be that Nethanyahu, Abbas and Trump are all very fine with that, but all for different reason. Trump can disengage from the middle east, while Netanyahu may think, Moscow has no leverage, so they are guaranteed to produce nothing but hot air covering the continued colonialization process.

      But then, Trump could somewhere switch from saying he's fine with Moscow owning the I/P problem to say that both Israel and Palestine are in Moscows orbit now, so America has no business in supporting either side there. The Sanders Dems will not disagree.

      And then, without President Trumps/Dem Sanders' America's backing, Israel - as we know it - would be finished. Putin - backed up by Trump - can then dictate whatever solution he thinks fits. And Trump gets what his whole Presidency is all about: get America back for the America Firsters.

  • A most mournful gathering
    • Abba

      So, readings included Langston Hughes and Martin Luther King, but they did not include Susan Abulhawa?

      If not I wonder what the "mournful gathering" was all about.

  • Epic battle looms over accused anti-Semite entering White House, and 'NYT' graywashes the moment
    • Yonah

      I'ld take the commercial as a "mission statement" of the Trump movement, especially the following words: "we will take this country back." I think it's a power struggle.

      http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/07/has-israel-effectively-colonized-the-united-states/

      Currently it looks like Israel and her lobby rule the USA, but Trump is the figure head of an insurgent movement that wants the country back from Israeli colonialisation. I think that's the central mission of the Trump presidency.

      I can't see what's wrong with that and I don't think anybody except Israel-firsters will be against that. But I agree it will be a messy process, because Israeli colonialisation of the USA has feeded many ugly sentiments, including racism. And that Israel bills itself as "the jewish state" does will likely make that US liberation struggle even more messy, because it adds a sectarian element - anti-semitism - to the US liberation struggle. But their is likely an added benefit: when the US people will have won their liberation struggle,for example the racist zionist apartheid regime in western asia will likely collapse, too.

  • Where do we go from here? Our thoughts & yours on the US election
    • Mooser

      To get the benefit of taking on a corrupt doesn't mean the guys doing that are not corrupt. I don't think many of his followers do think Trump is not corrupt. For example, I do think he's very corrupt. But I do think he nevertheless may break up the entrenched corrupt establishment which is currently ruling. And I do think many of his voters expect nothing less.

      For the sake of this comment not being suppressed, I won't go further now to say what I think the mission of the Trump campaign is all about. But if you may read between the lines you may read that my support for what I think is Trump's agenda is quite limited.

      I hope this Orwellian comment clarifies things.

    • If I'ld be Mondo Weiss editor I'ld primarily stick to the Palestinian rights/oppression/occupation issue.

      With regard to America I'ld try to see two competing movements, both with good intentions, but both with major flaws:

      1st Trump movement: Good intention: take on the corrupt establishment aka the neocons and the liberal Israel lobby, Wall Street, special interests, etc. Major flaws: some components of that movement have issues like all kinds of racism, islamophobia, anti-semitism, misogynism and so on.

      2nd Liberal movement: Good intention: take on all kinds of social injustice, racism, islamophobia, anti-semitism, misogynism and so on. Major flaws: some components of that movement have issues like a blind eye for Israeli human rights violations, a penchant for humanitarian wars of aggression, russophobia and so on.

      So, if I would be Mondo Weiss editor, I would do journalism measuring both movements for their supposed-to-be good intentions, lauding them where appropriate, but criticise them both where their major flaws can be seen. I think to get these tensions between these both two basically good, but both seriously flawed movements enlightened could result in very good journalism on what's happening in America.

      I think that would be quite close to what Sanders said after the Trump win: he will work with him where he does good for the common people, infrastructure projects and whatever, but vigorosly oppose him, where he deploys racism etc.

  • Before Trump's revolution, there was Sanders'
    • Phil

      It might be strategically not be bad luck that Trump won this time, despite Bernie generally being a far preferable candidate.

      Imagine Bernie would be President now. Bernie would be boxed in by the Israel lobby warparty extremists ruling over most of both parties and dominating the Congress. It would be tough for President Bernie to get anything through that dominance of zionist hawks ruling both parties and the Congress, just as it was for Obama - think of the Iran deal for example. The neocons dominating the Republicans and the "liberal" zionist hawks dominating the Democrats would be working all hard to make sure President Bernie would not succeed with anything. After 4 years someone mainstream from the Israel lobby would take over with the winning story, that President Bernie is a living example that the far left can get nothing done.

      Instead, what will likely happen now: the neocons inside the Republican party will be largely destroyed, because they didn't back, or even opposed, a successful Republican nominee, thereby committing treason to the Republican cause. And the "liberal" zionist hawks dominating the Democrats will be diminished there, because they blew that election by conspiring against a far more popular Democratic candidate: Bernie.

      So, after some years of President Trump, there will be elections again. And that time it is likely that someone from the Bernie camp will become the Democrat nominee for President. And, if the Republicans do not hugely improve themselves in the meantime in regard to racism/sexism/corporatism/you name it, he - or she - will likely win. And than, this is important, that President from the Bernie camp will be actually able to rule in a sensible way, because the Zionist warmongers have already been purged from both parties.

  • Regardless of the election the struggle remains unchanged
    • Nada

      Don't despair. I like to add something.

      You wrote: "We were pushing the Democrats for change."

      I agree that Democrats need to change. And I want to add: that must happen now, or at least asap. When shall it happen if not now. And it needs action now.

      Bernie Sanders just endorsed Keith Ellison for chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

      Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal seems to endorse New York's Wall Street Darling Chuck Schumer - who is also Netanayhhu's Quds-Guard - for Senate Minority Leader.

      I think there is a stark choice and a big chance now for Dems, and it needs urgent action.Which side Dems are on: Schumer's or Ellison's?

  • New York panel highlights fissures on the left over Syria
    • Kathleen

      What I find important to add to this list to understand what's going on in Syria is Pilger's recent interview with Assange regarding the Podesta emails:

      Assange: Clinton is a cog for Goldman Sachs & the Saudis

      Assange: There’s an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton, not so long after she left the State Department, to her campaign manager John Podesta that states ISIL is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Now this is the most significant email in the whole collection, and perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the Clinton Foundation. Even the U.S. government agrees that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIL, or ISIS. But the dodge has always been that, well it’s just some rogue Princes, using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves.

      But that email says that no, it is the governments of Saudi and Qatar that have been funding ISIS. ...
      Pilger: Of course the consequence of that is that the notorious terrorist group called ISIl or ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.

      Assange: Yes.

      Pilger:That's extraordinary.

      Now, put that in relation of talk of DIA head Michael Flynn about a DIA memo from 2012 - known to the public because it was released to a FOIA request - which warned of the creation of a jihadi principality in Eastern Syria and Western Iraq if the US doesn't change policy regarding the support of the insurgency in Syria. So, DIA head lieutenant general Michael Flynn said, the memo was well known to everyone important in US government, because he had pushed it to everyone, even when they were annoyed, but the US government took a willful decision to create something like ISIS in Syria: Former DIA Chief Michael Flynn Says Rise of Islamic State was “a willful decision” and Defends Accuracy of 2012 Memo.

      Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?
      Flynn: I think the administration.
      Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?
      Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.
      Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?
      Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.

      So, the Clintion foundation took a lot of money from governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who funded ISIS and Al Qaeda, while Clinton was Secretary of State, and Clinton and her buddies took a willful decision to let ISIS and Al Qaeda grow in Syria, and that despite a strongly worded warning from the US military intelligence service DIA.

      It smells like taking a willful decision to let Al Qaeda & ISIS grow might have been a result of Clintonian pay to play. I think, to quote Pilger, that's extraordinary.

    • Annie

      Great video! Let's hope Saudi Arabia becomes a topic in the U.S.

      Regarding HRC I find the scariest parts that HRC knows very well the perils of strengthening the "wahhabi brand of Islam" but she does it anyway:

      https://youtu.be/Dqn0bm4E9yw

      And she seems to be even happy about the most horrific crimes while doing so:

      https://youtu.be/Fgcd1ghag5Y

    • Rusty Pipes

      I won't deny that there still members of a "secular democracy-loving contingency" in the insurgency in Syria, what may be especially true for the Kurdish YPG. However, it's impossible to miss for any close observer, that - besides of the YPG - these "members" are powerless. And that is the reason, why people like Loubna Mrie are not in Syria, but in exile, playing face for terrorists. Loubna Mrie (Alawite girl from Latakia) seems to have a really ugly family/father story behind her, so no wonder she left. But generally, Syria is quite different and not many people have such a bad luck there as Loubna Mrie, which is, why they are almost all on the other side of the struggle.

      Syrians understand that, but in the West, some people still don't get it.

    • What I miss here is an acknowledgement of the fact that there exists only one path o end the war in Syria. Basically all world powers tacitly agree on that. The path has basically two components:

      1st) Having fair elections where every Syrian can run and vote. That includes Bashar al Assad or other government people as well as opposition leaders seen as terrorists by the government.

      2nd) Crushing irreconcilable terrorists, who do not want any democratic solution and carry on fighting their war no matter what. That includes basically structures of Al Qaeda and it's spin-offs, IS, Jabhat al Fatah al Sham, Jund al Aqsa, Turkistan Islamic Party, but also all those, who behave the same as Al Qaeda, reject all-inclusive elections and carry on fighting and terror no matter what. Whereever possible local peace deals shall be done, but where that's impossible, because opposition groups reject peace, military force of the government and it's partners must be used to crush those who insist on fighting and terror until they grab power militarily.

      The Syrian government agrees to that, but the armed groups and their opposition in exile are shocked by that proposal, or order, made to them by John Kerry recently, as was leaked a couple of weeks ago.

      Why doesn't the opposition want to grab power via all inclusive elections instead of fighting? My explanation is: the armed groups and the opposition know they don't have the popular support needed to win competitive elections.

  • 'Ruling class' must regard Trump's rise as response to 'ill conceived wars' -- Matthews
    • The "ruling class" elite is responsible for wars on Yugoslavia, Iraq & Libya, just to name some of these bloody and expensive desasters, for the financial bubble thereby making people poor and FTAs designed not for the US people jobs but for their world dominance plots. Currently that very same ruling class elite is in bed with Al Qaeda (Read Consortium News 29/10/2016: The De Facto US/Al Qaeda Alliance) to bring down the Syrian government, the very same group they told people to be responsible for 9/11 which they told were the reason for their wars in the middle east, they advocate bombing the Syrian army, sinking Iranian ships and shooting down Russian planes and they push for more FTAs made for their geopolitical plots, read TPP.

      I think Matthews is correct that more and more ordinary people got that and they are simply and rightfully outraged. But Matthews is careful not to mention what I think will become the real big and messy issue soon.

      Who is the "ruling class" elite and what's the aim of their desastrous wars?

      The Washington Post recently put up a headline:

      ‘Jew-S-A!’ chant is latest reminder of white supremacist support for Trump

      Other media carried similar headlines. But is it true? Or may be it's more like many ordinary people now think the "ruling class" elite in the US is largely jewish and their desastrous wars are designed to serve Israeli aims? I think the latter is true.

      Counterpunch had recently put up an article by Badruddin Khan: Has Israel Effectively Colonized the United States?

      Can it be that Israel through a Jewish "ruling class" elite rules the US by proxy? So, who is the "ruling class" elite backing this election cycle? Almost everyone agrees the "ruling class" elite is backing Hillary Clinton and dislikes Donald Trump very much. The say so themselves, urge people to vote for Hillary, warn how bad a Trump presidency would be and their mass media even gave official endorsements to Hillary.

      So, now, everyone can have an easy look on who are the biggest donors of Hillary Clinton:

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

      Break down that list by religion and everybody can see that ~90% of the rich "ruling class" elite guys paying most to Clinton are in fact jewish. And quite a few of them make no secret what's on top of their mind: Israel.

      I think it's a quite convincing case, more and more people in the US see it that way and more and more people find it completely unacceptable.

      I'ld expect more chants like "Jew-S-A" in the future, swelling louder and louder until the ruling class elite is brought down and the Israeli colonialization of the US ends.

      I believe Trump is just a harbinger of that real big and messy issue coming. The US ruling class elite engaged in bloody regime change abroad, but now it looks like the chickens will come home to roost.

  • Palestine stands for the larger divide in the Democratic party
    • "Dem establishment and outsiders need couples counseling if Clinton wants to win"

      I do think Clinton wants to win, and she would do whatever she can to make it happen, couples counseling included. However I don't want Clinton to win, whatever she may do to get it.

      I'm very sure Clinton means more war, death & destruction. Her top choices for defense are already in high gear to do war for regime change in Syria, calculating in a potential war against Russia as a side effect.

      https://consortiumnews.com/2016/07/29/hillary-clinton-and-her-hawks/

      I do think Trump is better for peace, he will get along with Russia and fight ISIS instead of doing war in cooperation with Al Qaeda to reach regime changes wanted by the Israeli lobby.

  • By stressing accused Orlando shooter's Muslim name, Trump can gain upper hand on Clinton -- Michael Oren
    • klm90046

      Of course, the US has ravaged countries before, including Yugoslavia and Iraq. However, 9/11 had a specific effect on the US - remember, a country that is easily moved in the right direction, as Netanyahu freely explained - quoting here from the article linked above:

      "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

      And as Wesley Clark explained in 2007 the plan was to push through wars on 7 countries in 5 years after 9/11:

      https://youtu.be/SXS3vW47mOE

      Following such a plan would have not been possible without 9/11, an catalyzing event like a "new Pearl Harbor." That further following this plan was delayed under Bush/Cheney until the Obama/Clinton took power, was only because the US was beaten up badly in Iraq, so the US needed time for recreation before getting other wars started like those on Libya and Syria. But then again, after those wars went awful, and so the war on Iran was called off for now with the Iran deal. However, 9/11 was the catalizing event that made this hyper aggressive US policy in the first decade of the new century possible.

      Howveer, now it's different. I don't think Orlando will catalyze more of this hyper aggressive US policy. Now the blame falls into the other direction, namely in direction of those supporting the hyper aggressive US policy - including the support of wahhabi terror groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS as US proxies to attack other countries.

    • I basically think Michael Oren is correct here.

      When leaving out the fact that the US media shows it's racism by hyping the loss of US blood while it takes muslim blood in the middle east for cheap, I think the basic assumption of Michael Oren is right. It was a bad day for Israel and Israel favorite horse Hillary.

      What's diffrent today from 9/11 is that 9/11 made the US public feel solidarity with Israel because of "islamic terrorism" and therefore 9/11 made it possible to start US wars against islamic countries like Iraq, what Israel wanted for long. However, this time it's different.

      Israeli ambassador Michael Oren is on the record saying Israel supports Sunni Islamic terrorists like Al Qaeda because it wants secular arab strongman Assad down. DIA chief Michael Flynn is on the record saying the Obama-Clinton administration made a "willful decision" to allow the creation of the ISIS monster to weaken Assad, and his assertation is backed up by a FOIA document.

      So what's different this time from 9/11 is that this time much of the US public may not feel solidarity with Israel due to this terrorism, but blame Israel, the Israel lobby, their Saudi buddies and Israel's presidential horse Hillary Clinton for willfully supporting this kind of terrorism.

      I think that's a big differrence from 9/11 to now.

  • Top donor to Clinton super PAC is Haim Saban
    • Mooser

      “white supremacist agitprop”

      Oh, that's an easy one. Just look at this, Rense (white supremacist) quotes JTA (agitprop) regarding Soros and Israel:

      Soros Says Jews And Israel Cause Anti-Semitism

      http://www.rense.com/general44/soros.htm

      So, seriously, it looks like George Soros is closer to BDS than to the Israeli Apartheid regime.

      That said, George Soros seems to be in lockstep with the Zionist Neocons as he is one of the main sponsors of war and terror in countries with friendly ties to Russia. He's supporting the terror war on Syria, including groups close to Al Qaeda, just as he supports the Nazi putsch in Ukraine. He was already a main guy behind the first putsch in Ukraine a decade ago, and similarly he backed other US made regime changes in eastern Europe to get democracy. Just when democracy doesn't bring bad relations with Russia, Soros starts to get very hostile with democratically elected governments like that in Hungary.

      So, to me it seems like just as it is with Brzezinski, Soros and his decades of mass murderous activities around the world seem not to be motivated by neocon-like love for everything Israel does, but by boundless hatred against Russia.

    • I wonder whether there is any chance to give the author of the mentioned Forbes article or Pulitzer or a medal for best reporting.

      Under the byline: Ivona Iacob, Contributor, I'm an intern with Forbes Opinion, there is her bio:

      I am a rising junior at Yale College, majoring in Ethics, Politics and Economics. There I write for the college newspaper Yale Daily News and work with the Alumni Affairs Office at the Yale Law School. I also tutor Introductory Microeconomics. I hail from Timisoara, Romania, where I graduated from a Mathematics-Computer Science High School. I am interested in human rights, immigration laws and politics and I intend to pursue a Law degree after college. I spent last summer in Paris, France studying Private Law & Contract Enforcement.

      This great women also has a Twitter account:

      https://twitter.com/ivona_iacob

      But perhaps the best of all is the graph of Hillary's Top 20 donors used in that Forbes article - I wonder if she created it herself:

      http://blogs-images.forbes.com/ivonaiacob/files/2016/05/graph-Clinton-donors.jpg

      I wonder if there will be rolling heads at Forbes now for something like "the obvious anti-semitism in that graph" - but I think she deserves a medal to put that graph on display at Forbes.

  • Front-page play for Israel battle shows that Israel has lost the Democratic Party base
    • Emory

      Interstingly, the New York Times chose to only identify the religious affiliation of Bernie Sanders (jewish - did a read the words "such a pity, we can't label him anti-semite" between the lines?) and his representative Keith Ellison (muslim - did a read the meaning "readers beware, he belongs to the enemy" between the lines?).

      Let me help the NYT to identify other people's religious affiliation mentioned in the NYT article.

      Cornel West, who attended baptist services in his youth ...
      James Zogby, who is the son of a ctholic immigrant from Lebanon ...

      Mrs Clinton, a methodist, whose daugther is married to a jewish banker and whose top four campaign donors are all rich jews...
      Jake Sullivan, Mrs. Clinton’s chief foreign policy adviser, who is jewish, indicated ...
      Malcolm Hoenlein, who is jewish and executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said...
      ... said Robert Wexler, who is jewish, a former congressman from Florida and Clinton supporter, who heads an advocacy group financed by one of Mrs Clintons top donors, S. Daniel Abraham, who is jewish.

      And finally, of course, a disclaimer at the end of the article would have been good:

      Jason Horowitz and Maggie Haberman, who reported this story, are jewish. The publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., is the grandson of late New York Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger, a jew. The New York Times officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for President 2016.

      I have a good idea why the New York Times only writes about religious affiliation regarding Sanders and his supporters. Would the New York Times write about the religious affiliations in the HIllary Clinton campaign and in the New York Times, the reporting of the New York Times and Hillary's bid for president would both look like a sinister jewish cabal.

  • Sanders appoints Palestine advocates to committee drafting Democrat's 2016 platform
    • Good news. Hallelujah!

      May I ask my dear fellow commenters a little OT favor?

      It's about this election and media. My impression is that the "HuffPost pollster" manipulates it's charts to make Hillary look good. Besides RealClearPolitics the HuffPo Pollster is one of the major poll trackers and aggregate builders, so it's likely very influential on forming opinion. The web address is here:

      http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster

      It seems to me the HuffPo people deliberately manipulate their charts in Hillary's favour with the "Smoothing" parameters. I will describe what I believe about how they do it in some steps comparing charts. Please try it yourself and tell me your opinion, whether I'm right.

      1st round: Look at the "2016 General Election: Trump vs. Clinton" chart, click on it to go on the detail page for Trump vs Clinton. While looking at the chart click on the "Customize this chart" button. Then select the "Less Smoothing" option. What I get as a result of selecting the "Less Smoothing option instead of the "Moderate Option" looks like a more "smoothed" chart. It may look like a random misfunction but to me it looks like the less smoothed chart looks better for Clinton.

      But now round 2: Look at the "2016 National Democratic Primary" chart, click on it to go on the detail page for Clinton vs Sanders. Now again, while looking at the chart click on the "Customize this chart" button (having javascript enabled in your browser). What I get by "Customize this chart" is that the chart changes to a more smoothed version, what more looks like that Sanders will soon overtake Clinton. When I select then the "Less Smoothing" option instead of "Moderate" I get the chart the Huffpo displays on it's start page.

      So, to me it looks like the Huffpo features the "Less Smoothing" option on it's start page calling it the "official chart" - and it looks better in both cases for Hillary. And somehow it seems to have produced an error in Clinton vs Sanders customize option.

      But it doesn't seem a random error to me, because in other charts it all works fine:

      Round 3: Go to HuffPo pollster start page, select "past primary races", then cgo to on "2016 New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary" and click on "customize this chart", try change "smoothing" to "less smoothing" and all is perfect. Customize this chart starts with the official chart and the "less smoothing" option produces a chart which is less smooth. All fine - but the race is not important anymore, because it's finishes. But on important races like "Trump vs Clinton" or "Clinton vs Sanders" the HuffPo chart programm has mistakes - or hastily programmed default display options - benefitting Clinton.

      What do you think, am I right that this is a serious indication - or even proof - for an intentional attempt of HuffPo to make Hillary good by manipulating the HuffPo Pollster chart in a way that serves Hillary Clinton?

  • 'Clinton scares the generals' -- Democratic Party divides over foreign policy
    • Wow, I just noticed that the very liberal NYTimes - which has endorsed Hillary Clinton - has just run a hard hitting piece on Donald Trump's foreign policy that I missed.

      A guy billed as "counselor of the United States State Department from 2007 to 2009" Eliot A. Cohen hits hard on Trump's foreign policy concept and praises Hillary Clinton's because Donald Trump's foreign policy is similar to that of Barack Obama, but Hillary Clinton's is much better. Quote:

      A Really Bad Deal for America

      Donald J. Trump can be seen as a talented demagogue, or as the manifestation of deep pathologies in the body politic, but he is also the bearer of ideas — crudely framed and sometimes incoherent, but ideas nonetheless. Nowhere is this more true than on foreign policy. ...

      Fundamentally, much of the difference between Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama reflects style rather than substance. ... Mr. Trump merely takes these views some steps further and decibels louder. ... Voters should examine Mr. Trump’s statements closely not just because of what they mean for the Republican Party, but what they imply for the two-generation-old American foreign policy consensus. ...

      On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is far better: She believes in the old consensus and will take tough lines on China and, increasingly, Russia. ... True, under pressure from her own left wing, she has backtracked on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a set of trade deals that supports American interests by creating a counterbalance to China and American values by protecting workers’ rights. But she might edge back toward supporting it, once in. ...

      So now we all know why Trump is so dangerous. He's almost like Barack Obama, just louder. Everybody should vote for Hillary, because there is a chance she'll didn't mean what she said against TPP under pressure from Sanders supporters and she "might edge back toward supporting it, once in."

      I have hardly ever heard such a passionate argument for Hillary Clinton, so I should think it should be distributed at the front doors of each rally and voting station where Sanders' supporters are to be met, to convince them with this hard hitting piece of the really liberal New York Times, that Donald Trump is dangerous and Hillary Clinton makes a eally good president.

      Or so.

    • pabelmont

      Amen.

      What I just remarked is that Hillary Clinton obviously believes she will manage to scare not only generals, but also voters. Look at this tweet of her today:

      "The threat that Donald Trump poses is so dramatic to our country, to our democracy." —Hillary on @CNN

      Source: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/733357500653785088

      If that's not fearmongering, what is?

      I also tend to believe that her mud wrestling like peddling womanzer stories against Trump will backfire spectucularly. I think people already know these things of Trump for a long time, it was already priced in into his bid long ago, soon after he started his bid. I think most of voters won't anything new in these attacks, except confirming their view that the Washington establishment is really against Trump - what is exactly why they vote for him.

      And then, if Clinton comes down to that level of mud wrestling, Trump is a grand master on that turf, like he now answered the NYT hit piece by declaring that Bill Clinton is a rapist, and self-declared feminist outsider Hillary enabled him doing so. All this mud slinging from Hillary on Trump just points to the fact that her record and her Wall Street designed policies are so unpopular with voters that she prefers to go with gossip and fearmongering after Trump instead of attacking him on policy.

      However, I'm not so negative about Trump regarding Israel as Philip seems to be. I see the recent invitation of Walt and Mearsheimer to the Koch brothers' event is a sign that big time changes are coming in the Republican party regarding Israel and Palestine. I'm quite sure that the mood of many nationalist Republican voters on Israel could switch quite quick against Israel if the Republican leadership changes their donor driven position on Israel and makes the Republican rank and file folks see what harm Israel has done to the US.

  • Sharansky disses American Jews for assimilating, then tells 'major donors' to universities to stop BDS
    • hophmi

      Yes, sure, it would be a good thing. Having Saudi Sheikhs replace rich Amercian jews to finance American education would not make a difference politically, since the Saudis and Israel work hand in glove politically and financially.

      https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/15/did-money-seal-israeli-saudi-alliance/

      But there would be one big positive effect to this: if the Saudis were financing American universities directly instead of giving their petro dollars first to rich Zionists to make them kosher, resistance against the Saudi Zionist axis of racists would surely be growing faster on campus and elsewhere.

    • I wonder whether Sharansky thought through what he told the audience.

      "calling on rich American Jews to stop giving money to universities where the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is active"

      I think it could be a good thing if rich American jews - and Israel firsters - would stop giving money to universities where the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is active. Money corrupts.

      And it would represent a great chance for the Koch brothers and their networks to step in instead. As it currently stands, the Kochs want to spend more on education. And they just did invite foreign policy experts to of their events whom the Israel lobby hates.

      Having the Kochs and their friends step in financing universities when rich American jews step out might present a chance for universities getting free from Zionist power structures at top.

  • How Eli Lake tricks readers so as to cast realists Walt, Mearsheimer and Freeman as anti-semites
    • ritzl

      Thanks for the flowers, and yes, I see this as another sign that there is a fight going on between Big Oil (coming from Southern States) vs Big Zion (Wall Street, Hollywood). It looks less and less plausible for me that the Trump rise was just accidental, and in a way, the neocons are getting a similar grasp, and I think, that's behind the virulent article by Eli Lake.

      Remember, with oil at $50 much of the native US oil industry cannot exist for long, and we have $50 oil because the Saudi-Zionist axis wants to destroy Iran and Russia. That policy is extremely expensive for Big Oil, and makes it a compititor with the Saudi-Zionist axis, while it's interests in higher oil prices align with Russia.

      Yakov

      Great takedown of Eli Lake. Btw, I'ld prefer this pic of Eli Lake in a Begin shirt to this article:

      http://www.infostormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/decom_neocon-jews-eli-lake-jamie-kirchick-liz-wahl-rosie-gray_572434574f119.jpg

  • Hillary Clinton supported Iraq war because of Israel, say Matthews and Landler
    • silamcuz

      I disagree. I am convinced that Hillary Clinton is a demonic spawn of Satan. I remember well, that it was her, who led US policy to destroy Libya, it was her who was responsible for spreading propaganda like Gaddafi bought "African mercenaries" which made the jihadi fanatics she supported slaughter all black popele they could find besides all other decent people they didn't like, it was Hillary Clinton who was responsible for spreading propaganda like Gaddafi ordered tons of viagra to enable Libyan soldiers rape women with which she incited mass rapings of women and mass killings in Libya. And for what did she incite and enable all this carnage? To please Israel, Saudi Arabia and to protect French colonial designs over Northern Africa? Or was it just pure bloodthirstiness of Hillary personally? Remember how Hillary Clinton was happy, after she managed to destroy a country and kill tens of thousands of innocent people, that she also managed to have her jihadi stooges killing the leader of that nation by sodomizing him with a knife:

      https://youtu.be/Fgcd1ghag5Y

      A similar sectarian carnage Hillary Clinton has also caused in Syria, with hundreds of thousands of deaths, and that all the while the DIA was loudly warning her that her actions would create a jihady principality in East Syria and Western Iraq. But Hillary Clinton took - as DIA head Michael Flynn puts it - a "willful decision" to carry on with that disastrous policy anyway. And now, on the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton promises she will order the US military to create an illegal "safe zone" for her jihadi friends in Syria, well knowing that attempting to this can only lead to more carnage and war with Iran and Russia.

      Hillary Clinton may have not always been that but with her recent actions, politically totally needless actions of war, mass murder, torture, and racial, misogynist and sectarian incitement, of her own choice, Hillary Clinton has proven to be a demonic spawn of Satan.

    • Eric

      I think Hillary has her own set of problems for the Neocons and their pressure group AIPAC. Many of her top donors are close to J Street, and to win the presidency, Hillary must accomodate Bernie and his supporters, who are also no big fans of AIPAC. But Trump is close to Americans for Prosperity and their southern Christian donor network, which all leaves the Neocons - since their candidates Rubio and Bush flopped - between two chairs.

    • MRW

      Yes, you're right that I exaggerated a bit. Freeman doesn't use the words "abdicating as world hegemon" but he says the "ability to transit the Middle East is essential to U.S. global power projection" and "decision to write off the region would be a decision to go out of business as a world power." That puts it different in less harsh words, but the reason Freeman gives for needed US involvement in the middle east is nevertheless U.S. global power projection, aiming at global US hegemony.

      That goal is not only nefarious for itself, but Freeman's statement is also plain wrong. Of course, the US can be a global power, can even keep being the global hegemon. without the ability to transit the Middle East. The US has two coasts from where it can project global power, to Asia, Europe and Africa without the ability to transit the Middle East. And it is this policy suggested by Freeman that is one of the roots of the disaster in the missle east. US presidents go there with something like good intentions - as far as projecting global power can be called good intentions - and the result is always disaster, because as long as the Israel lobby wields it's huge influence in the US it can't be different, because Israel sees disaster in the middle east as in Israel's best interest, so as the Muslims there can't unite in peace which could lead to a serious challenge for Israel.

      And that's also true for the second policy proposal of Freeman which I harshly criticized. Freeman says: "Stop trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. The states and borders that have been shattered can’t now be restored. ... the United States should focus on working with partners in the region to ensure that the restructuring of the region’s borders does as little harm as possible to U.S. and allied interests." That's exactly what the Israel lobby and the neocons want, because giving up the states is a recipe for endless war in the middle east, especially when it's done by the US, where the Israel lobby has such huge influence. To achieve peace, and to diminish the ability of the Israel lobby to foment sectarian and ethnic strife in the muslim world, the opposite policy is neccessary: accept the authority of governments inside their state borders. Stop sponsoring separatist and ethnic movements, like KRG in Iraq, "Sunni insurgency" in Syria, Sunni "people's comitees" in Yemen, Christian militia in Lebenon etc. And that's also the way Israel and the Israel lobby will come under pressure, not the other way around as Chas Freeman proposes it.

      That said, I like Chas Freeman, because he is not afraid to speak his mind in front of the Zionist mafia, and much of what he proposes is quite fine, but I think the two points I lined out here are big fat mistakes Freeman makes. And sadly, Freeman's policy proposal including these two big mistakes seems to me similar to what Donald Trump is up to.

    • Harry

      The current order - or better: disorder - in the middle east is a product of a Saudi-Israeli joint venture. The Saudis bring into this backwarded & catastrophic joint venture an extremist ideology - wahhabism, or more precise takfirsm, like Chas Freeman calls it - and tons of oil money, while the Israelis bring into that joint venture political clout in Washington. Both are readily being helped by Turkey. ISIS, but not only ISIS, is a case in point.

      The Nineveh-Anbar insurgency 2013/2014 which gave to ISIS was driven from Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan - that's where the leaders of this insurgency met, where there propagandists were based and from where the coordination was done. This was only possible as a collaboration of the Israeli/Saudi/Turkish forces of that joint venture I described above. DIA-head lieutenant general Michael Flynn confirmed as much indirectly in 2015 when he told the public - based on a FOIA released document - that the creation of the ISIS caliphate was a "willful decision" by powerful parts of the US government. We all know today, HRC and her very pro-Israel guys and gals were the faction in the US government behind it.

      WIth other powerful wahhabi/takfiri terror groups from Afghanistan over Libya to Yemen it's pretty much the same: the Saudis run the show and Israel firsters in the US government enable them. So, that offers a way out: target the Saudis, and target the Israel lobby by this, who has a hard time of defending their Saudi wahhabi allies. We currently see that tactic - target the Saudis to hit the Israel lobby - employed against the neocons/neoliberal Israel firsters in the US with initiatives like 28 pages and Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.

      Very funny to see that Israel-firster Lindsey Graham was initially for the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act before he understood that the real target of that would become Israel so he put the act on hold now.

    • MRW

      I think Chas Freeman gives a realistic and well-written description of the state of affairs in MENA.

      But then he starts to drift off the mark and to dangerous ideas like the US must be strongly involved in the MENA region because not being involved would mean abdicating as world hegemon. That idea explains not what is at stake in MENA for the U.S., but it is one of the major ingredients that led to the disastrous state of affairs. It is even more important to reject this misjudgement by Chas Freeman as he correctly describes that unconditional US support for Israel must be changed to enable the US to do something good instead of bad in MENA, but offers no way how to defeat the Israel lobby in the US. And baring a defeat of the reigning power of the Israel lobby in the US, no US involvement in MENA would be a lot better for all than US involvement.

      Combined with the second major misjudgement of Chas Freeman, that the US should support the abandonment of the Sykes-Picot borders, his advise will create more US induced desaster in MENA. The Sykes-Picot borders have many critics, and rightly so, because their are an odious colonial legacy. But redefining these borders, thereby breaking up the states they define, is a recipe to ensure decades of more war fighting for where the new borders shall be drawn. That would serve no one's interest except Israel's - because Israel would gleeful enforce it's hasbara theme then, that all the arabs and muslims are unable to live together in peace and Israel is the only peaceful country in the middle east. So, Chas Freeman's policy idea of breaking up the Sykes Picot borders would not only lead to more desaster, it would also not contribute to defeating the Israel lobby, which he agrees is a neccessity, but enforce and enable it to gain even more power.

    • Eric

      To me it looks more like that Trump is a stealth candidate of the largely rightwing christian donor network of the Koch brothers, with Corey Lewandowski being the key connection. I believe Americans for Prosperity had a huge role in making Trump the nominee. I know, Charles Koch said, he'ld maybe vote for Hillary instead of Trump, but I think that's just another trick.

      Not that I neccessarily prefer white right racists to zionist racists, but if I'm right that would explain why the neocons fought him so hard. Now that they lost, the Neocons try to come onboard of the Trump ship, that's how I'ld explain Adelson's endorsement and the rumor that Adelson will donate big to Trump.

    • Remembering the remarks of JJ Goldberg at JStreet with reference to opensecrets, that Dems get almost all their big money from jews, here's a quick check of the list of Opensecrets' list of Hillary's top donors 2016 - just going around in German alternative media:

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

      1. Soros Fund Management ($7,039,900) - company of infamous jewish hedge fund billionaire George Soros

      2. Euclidean Capital ($7,002,700) - family office of jewish hedge fund billionaire James Harris Simons

      3. Paloma Partners ($4,007,900) - alias of jewish billionaire finance investor S. Donald Sussman

      4. Laborers Union ($4,000,886) - union with large investments in Israel, in 2002 it's boss Terence O’Sullivan was to be honored by Israeli bonds sellers with a tribute dinner

      5. Saban Capital Group ($3,532,171) - company of jewish-israeli Hollywood billionaire Haim Saban

      6. Pritzker Group ($2,814,309) - company of jewish billionaire family Pritzker

      7. Women's Self Worth Foundation ($2,502,700) - foundation of Haim Saban's wife Cheryl Saban

      8. Herb & Marion Sandler/Sandler Foundation ($2,502,700) - foundation of jewish billionaire banker Herbert Sandler & family

      9. Priorities USA/Priorities USA Action ($2,151,025) - finance vehicle of Hillary Clinton dominated by donations from jewish billionaires

      10. Dreamworks SKG ($2,013,500) - company of rich jewish Hollywood stars Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg

      And so goes it on and on. No 11, is jewish media owner Fred Eychaner, no 12 is the company of jewish hedge fund billionaire James Harris Simons and so on.

      via: Parteibuch - the billionaires behind Hillary Clinton

      https://nocheinparteibuch.wordpress.com/2016/05/12/die-milliardaere-hinter-hillary-clinton-im-portrait/

      Maybe Hillary's foreign policy regarding Israel and Palestine has to do something with her donors?

  • Zionism threatens to bring anti-semitism full-circle
    • Jonathan,

      excuse me to repeat myself. Please have a look at what Rabbi Felix Goldmann - a prominent liberal German Rabbi and figher against anti-semitism wrote about Zionism - in 1913. I'm almost sure you may find some of his insights as revealing as I do. I translated these his sentences here on Mondo Weiss into English a couple of years ago. They guide me still today:

      If the “racial” moment has acquired a meaning in which nothing counts of everything else, merits, virtues, striving and disposition, if the Jew is outlawed, if you want to depress him into a pariah position, so it is a success, the national belief, the chauvinistic racial madness of our times, has won in diligent work.

      And this chauvinist, national racist madness is the theoretical basis, the spiritual soil of Zionism! That’s where it borrowed the specific features of it’s being and it’s effectiveness! Even the utterance of this undeniable and undisputed fact contains the most damning criticism of this pseudo messianic movement. With all clarity the consequences must be imagined of what it must mean for the nature and manifestations of Zionism that it grew up on the same marsh soil as the racial anti-Semitism, this scourge, which we Jews are suffering under so horrible. And it’s always the same water, may it now be called Aryan anti-Semitic, or may it now be colored Jewish-national that comes from the same poisoned wells, and no staining of the world can make it a healthy drink.

      Those were the words of Rabbi Goldmann in 1913. He published them in a small booklet on Zionism under the pseudonym of Anti-Zionist Comitee Berlin, because he feared retribution from powerful zionists, who, as he says in this booklet, never fight an argument sincerely, but always attack the person making the case ad hominem.

      Frankfurt on Main University has now put his booklet as scan online:

      http://sammlungen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/freimann/content/titleinfo/6524222

      The information that Rabbi Felix Goldmann is the athor of that anonymous booklet is sourced by well-reputed German researcher Matthias Hambrock:

      https://books.google.de/books?id=VOe6Lf6F0A0C&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=Der+Zionismus,+seine+Theorien,+Aussichten+und+Wirkungen+Felix&source=bl&ots=WJ5KpKdcCX&sig=r_hy4ao5eqOjRt3Ad-wBd_qQGZ4&hl=de&sa=X&ei=gk5gUcGZLYSKtAblp4GABA

      To me it looks pretty much as Rabbi Felix Goldmann has understood the nature of zionism and our current discussion more than a hundred years ago - and better than most of us do now.

      Have a look!

  • 'Either Assad or we'll burn the country' - An excerpt from 'Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War'
    • Mooser

      Endorsement or no endorsement, words can have consequences.

      Peddling lies like these here contributes to encouraging terrorists in Syria to commit more acts of false-flag-terror there.

      US-paid terrorist supervisor Raed Fares and his gang, among them Hadi Al Abdallah, moved from Kafranbel to Aleppo and committed a couple of days ago some false flag terror attacks there designed for western audience. And they were a success, many western media and some parts of UNO fell for them. Other terrorists in Homs then slaughtered some Allawi civilians for motives what they called revenge for the false flag terror Raed and Hadi did in Aleppo while blaming it on the Syrian army.

      Peddling lies of false flag terror attacks and engaging in massacre marketing - like RYK does it - is a major part of what keeps the bloodshed in Syria going. In his story here he even fails to mention that the insurgents' boss responsible for the FSA attack on Damascus was no other than Zahran Alloush. That's the infamous Saudi sponsored sectarian hate preacher who commanded the FSA in Damascus, later rebranded it as Islam army, which had one of the few chemical warfare units insurgents had in Syria.

  • If it had been up to Hillary Clinton, there would be no Iran Deal
    • That all looks to me like the guys at the NYT - or those who pay for the content - think they've done enough dovish PR for Clinton to beat Sanders, so now the put out hawkish PR to prepare her for the match against Trump.

  • Sy Hersh's 'forbidden statement': Sanders's liberation from NY Jewish money could change US foreign policy
    • I'm not so sure, yet, that the balance of power is changing.

      It may still come out to be just a flash in the pan.

      Eg: Maryland senator Barbara Mikulski - who backed Obama's Iran deal - retires, Donna Edwards lost the race for that seat against the Israel lobby. So, to me it looks like the Israel lobby just got stronger.

      Bernie Sanders mounts a fine insurgent campaign against Wall Street and the Israel lobby, but he's 300 delegates behind. So, if Wall Street and the Israel lobby manage to install their horse Hillary at the white house, how much will be left of the current uprising against the Zionist war lobby?

      Will the campaign of Bernie Sanders transform into a movement, bringing about change after the election even if HIllary will be president, or will it dim out? And even worse can be imagined of Trump's insurgent campaign: even if it may stay it may become a new powerful part of the Zionist war lobby.

  • Trump and the war for 'Western Values'
    • Frankie

      What you call "the glaring disconnect" I'ld call room to maneuver. I called it "very fine foreign policy speech" because it allows Trump to really go anyway he likes.

      A case in point: look again what he said on Iran. Trump didn't promise to cancel the Iran deal - he just said it was a bad deal. Remember, earlier he said it's a bad deal, but it's a deal what cannot just be undone, because Iran already got most of it's benefit - the money unfreeze - and so he will enforce it, strictly. And then look what Trump promised in his foreign policy speech regarding Iran: he promised, repeatedly and in strong terms, he will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But that's absolutely no problem for Iran, because Iran doesn't build a nuke anyway. Than look what Trump didn't speak about regarding Iran: missiles. Promises to prevent Iran strengthening it's missile capabilities would have been the hot topic, the Israel lobby would have wanted to hear, and lot's of trouble with Iran guaranteed because Iran won't give up it's missile programm - but Trump just "forgot" it. So, this is a case in point, regarding Iran Trump made a populist Republican speech, and of course he can go Israel's way with this, but he didn't let himself down to promises regarding Iran that would have him be boxed in by the Israel lobby.

      Another example: Syria. Trump just had no word for Assad, no bad one, no good one. But he had a lot of stuff in his speech regarding not using military force to spread democracy, radical Islam as the enemy, genocide against Christians, taking a hard look at some of these people there, standing to allies and making friends with old enemies. Trump can go anywhere from this: with this position, he could as President even claim - with good reason - that Putin, Assad, Hezbollah and Iran are the protectors of Christians against a genocide committed by Clinton-Saudi-Turkish backed Al Qaeda terrorists and make friends with Putin, Assad, Hezbollah and Iran to defeat them. And at least regarding Putin he promised he intends to try to do so. Of couse, he also could go Israel's way instead.

      More revealing topics like Ukraine, Afghanistan and Yemen Trump just didn't mention, so here he preserved room to maneuver, too.

      So, Trump made a populist speech, that of course included pandering to Israel, but in specifics of what he promised the Israel lobby nothing. Instead he specifically went after NATO and free trade - holy grails for the Israel lobby. It's easy to see why the Israel lobby and their surrogates may be upset with that speech - it sounded in large parts like a declaration of war on core policies the Israel lobby prescribed America in the last decades.

      But as I said above, of course you could be right that it's all a trick, and in the end Trump could turn out to be a man of the Israel lobby, and his tricky speeches just to be cleverly made to fool voters. It's quite intransparent and Trump has no political record. That's why I looked for more information about the record of his known prominent backer Senator Jeff Sessions.

    • ritzl

      Thank's a lot for your assessment of Jeff Sessions. Your description does sound like I am dead wrong with Sessions being the brain behind Trump. And Im very sure you know much more about Sessions than I do. My basic assumption was that Jeff Sessions si Chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces for about two decades, so - even if he would be dumb - he must have learned something about great power politics there. And the whole thinking behind Trump's foreign policy speech would fit to me to a southener, nationalist military guy, who decided to rewrite US foreign policy dogma because the old ones badly failed.

      Then there seems to be, what I suspect a connection to hard rightwing southern movements, say Birchers, the Klan, you name it. As is well known, Trump's father was once arrested for protesting for the Klan in New York - and now the former Klan chief is backing him. It also strikes me that the balance sheet of Trump's business seems to be clean like a freshly pampered baby back. To me it looks like that someone has put lot's of money into Trump's business years ago to make it "clean" for a "self-funded" presidential bid today. I suspect some rightwing business tycoons from the south, be them Birchers, Klansmen or whatever, could have done this to mount a well-prepared insurgency against the "Wall Street Jews" for the control of America, could they?

      But then, there is also this strange situation that neither Adelson nor the Koch brothers seem to have donated big this year, so far. Hadn't the Koch's ties to the Birchers? It's all quite dubious to me, who's really behind the Trump campaign, but I do not a second believe his success is a lucky punch - I strongly believe, there is a lot of long term planning, strategy and money behind his bid.

      In the end I would not even be very much surprised, if, the day after he was elected president, Trump appears on stage with Adelson, the Koch brothers and Netanyahu, praising them as his most reliable associates for decades, and making clear that his apparent "insurgent" campaign was just a show to make unsatisfied voters pick a Republican president. Trump easily could do so: hasn't he said he's the greatest friend of Israel of all? And hasn't Corey Lewandowski worked for the Koch's before coming to Trump?

      It's just all very intransparent with the Trump campaign, and I totally agree with you, unless you're an absolute insider there's no chance to know.

      However, what to expect from Hillary is clear: she never met a war she didn't like and she's fully owned and paid for by Wall Street.

    • ritzl

      No, I have no link.

      My impression is that Jeff Sessions leads a southern insurgency against the whole US foreign policy establishment, especially the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks - and Donald Trump is the frontman providing the insurgency with a liberal face more acceptable to northern & coastal voters.

      I just saw and analyzed Trump's amazingly intelligent foreign policy speech - and came to the conclusion that Jeff Sessions is likely the brain behind that. If you know Jeff Sessions, do you agree that that could have been his speech?

      In general I tend to see in Trump's campaign success far more than a lucky punch. Trump's campaign looks to me like a very well planned, well funded and well organized insurgency - much, much smarter than what the eye meets at first glance. The dumb face Trump makes to that seemes to me a trick, like a message to the zionist media - like c'mon, deal me in, I can't win anyway, I just want to give the Republican presidential race a bit colour & enhance my brand recognition, I got my knowledge on politics "from the shows" etc.

      Like we have here some skilled billard players coming to a table in a bar, pretending they don't even know how to hold the cue stick, alcohol smells from their mouths, and then they say, c'mon, 100 or 200 bucks, I will take it as money for a lesson from you, etc. And whoever will fall for that trap and put a 100 or 200 bucks on the table has already lost, because in fact they are very, very skilled professionals, just playing dumb to find people to play against them. People only realize that after the game is over and they lost without a chance.

      Now see "dumb Trump" - he entered the race with at least two water carriers whose function was unknown to the rest of the field (Christie & Carson), he picked endorsements that mattered - like the one from Sessions in Alabama, he had Bush humiliated, Rubio punched out of the ring, he's 400 delegates in front, Cruz is hardly standing anymore, Kasich just hanging on because not doing so would transfer his Ohio delegates to Trump - oh - and he wants people to believe he got his knowledge about politics "from the shows."

    • Wilson,

      I find it interesting how different interpretations of the very same speech can be. I think it was a very fine foreign policy speech, which I think was likely written by Jeff Sessions and I understand why the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks are screaming like hell.

      Trump said:

      "The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down, and will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs."

      So, I see that as a foreign policy statement and may read into this that the nation-state is the opposite of a global empire. It's that idea of different nations coming together to get along together, that gave the UN it's name: United Nations. Trump hinted he will leave WTO, NATO and NAFTA, if he cannot a better deal for the nation "United States of America" there. Fine.

      Trump also said:

      "Finally, I will work with our allies to reinvigorate Western values and institutions. Instead of trying to spread “universal values” that not everyone shares, we should understand that strengthening and promoting Western civilization and its accomplishments will do more to inspire positive reforms around the world than military interventions."

      I read this as a foreign policy statement and may read it as that Trump wants that the US will lead in the world by setting a good example of living up to Western values in the U.S. and the western world instead of doing military interventions to spread universal values around the globe. That interpretation fits into waht Trump said a few minutes before these lines:

      "We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama’s line in the sand in Syria. Each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos, and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper.

      It all began with the dangerous idea that we could make Western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming a Western Democracy."

      I read into this that Trump is fine with other nations having no western values like democracy, freedom, capitalism, individualism, secular rule of law and so on. In Trump's world it's other nations own business if they want or want not to implement western values, the United States shall not push them to do so, and especially with military force when they don't want. The only way Trump lines out to encourage other nations to do reforms in direction of more western values is by setting a good example and thereby show others how fine western values are. But the whole imperial US regime change business, democracy promotion and so on he wants gone.

      And finally, Trumps ultimate message in one sentence:

      "America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration."

      I bet the whole cabal of Israel-firsters in U.S. power circles and their echo chambers had almost dropped their coffee cups in panic for this statement.

      It sets the U.S. on a major confrontational course with Israel, because it's a promise that "Israel first" policies no longer will be accepted. It's just this way - putting the Nation State first - that allowed Russia and China to sideline the Israel lobby in their countries.

      And Jeff Sessions made in the Senate another point: when 83 Senators just wrote a letter to Obama, that he shall give even more aid to Israel than that what he planned as an increase, Jeff Sessions was one of only 3 Republican senators who didn't sign the letter.

  • 'NYT' exposes Clinton as most hawkish candidate when it's too late for readers to choose
    • "So why are we learning this now?"

      Call me naive, but as far as I understand how free media works I'ld pose the question more like this:

      Assuming the information in this article was available earlier, who may have paid for that it was put on hold until after the NYC primary?

  • 'Forward' columnist and Emily's List leader relate 'gigantic,' 'shocking' role of Jewish Democratic donors
    • JWalters

      I looked at it again. What I think now is that if someone active in hedge fund business had
      foreknowledge of falling oil prices - say because he would know - say that Sec Kerry asking the Saudis to increase oil output and crash the market - he could have earned a lot of money by betting on falling oil prices. What could have been won by such foreknowledge would be definitely more than $75m spent by Tom Steyer on Democrats in the 2014 election cycle.

      So, in result, I find it more plausible that coming oil market ops had leaked than that's a story of Aipac or pacific vs atlatic business interests.

    • JWalters

      I largely agree with your lines. This is a very fine article on a very relevant discussion to give some ordinary people, non-insiders, a hint to a better understanding of what's going on behind the scenes in the spheres of high power.

      My imagination about whether there is someone more powerful "behind" the "jewish industries" who gives instructions whom to donate to and whom not to donate to, is that there may be competing business interests that reflect the ideological split inside the "folks being with candidates" - as Stephanie put it, meaning the jewish mega donor class.

      For example, when I look up opensecrets.org for the 2014 election cycle, I find the mega top donor of democrats and of all donors is a guy called Tom Steyer living in California. According to opensecrets.org he gave $75 million in the 2014 election cycle to democrats, multiple times more than anyone else. See yourself:

      http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php?cycle=2014&view=fc

      So who is Tom Steyer? It's a hedge fund manager with jewish family roots. Than I looked up his name and business in Wikipedia. What struck me, was that Wikipedia listed some past busniess of him in Eastern Asia, Indonesia, to be exact. I have no idea if has has still Eastern Asia business, but if one once has Eastern Asia business and it goes well in a mega market growing fast, I would not be surprised if such business continues.

      So, my question regarding an ideological split in the jewish donor community would be whether there is also a split in business interests, for example between those having more business ties over the atlantic and those having more business ties over the pacific. I came to this idea because of the US "pivot to Asia" policy adopted about five years ago, that seems to be disliked by Israel, but that seems to have serious money behind it.

      Let me put that in a very direct question: does the US foreign policy prescribed by AIPAC damage very serious business interests of a part of the (jewish or non-jewish) mega rich donor class? And if so, whom does it damage?

  • The New York Times fails to fact-check Clinton's propaganda on Gaza
    • Update:

      Seems like State Department spokesperson Rear Admiral John Kirby just disputed Bibi's claim over the occupied Golan, and not only he:

      http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/04/19/461448/Israel-Iran-Germany-Arab-League-US-Golan-Heights-Syria/

      But I still didn't hear much of a response from US presidential contenders or US mass media to Bibi's assertition.

    • lysias

      I can only answer a bandolero in Berlin.

      As a Chinese saying goes: Cherchez La Femme!

      Andrej Holm was released, and afterwards nothing happened. The woman with him is Anne Roth, co-founder of Indymedia Germany, where all criticism of Israel is forbidden.

      Disclaimer: I've met the couple besides online - in real life - only once in my life. But that - together with all the online - was quite sobering for me regarding Andre and Anne.

    • There is one more recent event I'ld be looking a statement of US media and politicians: Netanyahu just held a cabinet meeting in the occupied Golan.

      CNN reports: Israel will never return the Golan Heights to Syria, says Benjamin Netanyahu

      http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/18/middleeast/israel-syria-golan-heights/

      Netanyahu contradicts hereby longstanding positions of the UN security council, the US and the EU.

      Germany has just rejected Netanyahu's claim, but where is the reaction from the US? Obama, Clinton, Sanders anyone?

      People of the Golan seem not all that happy with the Israeli occupation:

      https://twitter.com/domihol/status/722080605849186305

      In my oppinion, Israel's desire to finally get the Golan forever was and is a major driver for the support of Israel & the Israel lobby for regime change in Syria.

  • 'Any legislation having to do with Middle East has to be vetted and approved by AIPAC' -- Tom DeLay
    • Thanks, Phil.

      It's approximitely like I thought it is, but that quote I didn't know.

      Great, and enligthening, article.

  • Democratic debate: Is Netanyahu welcome at White House on Day 1 or an arrogant, deceptive asshole?
    • After Abe Foxman and Ronald S. Lauder called on Bernie Sanders to fire Simone Zimmerman, Bernie Sanders just suspended her to investigate her.

      So sad.

      I had the impression that hiring Simone Zimmerman could be a defining moment of Sanders' campaign. It was clearly a sign that he was willing to take on the lobby, and it was clear to me it would be a fight to the bloody end. And now that: Sanders' spells out his capitulation.

      What the hell is Bernie Sanders doing?

      If he didn't want to walk the walk with Simone Zimmerman it made absolutely no sense to hire her. And by suspending her he likely won't bring back even one voter who left him for hiring her, but he shows that he is disengaging with the young progressive voters Simone Zimmerman represents when coming under pressure. It's hard for me to understand theses moves of Sanders anything different than as a folly.

  • Israel demands correction from Sanders: it killed only 532 Palestinian children in summer 2014
    • Kay

      Pretty good interview by Bernie Sanders. I think with that punch line Bernie can win the argument.

      It looks to me a bit as if he took a page from Trump's playbook here:

      1. When attacking the zionist mainstream then first exagerate, but go in the right direction, that will give you a whole lot of media attention, how "outrageous" the remark was
      2. Let the zionist mainstream media spill the beans regarding the facts
      3. Row back on the first agenda setting remark, but at the same time double down with a more moderate punchline in the same direction as the first remark.
      4. The result is getting a lot of attention and win the argument against the mainstream media

  • What if Bernie Sanders had delivered his speech at AIPAC!?
    • The only major problem I see with Bernie is that he is 300+ delegates behind.

      I'ld love to see him taking the presidency, but will he reach it given the toxic US people who love loudmouths pandering to the same groups of influential people they deeply despise?

  • Read the speech Bernie Sanders planned to give to AIPAC
  • 'Do we get to win this time?': Trump foreign policy appeal based on revenge for Iraq War failure
    • amigo

      "Trump fellates multiple zionist donkeys."

      LOL. The best line I read so far to summarize Trump's performance as a Bibi imitator. It made my day.

  • Trump 'has no business being president' because he would be 'neutral' to Israel -- Clinton tells AIPAC
    • Roger Stone on AIPAC Speech: 'This Is the New Trump'

      Donald Trump's speech Monday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) showed voters what he will look like as the campaign continues, columnist Roger Stone tells Newsmax TV. ... "He has always said that he is an unabashed supporter of Israel," Stone said. "He fleshed it out. This is the new Trump." ...

      The speech was the first since his campaign began where Trump worked from a written speech, and Stone said that was important because Trump was talking substantive policy issues. ...

      Stone warned of "Trojan horse delegates" he said who are falsely claiming to be Trump supporters, but would vote against him on procedural matters, including rules changes that would rob Trump of the nomination.

      "The Republican establishment, many of whom wear a second hat as lobbyists, will never throw in the towel," Stone said. ...

      http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/roger-stone-new-trump-aipac-israel/2016/03/21/id/720207/

    • Mooser

      Trump's AIPAC speech from A-Z sounded as if he was Netanyahu running for US President.

      Read a rough transcript here.

      http://time.com/4267058/donald-trump-aipac-speech-transcript/

      In short:

      Good evening. I speak to you today as a lifelong supporter and true friend of Israel. ... My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran. ... When I am president, I will adopt a strategy that focuses on three things when it comes to Iran. First, we will stand up to Iran’s aggressive push to destabilize and dominate the region. ... Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in Yemen, and will be a very major problem for Saudi Arabia. ... In Gaza, Iran is supporting Hamas and Islamic Jihad – and in the West Bank they are openly offering Palestinians $7,000 per terror attack and $30,000 for every Palestinian terrorist’s home that’s been destroyed. ... Secondly, we will totally dismantle Iran’s global terror network. ... Third, at the very least, we must hold Iran accountable by restructuring the terms of the previous deal. ... The United Nations is not a friend of democracy. It’s not a friend to freedom. It’s not a friend even to the United States of America, where as all know, it has its home. And it surely isn’t a friend to Israel. With President Obama in his final year, discussions have been swirling about an attempt to bring a security council resolution on the terms of an eventual agreement between Israel and Palestine. Let me be clear: An agreement imposed by the UN would be a total and complete disaster. The United States must oppose this resolution and use the power of our veto. Why? Because that’s not how you make a deal. ... A deal that imposes conditions on Israel and the Palestinian Authority will do nothing to bring peace. It will only further delegitimize Israel and it would reward Palestinian terrorism, because every day they are stabbing Israelis – and even Americans. ... You don’t reward that behavior, you confront it! It’s not up the United Nations to impose a solution. When I’m president, believe me, I will veto any attempt by the UN to impose its will on the Jewish state. You see, I know about deal-making – that’s what I do. ... When I become President, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on Day One. I will meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately. I have known him for many years and we will be able to work closely together to help bring stability and peace to Israel and to the entire region. ... Meanwhile, every single day, you have rampant incitement and children being taught to hate Israel and hate the Jews. ... In Palestinian textbooks and mosques, you’ve got a culture of hatred that has been fermenting there for years, and if we want to achieve peace, they’ve got to end this indoctrination of hatred. There is no moral equivalency. Israel does not name public squares after terrorists. Israel does not pay its children to stab random Palestinians. ... Already, half the population of Palestine has been taken over by the Palestinian ISIS in Hamas, and the other half refuses to confront the first half, so it’s a very difficult situation but when the United States stands with Israel, the chances of peace actually rise. That’s what will happen when I’m president. We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem – and we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel. The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable. They must come to the table willing and able to stop the terror being committed on a daily basis against Israel and they must come to the table willing to accept that Israel is a Jewish State and it will forever exist as a Jewish State. Thank you very much, its been a great honor to be with you.

      Just see Trump's AIPAC speech here:

      https://youtu.be/f3d0LOIMmQQ

    • Trumps speech to AIPAC jsut ended.

      It was a mixture of pandering to Israel and declarations of war on Iran, the UN and Palestinians. Sounding like Netanyahu's second voice Trump got standing ovation multiple times during his speech.

      Compared to that even Hillary looked pro-Palestinian.

  • 'NYT' finally mentions 'Goliath' -- in rightwing ad smearing Max Blumenthal
    • Maybe I don't get it: unsuccessful Republican House candidate Shmuley Boteach pays an ad attacking Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton, threatening not to support her. It sounds to me a bit ridiculous: why should she expect Republican support anyway?

      But anyway, I would have a question for Mr Boteach: is that ad to be taken as a sign for his official ensorsement of Donald Trump will soon come forward?

    • Ossinev

      "It is reported"

      Is there a source for this assertion? To me it looks fake, and Google seems not to know it neither.

  • Why is AIPAC legitimating Donald Trump's bigotry?
    • I think there have spoken more ugly people at AIPAC already than Trump.

      Even open racists like Netanyahu spoke there.

      Regarding Abe Foxman, I find him ridiculous: he supports all the racism & fascism in Palestine, and now he suddenly feels disturbed by Trump due to fascism? Who would believe that?

      The matter of all the fuzz is, that Trump said he going to be neutral on Israel/Palestine and will work with Putin and Assad to defeat Israel's Al Qaeda allies. That's what the whole anger is about.

      Oh, and I see, moderate Republican candidate Ted Cruz with his moderate advisors like Elliott Abrams and Frank Gaffney is no problem at all for people like Abe Foxman. And neither are serial war of aggression perpetraitors like Hillary Clinton. The hypocrisy is breath-taking.

  • As Trump heads to AIPAC, Netanyahu stands to benefit
    • Yoav

      While the people in the United States and the entire world remain dumbfounded and distracted by Trump’s obscene and at times comical vulgarity, Netanyahu and his messianic counterparts can quietly continue to commit further crimes against Palestinians on route toward the fruition of their fantasy of Greater Israel.

      I don't think that argument holds water. Whenever it happens that the neocons' & Israel firster grip on the Republican party is loosened, it's clear that there will be lot's of screaming and punching. that can't be different because the neocons are responsible for this hyper-aggressive fighting style, and it's clear they would not go down without a fight. Nevertheless, freeing Palestine can't happen without a victory over the neocons. And, there is more foreign policy speaking for Trump, namely that Trump attacks Israel's allies like Saudi Arabia, while arguing for partnering with Russia despite Israel's wishes to the contrary.

      Your criticism that AIPAC with the invitation of Trump doesn't maintain a civilized veneer I would think other way round: it's good that the humanitarian veil of AIPAC is lifted.

  • Rubio's defeat means the downfall of neoconservatives
    • kalithea

      "Will Trump bring up ... he’ll be tougher than she is with America’s enemies."

      I think the point that Trump will bring up is who are America's allies and enemies. Let me exaggerate a bit here for clarity.

      I assume Trump will keep running the line that Al Qaeda, ISIS & their main backer Saudi Arabia are America's enemies, while Putin's Russia & Assad's Syria are protectors of Christianity and countries America can partner with, so to say allies in the fight vs Al Qaeda.

      In contrast to this, Hillary will say Saudi Arabia is an ally of America and Putin's Russia & Assad's Syria are dictator's, meaning enemies of America, while she will agree with Trump that Al Qaeda & ISIS are enemies of America.

      Trump, who seems to be advised by Michael Flynn, will call out Clinton to be a backer of Al Qaeda, ISIS and a paid puppet of Al Qaeda's chief sponsor Saudi Arabia. Michael Flynn has already explained that in 2012 a wilfull decision was taken by US government to support Al Qaeda, and a document is out proving that the US government knew what it was doing. Maybe Trump will label Hillary even as Al Qaeda's chief operative in America, to make the punchline. America, you have the choice: will you vote for the Al Qaeda-Hillary-Saudi gang, or will you vote for me, Trump, and your military fighting against Al Qaeda to keep us safe? Trump will also likely to bring up that Hillary is such a big advocate for womens' rights, that she is proud to take money from Saudi Arabia, to promote their Saudi version of womens' rights. Trump's punchline will be that Hillary's declared fight for womens' rights is a total fraud since she protects at the same time the enslavement of women by Saudi Arabia.

      Hillary in turn will accuse Trump to be cozy with dictators and strongmen like Putin and Assad because he himself is such a guy, too.

      My best guess is that Trump will win that argument, and the Israel lobby will be largely silent on this attack on their Saudi allies, because leading Israeli figures openly advocated teaming up with Al Qaeda in Syria, so they will have a hard time to prevent the connection of Israel and Al Qaeda to be widely discussed in the US public.

  • Protesting Trump on Shabbat
    • "The people of Chicago had told Trump that his divisive politics were not welcome in their city."

      The people of Chicago? Isn't that the people who elected the ultra-zionist Rahm Emanuel to be their mayor?

      As Trump is loathed by the zionist establishment I smell a rat here.

  • Another instance of Israel lobby influence in this election no candidate will bring up
    • blah chick

      Well, that thing I have asked myself, too. But Kasich is insanely pro-Israel. Have a look what JNS wrote a month ago:

      Within Ohio’s sizable and influential Jewish community, the 63-year-old Kasich has relationships that span decades. Howie Beigelman—executive director of the public affairs arm of the Ohio Jewish Communities (OJC), which represents the state’s Jewish Federations—said Kasich has a “deeply personal” relationship with Ohio Jewry and praised the governor for his advocacy on the construction of the state’s official Holocaust memorial.

      “His vision led to the building of Ohio’s Holocaust and Liberator’s Memorial on the statehouse ground, which is, even among the few public memorials in state capitals, one-of-a-kind in size, central location, stark beauty, and in its message of honoring both the Nazi’s victims as well as our veterans,” Beigelman told JNS.org.

      On the other hand, Kasich garnered some Jewish communal criticism for promoting stereotypes through a comment he made at last December’s Republican Jewish Coalition presidential candidates forum, where he shared advice he once received from his mother.

      “She said, ‘Johnny, if you want to look for a really good friend, get somebody who’s Jewish,’” Kasich told the audience.

      “And you know why she said that?” he continued. “She said, ‘No matter what happens to you, your friend, your Jewish friend, will stick by your side and fight right with you and stand by you.’”

      Rather than those comments, Kasich adviser Kastan focuses on the governor’s record with Ohio’s Jewish community, which he called “exemplary.”

      “With a 100-percent AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) rating during his time in Congress, he was the ‘go to’ member of the Ohio Congressional delegation on matters concerning Israel and the Jewish community,” Kastan told JNS.org.

      ... Beth El Congregation’s Grundfast questioned the significance of Kasich’s pro-Israel position.

      “Every politician is pro-Israel. That doesn’t mean very much to me. They can’t not be pro-Israel. If anybody wants to criticize [Israel], they’ll be thrown under the bus….Barack Obama tried to do that and he’s been skewered by many people. I’m sure [Kasich] is as pro-Israel as all the other candidates have to be,” said the rabbi. ...

      Source: http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2016/2/12/ohio-jews-respect-john-kasich-but-will-his-moderate-tack-resonate-nationally-1

      What is that jewish friendship stuff Kasich sticks to talking about?

      Look, what David Wasserman at FiveThirtyEight says about the presidential candidacy of John Kasich:

      Kasich May Have Cut Off Rubio’s Path To The Nomination

      ... Just how much has Kasich cost Rubio? The answer could be up to 91 delegates, even though Kasich has won just 27 so far and has a much less plausible path forward than Rubio.

      As the two most mainstream Republicans remaining in the race, Rubio and Kasich draw similar profiles of support. ... it’s hard to deny their supporters’ overlap on the map ...

      But even adding just a third of Kasich supporters would have made a huge difference for Rubio on Tuesday night: He might have won Virginia, hit the viability threshold in Vermont and beaten out Cruz for second place in far more Southern congressional districts, earning him dozens more delegates and changing the complexion of the race. Instead, Rubio is left to wonder “what if.” ...

      Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-would-happen-if-marco-rubio-and-john-kasich-were-one-candidate/

      So, to sum it up: John Kasich split the vote of the darlings of the establishment and the Israel lobby (Rubio, Bush) and thereby he likely propeled Trump - or maybe, very maybe Cruz - to the nomination.

      So my question is: Has there happened something bad to John Kasich's friendship with the jewish community? Maybe something happened at his last re-election as governeur of Ohio? Or something private?

      What Kasich did is very odd - in effect he's advancing Trump's candidacy by splitting the establishment vote.

  • Speak softly and act like a big dick
  • Romney echoes neocons: Trump will lead U.S. 'into the abyss'
    • echinococcus

      I disagree. The record of war and peace of Bernie Sanders is actually very good. He always disagreed with war when it mattered.

      Regarding talk on war and peace both Trump and Sanders have some stains - which is easy to explain and possibly to excuse by lot's of pressure of the neocon war party and their liberal interventionist sidekicks. Both are talking no matter what a lot better than the war party.

      The main difference I see between Trump and Sanders is that Trump leads with some 80 delegates while Sanders trails with a couple of hundred delegates. If - big if - that would change and Sanders would lead, I'ld happily support Bernie for President versus The Donald.

    • yonah fredman

      "He is better than Hillary on the issues of I-P and regime change. Does that make up for all his faults?"

      What could be more important than the question of war and peace?

      I think the question of war and peace - "regime change" as you call it - is by far the most important question of all regarding a future US Commander in Chief. Clinton's record here is abysmal - and what Trump says in that regard sounds a lot better than what Clinton says. She all but promised war on Russia - calling it a "no fly zone" against Russian aircraft operating on sound legal grounds in Syria. Trump instead wants to get along with Putin.

    • The Trump campaign just put a well-written foreign policy statement on it's website, saying Senator Jeff Sessions will become Chairman of Mr. Trump’s National Security Advisory Committee, and outlining Trump's foreign policy:

      ... We need to understand the limits of our ability to intervene successfully in other nations. It is time for a healthy dose of foreign policy realism. In the Middle East, this means forming partnerships based on shared interests, not merely overthrowing regimes in the dangerous attempt to plant democracies. ... A national-interest foreign policy, combined with a military second to none, stands in contrast to interventionist ideas that could enmesh us further in the region's chaos. After over a decade of war and conflict, this country has a host of smart, experienced, and proven leaders. That wisdom must be sought. These meetings will be the beginning of a process that Mr. Trump has called for and which he believes must result in a clear and realistic bipartisan global strategy that will guide our nation for years to come.

      Source: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-announces-senator-sessions-to-serve-as-chairman-of-national

      Clever move, good statement. I think that's what all the fuzz is about. The Israel lobby must be mad as hell with this.

      Trump has with one person he enlisted and one statement given a lot of substance to his foreign policy position and he is clearly going to run to the left of Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, though he can easily bill that non-interventionism as "truely conservative."

  • As Trump takes on the neocons, Kristol likens him to Hitler
  • Neocon savages Christie for failing 'months and months of careful coaching' by foreign policy experts
    • Here is one more quote from Trump, just yesterday, when he got the endorsement from Senator Jeff Sessions:

      The events of history have aligned to give the people this fleeting chance to bust up the oligarchy – to take back control from the ‘Masters of the Universe’ return it to the good and decent and patriotic citizens of the United States.”

      Source:

      https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-endorsed-by-senator-jeff-sessions

      Jeff Sessions had used the term ‘Masters of the Universe’ a couple of years ago singling out Mark Zuckerberg to be one of them.

      I doubt Trump's intention "to bust up the oligarchy" and "to take back control from the ‘Masters of the Universe’" will go down well with the Israel lobby. Those guys could well think Trump uses these terms to target them.

    • Philip Weiss

      I don't think the neocons are panicked about Trump's "anti-interventionist foreign policy ideas."

      I think the neocons are panicked that Trump may intervene against Israel's best friends - the Saudis & their Al Qaeda proxies, thereby seriously weakening Israel.

      Have a look at this:

      Trump: “Secret Papers” May Link 9/11 to Saudi Arabia

      ... Donald Trump this week indirectly referred to 28 classified pages said to link the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the 9/11 attacks. ... Trump’s implied promise to declassify 28 pages from a 2002 joint congressional intelligence inquiry into 9/11 sets him apart from the remaining Republican and Democratic presidential aspirants, filling a gap created when Rand Paul suspended his campaign. ... When asked about the 28 pages last summer, Jeb Bush said he’d never heard of them. This month, asked if he would like to see the 28 pages his brother classified, Bush sarcastically replied, “Yeah, I’d like to see ’em. You got ’em?” Among the many who would like to “see ’em”: 9/11 family members and survivors whose lawsuit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been imperiled by what former Senator Bob Graham calls a “pervasive pattern of covering up the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11, by all of the agencies of the federal government, which have access to information that might illuminate Saudi Arabia’s role in 9/11.” ...

      http://28pages.org/2016/02/19/trump-secret-papers-may-link-911-to-saudi-arabia/

      I think things like these may explain a great deal of why neocons are panicking over Trump, and I have some imagination why that may be so.

      https://youtu.be/TzSjPDaSNMQ

  • Trump's refusal to name a 'good guy and a bad guy' in conflict is 'anti-Israel,' says Rubio
    • Harry

      Great news. It means Trump starts succeeding to clean the GOP from the neocons and Israel firsters. Now Bernie needs to achieve the same for the Dems and the neocons and Israel firsters would have to make up their own party to stay in the business.

      That would be great fun, to see them needing to campaign with their own party for Israel, wars for Israel and more wars for Israel.

  • The list of foreign policy experts Bernie Sanders should be consulting
    • rookie_b

      "Bandero, again, you are overemphasizing the power of the President"

      Sorry for me being so naive to think the benevolent Commander in Chief Barack Obama is responsible for the orders to wage illegal wars of aggression he issued. Now I know that the MIC is Commander in Chief and his CEO - what was his name - gives the orders to the armed forces of the United States.

      "Also, you being a Trump supporter makes it much harder to take any of your points seriously."

      Whom you are going to hit by shooting the messenger? As you may have noticed I support Bernie, and you, my "communist" comrade? Do you support Hillary came saw died Clinton, who also poses as a great Obama supporter, or are you just trolling to keep progressive people away from voting?

    • rugal_b

      Of course I can blame Obama for his decisions and not excuse it by saying his DNA makes him being a stupid and murderous thug, so what we got is the best he managed.

      So, Obama has some 10k maybe 100k or more people killed with his stupid war on Libya, It was his decision to do this. He had lot's of political cover, if he didn't want to do this. By doing this he pushed lage parts of Africa deep into chaos for many years to come, and he killed a serious African attempt to get rid of colonialism. Obama later said himself, it was a mistake, just like Jeb now says it was a mistake by GWB to invade Iraq. Should I praise him for that?

      The same for Syria and Yemen. It was Obama's decision to execute GWBs MEPI plans there to wage wars of wahhabi terror against these countries and to destroy them by doing so. In Ukraine, Obama didn't support wahhabis, but he instead supported Nazis to destroy that country. Where a bit courage could have done good, like in Bahrain or Israel, Obama sponsored wahhabi and zionist crackdowns. In Afghanistan Obama killed lot's of people with a stupid surge. All that he did while he successful managed to destroy the peace movement in the western world, too.

      So, now it may you surprise that in the end I also may see Obama's presidency in a positive light - so you may preach to the converted if you try to convince me how much good Obama has done. His Iran deal was just great - he sabotaged a long-standng effort from the Israeli lobby to wage a war of aggression against Iran. Also to his credit he let Pakistan go into the SCO. Obama also did a bit to expose israel as a regime unwilling to do peace. Good things.

      But to me the main question is: will Obama manage to pass the torch of the good things he started in his 2nd term to his successor? To me it looks like he tries. However, here only success counts, because if he doesn't manage to do it, all the start of good things Obama did would likely sum up as nothing - while the hundreds of thousands of dead of the bad things he did will stay in the book.

    • Mooser

      Yes, true, regarding the movement of the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem Trump folded. First he said he won't do it, then he said he would do it just like all other Republican candidates. Remember: the Republican electorate loves Israel a lot. Will Trump fold on other positions, too? I don't know. But the rest of the Republican field was already from the start in the bag of the Israel lobby, while Trump obviously tries to fight back. I think it's a very good thing if the Israel lobby cannot take the Republican lane for granted anymore - due to Trump. Would I support Bernie against Trump? Likely, though Bernie is a PEP - progressive except Palestine. Who is more likely to fold to the Israel lobby and will use the US military in the service of more wars of aggressive for Israeli designs, Bernie or the Donald? Frankly, I don't know yet.

      rugal_b

      "Obama, who is arguably the greatest person that have graced American politics"

      I'm just not sure, if you mean this sarcastic. If so, you should have added, that Obama "is arguably the greatest person that have graced American politics" just after GWB. GWB killed a million or so people in senseless wars of aggression for Israeli designs, Obama's counter is so far only at about 400.000. But there is still hope Obama can catch up.

      That said, Obama did a very good thing with the Iran deal, while GWB did a very good thing with overstretching and thereby breaking the US empire.

    • Nevada Ned

      Yes, I watched Trump bearding the lion in his den.

      I was very skeptical how Trump would do in Greenville. I mean everyone a bit informed knew that Leslie Moonves - the host of the show in Greenville - is a grandnephew of the prominent zionist war criminal David Ben-Gurion. And - I think - everyone understood that Les and his CBS crew would stack all the cards they have against Trump, the only Republican who is not owned by the RJC, from questions to to audience selection. Would Trump fold in the lion's den and parrot the line of the Israel lobby?

      Trump did not fold - he was great, defended his proposed partnership with Putin, and he attacked Bush over 9/11. It was well worth watching. Read an answer of Trump to Bush:

      MR. DONALD TRUMP: Call me a genius, I like him so far. I have to tell you. Let me just tell you this. Jeb is so wrong. Jeb is absolutely so– (BOOING) that’s– just so you understand, you know what that is? That’s Jeb’s special interests and lobbyists talking. Look– (AUDIENCE REACTION) let me just tell you something. Jeb– Jeb is so wrong.

      You’ve gotta fight ISIS first. You fight ISIS first. Right now you have Russia, you have Iran, you have them with Assad and you have them with Syria. You have to knock out ISIS. They’re chopping off heads. These are animals. You have to knock ’em out, you have to knock ’em off strong.

      You decide what to do after. You can’t fight two wars at one time. If you listen to him, and you listen to some of the folks that I’ve been listening to, that’s why we’ve been in the Middle East for 15 years. And we haven’t won anything. We’ve spent $5 trillion in the Middle East (CHEERING) because of thinking like that. (APPLAUSE) We’ve spent five– (BELL)

      JOHN DICKERSON: All right.

      MR. DONALD TRUMP: –with Lindsey Graham, Lindsey Graham, who backed him, who had zero on his polls. Let me just tell you something, we’ve said– (AUDIENCE REACTION) we’ve spent– we’ve spent– I only tell the truth, lobbyists. We’ve spent $5 trillion all over the m– we have to rebuild our country, we have to rebuild our infrastructure. You listen to that, you’re gonna be–

      JOHN DICKERSON: All right–

      MR. DONALD TRUMP: –there for another 15–(OVERTALK)

      Trump was taking the Israel lobby bull by the horns. Special interests, lobbyists, $5 trillion spent for senseless wars in ME, hard to miss whom Trump engaged with these lines.

      See the toughest lines between minute 16 and 30.

      https://youtu.be/89Z33XKWa_w

      And CBS? Close to the end they gave Israel's darling Rubio a question what clearly looked scripted (the one close to the end he answered with that he wants to inspire people like Reagan).

      After that debate I sympathise with Trump ever more than before. And neocon Bill Kristol hates him even more than before

      https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/698843491045150721

      So, let's hope voters honor Trump's open fight against the lobby.

    • Zbig Brzezinski not neither.

      He's a fanatic hater of Russia and war proponent as long as the war may weaken Russia.

    • One more name to add to the list:

      Bill Blum

      http://williamblum.org/

    • One very important name to add to the list:

      Ray McGovern

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EDknszjcNY

Showing comments 707 - 701
Page: