Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 664 (since 2010-04-23 03:59:57)

Just doing the internet ;-)

Showing comments 664 - 601

  • 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.

      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:

      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

      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:

      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:

      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:

      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


      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


      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.

      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.


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

  • 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:

      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:

      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

      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:

      The information that Rabbi Felix Goldmann is the athor of that anonymous booklet is sourced by well-reputed German researcher Matthias Hambrock:,+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 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 he gave $75 million in the 2014 election cycle to democrats, multiple times more than anyone else. See yourself:

      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:

      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

      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:

      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. ...

    • Mooser

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

      Read a rough transcript here.

      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:

    • 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

      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

      ... 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. ...


      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.” ...


      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.


      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.”


      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.” ...

      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.

  • 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.


      "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.

      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

      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

    • One very important name to add to the list:

      Ray McGovern

Showing comments 664 - 601