-
-
- Singing sensation Mohammad Assaf has given us a ‘national umbrella’ … 0
- State officials in California sign letter denouncing BDS movement on … 5
- After Kerry visit, Israeli and Palestinian leaders quietly re-open economic … 4
- Snowden shows up Obama on leadership 4
- Taking on Bill Clinton and the ‘bigshots’, Chris Matthews says … 6
- Judge who acquitted war criminals at Hague had ‘close and … 4
- Latest DC mantra: The two-state solution is dead, long live … 32
- ‘I wanted to make a film [on] the conflict between … 6
-
- ‘Girls on Fire’ tell Alicia Keys — Don’t play Apartheid … 195
- The horror: ‘Breaking the Silence’ releases women’s frightful testimonies of … 134
- Meet the Israeli-linked firm that sold Big Brother machines to … 94
- House committee votes to give Israel another 1/2 billion in … 93
- An Israeli veteran comes forward to decry ‘how shitty we … 93
- Palestinian activist Abir Kopty: Oslo should go, the peace process … 87
- World Bank, the PA and Israel work together to confiscate … 83
- Looking for ‘a new devil,’ Israeli leaders and supporters left … 71
-
- US and Israel are accused of manipulating Hague to acquit … 133
- The kids are back, and it’s not alright 132
- The horror: ‘Breaking the Silence’ releases women’s frightful testimonies of … 126
- Approaching 60, Norman Finkelstein reflects 116
- Palestinian activist Abir Kopty: Oslo should go, the peace process … 102
- The MSM tries to distinguish between Manning and Snowden. Don’t … 86
- I’ve got Mohammed Assaf fever 72
- Weiner should be ‘hounded’ for his support for apartheid 50
-
- ‘No consequences… ad finitum’ — Reporters reject State Dep’t explanation of US policy on settlements http://t.co/RuwyEzmToV, 43 mins ago
- Sixteen-year-old Ali Shamlawi faces 25 counts of attempted murder for alleged stone throwing http://t.co/YUvWhKyWKP, 44 mins ago
- Palestinian prisoner Hussam Shaheen writes -- Singing sensation Mohammad Assaf has given us a ‘national umbrella’ http://t.co/Yss65BM24p, 45 mins ago
- Singing sensation Mohammad Assaf has given us a ‘national umbrella’ — writes Palestinian political prisoner http://t.co/xtd1fZIiqR, 48 mins ago
- If the PA ever does build a state, it will be one with Israeli oversight of its internal affairs http://t.co/gbeqbhTlVY, 49 mins ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Taking on Bill Clinton and the ‘bigshots’, Chris Matthews says American people are opposed to Syrian intervention (6)
- Rusty Pipes: The date-rape rationalization on attacking Syria: The American people’s lips say,...
- Woody Tanaka: Bill Clinton was the consummate pollster-driven politician as President. For him to say that others...
- Citizen: LOL. Next thing we know, Matthews will be off the air, like Phil Donohue. Just another Mick who bucked the...
- State officials in California sign letter denouncing BDS movement on college campuses (5)
- Mike_Konrad: they would only divest from a country the U.S. government deemed was committing genocide. Didn’t...
- Snowden shows up Obama on leadership (4)
- David Doppler: Maybe I’m paranoid, but I haven’t ruled out the possibility that Snowden’s a false...
- bilal a: This Snowden affair, like his resume, seems fabricated, pushed by the guardian and wp, and echo chambered...
- Chris Matthews takes populist stance against another Establishment war on an Islamic country (49)
- Chu: “They KNOW that the boundaries of EVERY country in the Middle East were IMPOSED on them by the Great...
- MHughes976: I presume that the Ottoman Empire did not confine people to the provinces of their birth, so there would...
- Latest DC mantra: The two-state solution is dead, long live the two-state solution! (32)
- MHughes976: The centre of Jewish life by the third C CE was Galilee, where identifiable synagogue buildings and...
- tree: So why do the Palestinians need an army if it is no threat to Israeli hegemony? You’ve got it backwards...
- Taking on Bill Clinton and the ‘bigshots’, Chris Matthews says American people are opposed to Syrian intervention (6)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Annie Robbins
- Today in Palestine
- Adam Horowitz
- Matthew Taylor
- Kate
- Alex Kane
- Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
Booker is a politician.
Ergo, until the contrary is proven, he is presumed a liar.
Another attempt in the RELENTLESS crusade to keep the MSM from disseminating to the US public any information suggesting unacceptable Israeli actions - every time one of these campaigns is started: OUTRAGE - "Is there anything that these **ckers won't attack??!!!"
With Israel's massive newfound wealth from its offshore gas fields, shouldn't our "closest allies" think about sharing that wealth and repaying some of the billions that Uncle has provided?
“Tramp the Dirt Down”
By George Galloway MP
April 09, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - The old saw that one shouldn’t speak ill of the recently dead cannot possibly apply to controversial figures in public life. It certainly didn’t apply to President Hugo Chavez who predeceased Margaret Thatcher amidst a blizzard of abuse.
The main reason it must not preclude entering the lists amidst a wave of hagiographic sycophantic tosh of the kind that has engulfed Britain these last hours is that otherwise the hagiographers will have the field to themselves.
Every controversial divisive deadly thing that Thatcher did will be placed in soft focus, bathed in a rose-coloured light, and provide a first draft of history that will be, simply, wrong.
As is now well-known, I refused to do that today on the demise of a wicked woman who tore apart what remained good about my country, and set an agenda which has been followed, more or less, by all of her successors. I certainly wasn’t prepared to leave the obituaries to those who profited from her rule or those who have aped her ever since.
So here is my own memory of Thatcher and what she did in her time on this earth.
On one of my first political demonstrations – against the Conservative government of Edward Heath (1970-74) the slogan of the day was “Margaret Thatcher- Milk snatcher”. It was the first but not the last time I spat out her name in distaste.
Before Thatcher, every primary school pupil received 1/3 of a pint of milk every morning. For some it was the difference between breakfast and no breakfast. I was sometimes one of those. I grew up in a brief period of social democracy in Britain, being dosed by the state with free cod-liver oil, orange juice and malt to build up my strength. Having been born in a slum tenement into a one-room attic in an Irish immigrant area, I needed all of that and more. And like millions I got it, until Thatcher took it away.
She became the Conservative leader after Heath’s two electoral defeats in 1974 and his subsequent resignation.
She was a new type of Tory leader, entirely lacking in anything resembling “noblesse oblige”. She was nasty, brutish and short of the class previously thought obligatory in Britain amongst leaders of the ruling elite. She was vulgar, money-worshipping, and blasphemous. She believed the important part of the Biblical story of the “Good Samaritan” was not that he refused to pass by the suffering on the other side of the road but that he had “loadsamoney”.
In the infamous sermon on the Mound in Edinburgh addressing the Church of Scotland she opined that there was “no such thing as society”…”only individuals”
As the Labour leader Neil Kinnock, in one of his better efforts, retorted: “No such thing as society? Only individuals? No such thing as honouring other people’s parents? No such thing as cherishing other people’s children? No such thing as us and always? Just ME and NOW? ME and NOW?”
She was the living embodiment of Marx’s prediction that under capitalism “all that is solid will melt into air… all that is sacred will be profaned”
Upon her election as prime minister (with just 40% of the vote, her position ensured by the treacherous defection from the Labour cause of the rats now squirming on the Liberal-Democrat ship) she set about “transforming” Britain allright. She privatised Britain’s key industries, enriching her friends, and robbing the public of their birthright. When she took over “Financial Services” represented 3% of the British economy; when she left office it was 40%.
She destroyed the coal industry, the steel, car, bus and motor-cycle manufacturing, truck and bus-making, ship-building and print-industry, the railway workshops… she destroyed more than a third of Britain’s manufacturing capacity, significantly more than Hitler’s Luftwaffe ever achieved.
She did this not just because she prefered the spivs and gamblers in the city -they were her kind of people. But because above all, she hated trades unionism, and was determined to destroy it.
I was a leading member of the Scottish Labour Party at the time she came into office, and a full-time Labour organiser. Scotland was to become an industrial wasteland in the first years of her rule.
I was also, from 1973, a member of the then Transport and General Workers Union, one of her key targets – especially our Docks section.
Importantly, for me, I was an honorary member of the National Union of Mineworkers too.
In all of these capacities I was a front-line short-sword fighter in the rearguard action against Thatcherism.
I fought her at Bathgate, at Linwood, when she was sacking the automotive industry. I fought her at Wapping – every Saturday night when she destroyed the Print workers on behalf of her friend, the organised crime firm owner, Rupert Murdoch. I fought every day of the Miners strike when she destroyed the Miners Union and the communities they represented. I fought her at Timex in Dundee at Massey Ferguson in Kilmarnock, and at the aluminium smelter in Invergordon.
I fought against her poll tax – imposed first in Scotland – as a refusenik of the most iniquitous tax in Britain since mediaeval times, the tax which ended in flames – literally – whilst I was on the platform at Trafalgar Square. And which finally produced her political demise.
And I toured – as a political activist – the desolation in Britain’s post-industrial distressed areas which she left behind. The City of London – deregulated by her – boomed whilst the coalfields and steel areas sank into penury. I saw the rusted factories the flooded mines the idle shipyards and the devilish results of millions of newly and enforced idle hands.
I faced her in parliament from 1987 as well, on these and other issues.
You see it wasn’t just Britain that Thatcher made bleed.
Her withdrawal of political status from Irish republican prisoners and her brutal, securocratic, militarisation of the situation in the north led to much additional suffering in Ireland.
State collusion in the murder of Catholics became endemic during her rule. And ten young men were starved to death for the restoration of political status, before our eyes in her dungeons. She finally died on the anniversary of their leader, Bobby Sands, being elected to parliament as he lay on his death-bed.
During the Falklands War, she sent hundreds of young Argentinian conscripts to a watery grave when she shot the Argentine warship the Belgrano in the back – as it was speeding away from the conflict. She mercilessly exploited the sacrifice of them, and our own soldiers sailors and airmen, to save her own political skin. A lot of brave men had to leave their guts on Goose Green to keep Thatcher in power.
She pushed her alter ego – the semi-imbecilic US president Ronald Reagan – into Cold War fanaticism and burgeoning expenditure on more and more terrifying weapons – many of them stationed on our soil.
She pushed his successor George Bush Sen into the first Iraq War.
I was there, I saw her lips move, when she described Nelson Mandela as a “common terrorist”.
She continued to recognise the genocidal and deposed Pol Pot regime in Cambodia – insisting that Pol Pot was the real and recognised leader of the Cambodians, even as they counted his victims in millions.
And she was the author of the policy of military, political, diplomatic and media support of the Afghan obscurantists who became the Taliban and Al Qaeda. She even produced them on the platform of the Tory Party conference, hailing them as “freedom-fighters”.
I was one of the last men standing in parliament opposing this immoral policy of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”.
On the eve of the triumph of these “freedom Fighters” I told Thatcher to her face; “You have opened the gates for the barbarians….and a long dark night will now descend upon the people of Afghanistan”. I never said a truer word.
I hated Margaret Thatcher for what seems like all my life. I hated her more than I hated anyone – until the mass murderer Tony Blair came along.
It would have been utter hypocrisy for me to have remained silent about her crimes today whilst the political class – including New Labour – poured honeyed words, lies actually, over her blood-spattered record.
I could not do it. I believe I spoke for millions. The wicked witch is dead. Tramp the dirt down.
George Galloway MP
House of Commons
London
How about a trade - Pollard for the release of Barghouti
M J Rosenberg's (very) positive take on the Obama speech -
Obama in Jerusalem: No Big Surprises But Mission Accomplished
The second day of President Barack Obama’s visit to the Middle East is shaping up as very different from the first.
Yesterday was a love-fest with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. During their joint press conference, each of the two leaders tried to outdo the other with jokes and witticisms demonstrating that they like each other and that Obama loves everything about Israel. Obama even spoke in Hebrew at several points. In short, yesterday was a party and Obama seemed to be having the time of his life.
The party ended in Ramallah. Maybe it was his view of the separation wall from his helicopter or maybe the fact that he was away from the Israelis but the face he presented at President Mahmoud Abbas’ welcoming ceremony was utterly different. He looked miserable. Was it because he just didn’t want to be there or because he is ashamed that his administration has decided to parrot the Israeli line on pretty much everything? No matter the reason, he seemed sad and his words were halting.
He didn’t offer the Palestinians much of anything though, other than the stricken look on his face. Yet, there were signs that the times are changing. He repeatedly referred to a Palestinian state, using the strongest formulation for that concept, “State of Palestine.” (Of course, he knows that his administration stood with Israel against any UN recognition of such an entity last year.) Nonetheless, his references to Palestinian statehood were utterly unambiguous and clear.
And, in words that must have shook Netanyahu, Obama referred to “the moral force of nonviolence” to resist the occupation. Coming out of left field, this was probably an indication that Obama read The New York Times magazine cover story on non-violent resistance in the West Bank by Ben Ehrenreich. Obama compared the Palestinian struggle to the civil rights movement in America, invoking his own daughters as beneficiaries of that struggle. This presidential encouragement of the one form of protest that Israeli officials fear most as threatening their hold on the West Bank was significant. It is easy to imagine Palestinian protesters now marching against the settlements, waving photos of Obama along with his words endorsing non-violent resistance’s “moral force.”
On specifics, though, it was all boilerplate. Asked at his press conference about settlement expansion, Obama made clear that he opposed it but also that he did not accept the Palestinian view that it should halt during the course of negotiations. Obama, like Netanyahu, demands unconditional negotiations which, in reality, means that Palestinians be willing to negotiate while Israel gobbles up more of the land. Abbas made clear in response that he wasn’t having it.
Upon returning to Jerusalem, Obama delivered his speech to Israeli students at the Jerusalem Convention Center. It was mostly standard stuff (lots of praise for Israel, Zionism, empathy over Jewish suffering, etc.) but also included repeated and emphatic calls for peace and the establishment of a Palestinian state. The most significant part came when Obama referred to the Palestinians’ right to justice, specifically referencing settler violence that goes unpunished.
But the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and justice must also be recognized. Put yourself in their shoes – look at the world through their eyes. It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of her own, and lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements of her parents every single day. It is not just when settler violence against Palestinians goes unpunished. It is not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands; to restrict a student’s ability to move around the West Bank; or to displace Palestinian families from their home. Neither occupation nor expulsion is the answer. Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland, Palestinians have a right to be a free people in their own land.
I don’t think any president previously has used the language of justice in discussing Palestinian rights, which is, of course, how Palestinians rightly see it.
It is telling that this part of the speech was met with prolonged applause. In fact, every reference to Palestinian statehood was received with the kind of ovation both AIPAC and the United States Congress reserve for bashing Palestinians, not for discussing their rights. Although many will dismiss the Jerusalem speech as milquetoast, no one would say that had Obama delivered it in Washington, where only pro-Likud pieties are permitted. That might be considered ironic if we weren’t all accustomed to it by now.
The lobby does not control the discourse in Israel. It does here. But that is no reason to downplay the significance of Obama’s unequivocal endorsement of a “State of Palestine” and justice for the Palestinian people as prerequisites for security for Israel.
Obama accomplished what he had to. He reached over Netanyahu’s head and spoke directly to the Israeli people, explaining why peace is in their own best interest and why justice for the Palestinians cannot be denied. And he was cheered. Loudly.
When negotiations begin, and I am optimistic that they will, the capital he earned today will be viewed as a smart investment indeed.
Anyone so detested by the simple-minded Bush and the the right-wing crazies (Zio-crazies included) has to be admired - face it - 'Murikans in their exceptionalism can't abide someone they so desperately tried and failed to dominate and who so publicly told them to Eat Shit And Die
The "New Anti-Semitism" = criticism of Israeli policies and actions.
The "Newer New Anti-Semitism" = support for Palestinian human rights.
Relentless.
OOPS - there's the video link at the beginning of the article.
Is it just me or did Miss Lindsey have a weird fanatical expression and actually lick his lips when he put Mr. Hagel on the "taboo" spot by repeatedly asking him to name names of anyone intimidated by the Jewish Lobby?
Sorry but I don't have a link - I saw it on various TV broadcasts
Within hours of the Current deal announcement, Time-Warner cut Current from its cable coverage.
link to salon.com
Another brick in the wall of the muting of US MSM coverage of anything that might be critical of Israeli policies and actions or anything positive re the Palestinians - who says you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Is this Pres. Obama's first move in retaliation for Netanyahoo's humiliations and his meddling in the election?
One can only hope it is only the first move.
giladg -
You appear to be concerned with the lack of opportunity for Israel to present its case or arguments in the tribunal hearings - as you appear to be an indefatigable supporter and advocate for Israel's actions and policies, perhaps you might want to take this opportunity to advance those arguments on the issue in question:
"US Complicity and UN Failings in Dealing with Israel’s Violations of International Law Toward the Palestinian People."
Oh for a Tim Russert!!
JS also mentions that the Rombot's "cultural" remarks also suggest that Jews are adept at making money - an anti-Semitic "trope".
.
Re: apostrophe
At the risk of being branded a pedant, I would recommend this site for those unsure about its (not it's!!) proper use:
link to grammarbook.com
Or the merest mention of the USS Liberty.
However... the president has the bully pulpit.
If Pres. Obama is re-elected (from my keyboard to God's ear!) he will have the opportunity to deal with the odious Netanyahoo's election meddling and the settlements humiliations.
In order to establish Israel's weak legal position, he could start by drawing the attention of the US public to the Geneva Conventions and the numerous UN resolutions regarding the inadmissibility of settling occupied land (of which I am certain that most Americans are ignorant) AND/OR bring attention to the massive number of checkpoints and Israel-only highways designed to humiliate Palestinians and to deter their movement and economic viability.
Obviously there are countless other issues that could be raised that DEFINITELY would sway public opinion.
Congress may have the real power, but the bully pulpit could have a dramatic and deleterious effect on the "special relationship".
A Mormon wearing a yarmulke - what's next - a Jew in "magic underwear"?
Why blame the 98% when important information about Israeli racism and apartheid has been so successfully withheld from them for so many years?
Unless this strangle-hold on the MSM is somehow broken, it is utterly naive to believe that the attitudes of the 98% will change in the slightest.
Makes you proud to be a Canuck!
Kudos to the NYT for at least taking this baby step.
Rome wasn't built in one day.
Don't forget the demand for a settlement freeze that the vile Netanyahoo eventually jiu-jitsoed into an Obama humiliation and the alienation of rich Jewish donors.
NYT report:
" The bomber was carrying a fake Michigan driver’s license, but there are no indications that he had any connections to the United States, the American official said, adding that there were no details yet about the bomber — his name, age or nationality. He also declined to describe what specific intelligence — intercepted communications, analysis of the bomber’s body parts and other details — that led analysts to conclude that the suicide bomber belonged to Hezbollah".
No details; declined to describe intelligence - in other words: "Take my word for it".
Just a coincidence that it happens to serve Israel's purposes, I guess.
Also, it's interesting that this "official" didn't take the opportunity to say that a DNA examination eliminated Ghezali as a suspect.
In addition to fingerprints, the CIA would certainly have taken a DNA sample.
If he was imprisoned at Gitmo, the CIA have his fingerprints.
The thin edge of the wedge - this is great news.
Maybe a link to the NYT somewhere down the line :-)
"Yitzhak Shamir should be remembered for impeding a Jewish ethical future."
As a matter of curiousity, which Israeli (or Israelis) promoted "a Jewish ethical future" in Israel?
Can anyone doubt Pres. Obama's good intentions when he made the Cairo Speech in June 2009:
"Addressing the seemingly intractable conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, Obama vowed to pursue a peaceful outcome "with all the patience that the task requires."
He termed America's ties with Israel "unbreakable," but also pledged not to "turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own" — and said that "just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's."
link to npr.org
Immediately following the speech, he began making efforts to address the I/P peace issue, but highly organized resistance and the threats to his re-election thwarted his every move, eventually ending with the Netanyahoo humiliation.
If Pres. Obama is re-elected (an increasingly doubtful outcome with the Citizens United decision), it is my firm belief that he will demonstrate his bona fides in respect of the Cairo Speech and return to the I/P peace issue unencumbered without re-election concerns and much, much less under the sway of the Israel Lobby.
This view will probably appear as "Pollyyanna-ish", but a recent post (didn't save it, dammit!) has greatly heartened me - it recounted a recent off-the-record dinner with Pres. Obama and several Jewish "heavy hitter" writers including Peter Beinart - as they were saying their good-byes Pres. Obama is alleged to have quietly said to Mr. Beinart: "Hang in there". Perhaps I have read too much into this remark, but it is my belief that it is an expression of solidarity with Mr. Beinart's views and sympathy with the vicious criticism that he received.
Obviously I am not as pessimistic as Mr. Kaminer, but in any event only time will tell.
To bear witness to the racist Zionist brutality
I'd like to meet that Korean atheist reporter who speaks Hebrew :-)
From DCI - Palestine:
"Detention – During the reporting period [the past ten years], an estimated 7,000 children, some as young as 12, have been prosecuted in Israeli military courts and held in military detention. The report highlights credible and persistent allegations of treatment that violates the absolute prohibition against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The report also documents the continued practice of imprisoning Palestinian children in detention facilities inside Israel, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention."
link to dci-palestine.org
The inhabitants of this odious country have abandoned all sense of decency and morality.
Off-topic but how come no mention at this site is made of the article in The Independent concerning the damning UK report regarding the imprisonment of Palestinian children. The headline:
UK ready to take on Israel over fate of children clapped in irons
Report funded by Foreign Office details claims of routine abuse for Palestinian youths
link to independent.co.uk
Mr. Zengerle"s article in New York magazine is well worth the read.
The conclusion with Pres. Obama's "Hang in there" for Mr. Beinart is particularly gratifying.
"When is the last time Obama even spoke to Abbas?"
Any possible discussion about Palestine, the settlements or I/P peace has been obliterated by the Israeli-manufactured and Israeli-maintained Iran "crisis" diversion.
Again the MSM fails us - 30 seconds of video footage of this outrage would have a serious impact if shown on American TV.
An excellent article concerning the Israel Lobby in Britain and the opacity of donations to the political parties -
link to opendemocracy.net
Thank you Krauss for your valuable and insightful post.
A few queries, though -
You write: "...the fact that they’ve been told by their community elders all their lives that to question overrepresentation in the media is essentially taking the road right down to Birkenau." Is this to be taken that there is explicit direction from the "community elders" that this so-called "meme" or "trope" is to be absolutely avoided or is there more nuanced discussion where the general subject of anti-Semitism includes media over-representation as one of the factors that might lead to increased anti-Semitism and accordingly must be avoided.
You write perceptively of the mixed factors of a perceived sense of racial inequality, religious differences and "color-blindedness" and yet the fundamental questions remain unanswered - how has this situation of massive Jewish over-representation developed and how is it maintained?
Again, thanks for your valued input.
"And this is also true if you look at the major media outlets, both their executive teams and their journalists. Hardly a black, hispanic or an Asian around at NYT, WSJ or WaPo."
A non-rhetorical and non-polemical question from a non-US citizen - US Hispanics and African-Americans form over 30 % of the US population while US Jews comprise 1.7% of the population and yet it is beyond argument that the Jewish voice in the MSM vastly outweighs that of the African-Americans and Hispanics - how has this situation developed and how is it maintained?
So I take it you are perfectly OK with Romney and his Israel/Iran stated policies?
"...the biggest danger is longer-turn. Namely, that another disastrous war, this time pushed by AIPAC and AIPAC alone and that fact won’t be hidden in the post-mortems..."
If Israel were to attack Iran in the face of explicit US non-support and if Iran used its only feasible defensive weapons - anti-ship missiles - against US shipping in the Persian Gulf, there would most certainly be a significant loss of US servicemen's lives. The "post-mortems" would unquestionably blame Israel for the loss of those lives and the "special relationship" would be severely damaged - IMO, this is why Israel would not attack without explicit US support. An increase in US anti-Semitism would follow if it was perceived that US lives were lost for only the pursuit of Israeli hegemony
However (again IMHO), if the attack directly involved the US military or there was explicit support for an Israeli attack, the US MSM would rally behind the US military and concentrate on the demonization of Iran rather than explore that most taboo of subjects - AIPAC's influence on US foreign policy. Without that scrutiny US Jews need not have a worry of increased anti-Semitism.
"Clearly a breakthrough is needed in the US print and broadcast media."
From your keyboard to God's ear, Les -- however, please don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
Somewhat off-topic, but in this Asia Times article re the Moscow conference the Indian author makes several references to the influence that the US Israel Lobby supposedly has in respect of India's international interests.
link to blogs.rediff.com
Can it be possible that the tentacles have spread this far and that this relatively tiny group of American Zionists could possibly influence a country of a billion people?
An impressive list of signatories and opinions but the only one for which the Israelis have an iota of interest is the Palmer Report - the others are less than irrelevant.
The only 'signatory' or opinion to which they would pay attention is that of Uncle Samuel (who seems to have abdicated all responsibility).
"..Any solution will require a transformation in the way people think."
Exactly.
IMHO, the USS Liberty attack was a watershed moment in US history -- instead of the Gov't exacting revenge for the murder of its servicemen and the US MSM expressing maximum outrage for this betrayal, the president, Congress and the military conspired in one of the most massive cover-ups in history - all aided and abetted by the MSM. For the first time, the extent of Jewish political influence and of domination of the media was exposed - this domination has increased to the extent that the most powerful man on Earth is hamstrung by it and every TV or newspaper journalist lives in peril of dismissal for the slightest criticism of Israeli actions or policies.
For me the only hope for this "transformation" lies with the re-election of Pres. Obama - once re-elected he will be free of the necessity to kowtow to AIPAC and can use the power of "the bully pulpit" to neutralize the overwhelmingly pro-Israel MSM. Two problems - getting re-elected and eventually making the choice of taking on these extraordinarily powerful forces.
In making the Cairo Speech, he clearly showed that he was highly motivated to deal with the I/P issues, so I believe that when relieved of his present-day constraints he will focus on the issue again, if for no other reason than his legacy.
If anyone else has any ideas as to how to achieve the "transformation", kindly advise.
For public consumption - blah blah blah blah blah, "move the peace process forward".
For the Jewish Zionist campaign donors in private - "rest easy boys, everything we're saying in public is bullshit".
This article in today's Guardian sets out the racist violence more explicitly:
link to guardian.co.uk
As an aside, it's interesting to note the flood of pro-Israeli comments within the first thirty minutes of its publication - GIYUS or "the son of GIYUS" is still well-oiled and functioning.
"Bukra fi mishmish"
???
It is not the US, per se, that is "more attentive to "Jewish money", but rather US polticians who are compelled to fellate moneyed Zionist Jews to finance their political campaigns and to protect their asses from the negative media onslaught if they failed to do so - if "the US", that is, the entirety of the American public, was permitted by the hamstrung media to gain full knowledge of the full extent of the control of its politicians, I suspect things would change very quickly.
It's probably more the fear of the consequences if you don't give in the corruptors.
With the harsh reality that AIPAC and the various Israeli lobbies have an absolute hammerlock on the US Congress and presidency in respect of matters concerning Israel and the Palestinians (and alarmingly with respect to its dealings with Iran at present), one asks: is it possible to turn American public opinion against this force that is so obviously harmful to American interests?
IMHO, the starting point is the constituency to which PB has directed his book - the US liberal Zionist. If he is able to withstand the frenzied denunciation of the AIPAC/Zionist stooges and convince a significant proportion of this group to question the MSM narrative and to educate themselves as to the I/P realities, one can hope that this presently-nonexistent significant proportion would mount a vociferous opposition that the MSM would not be able to ignore.
Other intellectuals with credentials at least as impressive as those of PB (Chomsky, Finkelstein, etc, etc) have failed to make a big impact on the "significant proportion" in the past, but with the much larger dissemination of ideas that the internet permits, one can hope that the critical discussion of PB's book will provide the "thin edge of the wedge" that is so desperately needed to begin to rein in AIPAC and the other lobbies.
The July 1st sanctions that the US has bullied the world to accept has some interesting (and potentially disastrous) consequences as a result of insurance problems - the Indian and Chinese gov'ts will insure their tankers themselves while Japan, S. Korea and the EU importers of Iranian oil will not be able to insure and accordingly will be compelled to bid for non-Iranian oil with the rest of the world to make up the deficit.
The price of oil will dramatically increase which in turn will lead to an economic slowdown for all concerned including the US, where the price of gasoline will rise significantly
Will the pundits make the connection that the US caused the increase at the behest of Israeli demands to punish Iran, a country that poses absolutely no military threat to the US?
"thank goodness the Iranians have the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz"
Closure of the Strait would be a disaster for Iran - the US would either treat it as an act of war and bomb Iran or, alternatively, there would be a naval confrontation in the Persian Gulf from which the Iranians would not be able to back down, and the loss of life from the sinking of a USN ship (or ships!!) would result in Iran being massively bombed.
The Iranians know that closing the Strait is not an option no matter what they threaten.
And who make the decisions to control and withhold this information from the American public?
It's too bad that the Olmert CNN interview didn't get more traction - that he would say that an elite of US Jewish billionaires (not a "cabal" as that is an unacceptable trope!!) had a direct influence on derailing a negotiation that was/is so much in the American interest should have been a major story.
Imagine the shit-disturbance if the MSM began digging and reporting truthfully about the harmful extent that the malign influence has caused.
It was the extremely violent reaction of the South African army and police to the repeated massive public demonstrations that focused world attention on the malignity of apartheid and allowed BDS to take hold (as the same violence focused attention on the fight for civil fights in the South).
Given that large (peaceful) public demonstrations are required, how are the Palestinians ever going to mobilize the 50,ooo or 100,00-size crowds that would catch world attention in light of the Israeli system of checkpoints that would prevent such a mobilization?
Am I correct in yr post you are saying that the Israelis monitor the Gaza side of the border at Rafah?
A non-rhetorical question - why haven't the Egyptians completely opened the crossing at Rafah and broken the land aspect of the Israeli blockade?
"As best i remember CJCS Gen. Dempsey was the first major American official who was sent out to make an official statement.
any ideas?"
At the risk of beating a dead horse with my various posts regarding the deadliness of Iranian anti-ship missiles, there is little doubt that if Iran were to be attacked, all American ships trapped in the Persian Gulf would find themselves as targets for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of missiles for which many of those ships have no defense. There would be significant loss of life.
link to rense.com
It is my contention that all of Netanyahoo's belligerence regarding attacking Iran has been pure BS in that if Israel attacked without explicit US support, it would carry all the blame for the consequences - the obvious economic upheaval, but more importantly, the loss of the lives of many US servicemen. The question would be asked - what benefit was served for this loss of life? When the answer would be shown to be that it was because of Israel's compulsion to maintain its hegemony notwithstanding the absence of a nuclear weapon program, there would be massive outrage on the part of the US public.
In that such outrage would certainly affect the "special relationship" to Israel's detriment, there is no possibility that Israel would ever attack Iran without the clearest explicit US support for it.
I don't understand.
Surely the beginning of the colloquy would have centered on Israel's founding - in that the discussion took place at an academic locale and that all the participants were scholars, how was it possible for anyone to refute scholarly research such as that of Benny Morris, that immediately after the UN vote hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven from their lands and villages? Was the claim that the land was bought and the Palestinians left voluntarily not debated vigorously with demands for scholarly support for their seemingly nonsensical claims?
With respect to the legitimacy of the occupation, was there not a demand to account for the ignoring of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, the countless UNSC resolutions, the ruling if the International Court Of Justice?
If these matters were raised and glossed over, you should have stubbornly stuck to your guns and demanded reasoned answers rather than accepting hasbarist pap.
"Export of Israeli culture" vs. noisy, media-attracting demos emphasizing why the Israeli production is receiving such vehement opposition.
Even though the Brits already get regular pro-Palestinian coverage as well as criticism of Israeli actions and policies via The Guardian and The Independent and to some extent, the BBC, the shit-disturbances that are bound to occur will get a great deal of coverage and certainly spur welcome general debate.
Do you really believe that the status quo can be maintained for another 5, 10 or 20 years?
Once the MSM pendulum swings and the world is fully aware of the Israeli depredations, it will be South Africa redux.
Genuinely unaware or wilfully blind?
"American Grass" equivalents: Chomsky, Jimmy Carter, Walt-Mearsheimer, perhaps Finkelstein - all powerful voices that have been marginalized and virtually ignored by the MSM.
It would be an honour to have done something to get on that P.N.G. list
No one outside the US is surprised by its hypocrisy and double-dealing - the response to Mr. Hersh's reporting: a shrug and acceptance of "business as usual".
With the knowledge that they can't compete with US and Israeli air power, the Iranians have invested heavily in anti-ship missiles against which only the ships with the most sophisticated defences will survive attacks in the Persian Gulf. It would appear that the 200 deaths referred to in the article would be as a result of an attack on a single US ship - if the commitment to attack a US ship is made, why is the assumption made that only a single ship would be involved - the Iranians have thousands of these super-sonic missiles.
link to rense.com
After Pres. Obama's clear statements of non-support for an Israeli attack and now the MSM correctly reporting that the reason for attacking is solely to deter the possibility of preparation for a nuclear weapon program, the Israelis know that if it starts a war, it will bear sole responsibility for the consequences - the blame for the devastating economic results, but more importantly, the outrage over the loss of American soldiers' lives in a war fought only for Israeli interests, will cause serious damage to the "special relationship" and may well increase world-wide anti-semitism.
Not completely alone - Juan Cole, Robert Fisk, (off the top...)
Let me make the strongest of recommendations to view Peter Beinart's interview by Rabbi David Golub regarding the key points he makes in his book - intelligent, articulate and relentless in advocating the cessation of settlement building as an absolutely essential requirement and in his criticisms of the injustices that the Palestinians are compelled to endure from the Israelis.
link to videos.shalomtv.com
Somewhat off-topic, but instructive as to the mindset of of those teaching the youth of Israel - from an op-ed in Haaretz by Dr. Amiel Ungar, a professor of political science:
"The success of Iron Dome was indeed heartening, and the system will definitely reduce casualties and ensure the survivability of forces and infrastructures in a general war. Missile intercepts, and a resilient rear front cannot provide victory, however; only the infliction of unbearable damage to the enemy can accomplish this. Israel unfortunately did not achieve or even aspire to victory."
THE INFLICTION OF UNBEARABLE DAMAGE!!
What hope for reasonable, non-racist conduct from the next generation of Israelis?
link to haaretz.com
With respect to reporting about the suffering of the Palestinians, is the MSM spineless and/or "controlled" - it's a simple matter to see how Congress is "controlled", but how exactly are the print and television media compelled to avoid any coverage whatever of the Palestinians' brutal treatment?
"The children killed by any army which is engaged in war while taking reasonable precautions not to kill them are tragic victims of violence, but they weren’t murdered."
What kind of Israel-can-do-no-wrong fantasy world do you live in? Out of 1400 Gazan deaths, there were 350 defenceless women and children killed!
To engage in some legal nit-picking - a homicide occurring during the commission of a felony, in this case the ultimate crime - a war of aggression, is deemed to be a murder.
I'd like to hear more about the censoring at MSNBC - are there meetings, explicit memos, indirect hints?
How is it done?
In the press conference, Pres. Obama appeared to shift the onus in respect of the I/P peace process by asking the vile Netanyahoo for a "plan" to further the process and seemingly put him on the spot by doing so - many admired Pres. Obama's adroitness for that maneuver, given the required obeisance to Israel in that venue.
This wanton and provocative murderous brutality is the loathsome Netanyahoo's reply to Pres. Obama's proposal.
Pres. Obama asked the odious master liar Netanyahoo for a proposal to further the I/P peace process.
This is the bloodthirsty murderer's response.
"Jewish self preservation" = murderous racism.
kapok - you're absolutely correct.
We are witnessing one of the most masterful con jobs of all time - while the world frets about the nightmarish consequences of of an attack, relaentlessly ginned up by Netanyahu and his cronies, the Israelis continue to gobble up Palestinian land and water resources at a breakneck speed.
A lot of negativity in the posts - perhaps justified, but consider the positives:
1. In the press conference Pres. Obama said nothing more radical than what he was compelled to say in the AIPAC speech and in no way suggested a green light to Netanyahoo - it's not palatable but his re-election is on the line.
2. Pres. Obama not only raised the Palestinian issue, but shifted the onus to Netasnyahoo to provide some kind of a plan for moving the process forward - did anyone expect this skillful bit of business?
3. As it appears that the Israeli electorate's overwhelming concern is that they have the complete support of the US in all matters, the reaction of the Israeli media would seem to suggest that the absence of pledges of unconditional support will cause Netanyahoo problems with any unilateral action.
The speech:
"And so from my first months in office, we put forward a very clear choice to the Iranian regime: a path that would allow them to rejoin the community of nations if they meet their international obligations, or a path that leads to an escalating series of consequences if they don’t. "
Again, what specifically is demanded?
In the speech there were references made to Iran having "choices", but in no way were those choices spelled out or defined.
What specifically is demanded of them?
Unfortunately, the automatic screaming is effective - all media outlets, all those who publish opinions know that if a pro-Palestinian or an anti-Zionist position is taken, the "anti-Semitism", "self-hating Jew", "Jew-hatred" shrieks will automatically appear and are intimidated into silence by them.
Witness CAP.
Prior to the Iraqi aggression, a million Brits went to the streets in a massive protest.
Why isn't there even a hint of that kind of a protest now?
For my part, the horror of one of the Republican nominees becoming the president far outweighs the disgust of having to watch Pres. Obama having to grovel.
Pres. Obama has been painted into a corner since his speech advocating the 1967 lines as a basis for I/P negotiations - the immediate furor brought about by AIPAC, the pro-Zionist media, Netanyahoo and the Republicans made it clear to him that his chances of re-election would be disastrously wounded unless he fell in line.
All that has followed vis-a-vis Iran is a logical progression orchestrated by those same unseemly bedfellows - at every step, Pres. Obama had the choice: do the "right thing" or lose the election. Unsurprisingly, he chose the re-election option.
What else could he have done?
THIS AD IS GREAT!!
Does anyone believe that the NYT would ever permit one of its writers to use the "Israel-firsters" in any article or post?
Now it's out there.
I'm certain that a substantial number of NYT readers will have never seen the term before and ask themselves: what does term connote - is there not some significant evidence that a large number of writers and spokesmen seem to advance Israel's interests ahead of those of the US?
The more people debating the issue the better.
"AIPAC is very responsible in it’s lobbying efforts and I seriously doubt our President, Secretary of Defense and a whole host of Congressional leaders would be speaking at the upcoming conference if that were not the case."
What a crock of complete and unadulterated bullshit!!
As Thomas Friedman pointed out, the support of US politicians for Israel, its politicians and the vile AIPAC is "bought and paid for".
So does yr post mean that they should be bombed?
As this film is nor likely to be shown anywhere but in the major US cities and as it is an absolute must-see, let me recommend P2P downloading (depending on yr scruples).
A tip - if the subtitles are not shown on yr media player, download the CCCP codec pack (it's not Russian, it's just a joke) - if there is concern about CCCP, check it out on wiki.
This film should be required viewing for every politician and pundit to bring home the "human-ness" and "ordinary-ness" of Iranians who would be the victims of Israeli and/or American bombs.
I expect we'll soon be hearing from Clinton blasting the Bahrainis for persecuting the Shia majority for demonstrating for their democratic rights as she blasted Assad for similar behavior in Syria.
OOPS!! - forgot about the US naval base in Bahrain.
I know that I may be tiresomely repetitious in resubmitting variations of this post, but I cannot understand why the issue of huge potential US military loses is never considered:
It seems remarkable that given the extensive discussion regarding a possible attack on Iran that no one in the MSM ever discusses the potential US military losses if such an attack should occur.
On various sites, several posters with military-technology knowledge have indicated that Iran possesses anti-ship missiles for which the US Navy HAS NO DEFENCE and if that is correct, then the US getting a carrier group out of harm's way in the Persian Gulf (a "pond" in terms of anti-ship weapons) would be essential as a prelude to an attack that would involve Iranian retaliation. Even with the carrier groups removed, all US ships trapped in the Gulf, naval or civilian, would face destruction and the massive loss of lives, perhaps into the thousands.
For anyone doubting the deadliness of anti-ship missiles, please be reminded of the necessity of the British navy having to withdraw from the coast of Argentina when they were struck by missiles for which they had no defence - the Argentinians had a few Exocets and sank two ships - the Iranians have thousands of them.
As this appears to be the definitive article re the deadly Iranian anti-ship missile capability, I recommend it for its careful analysis:
link to rense.com
The Iranians can't compete with the US or Israeli military in the air, so they have focused their resources where they can do the most damage, i.e. anti-ship missiles, and that damage to US shipping in the Gulf could exceed the casualties of Iraq and Afghanistan combined if a carrier group was trapped in the Gulf - there are 7000 seamen on a carrier.
The Pentagon always mentions its "reservations" about an Israeli attack, but the details of the loss of life and vessel destruction are never spelled out definitively
test
With the premise that Israel unilaterally attacks Iran, it would seem to follow that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz and it would, together with its proxies, unleash missiles on Israel itself - given this scenario, the US military would seem to be obliged to support Israel in the air and at sea.
All US vessels in the Persian Gulf ( a "pond" in terms of anti-ship weapons) would come under attack by weapons FOR WHICH THE USN HAS NO DEFENCE.
link to rense.com
If a carrier group was trapped in the Persian Gulf and came under fire from hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these weapons, the death toll could be greater than that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
Who would the howls of American outrage be directed against? It seems self-evident: The Israelis and their American instigators, i.e., "Israel-firsters".
If this scenario ever played out ... (heaven forbid!)... previously-expressed concerns about increasing anti-Semitism would seem as nothing.
What's more likely to be reported in the Pennsylvania media - the ADL smear or Ms. Cobban's rebuttal?
The scarf in question can be purchased from the Hoping Foundation:
link to hopingfoundation.org
A ten page Google search of "Andrew Adler Atlanta" showed that only CNN and The Guardian covered the story - again the obvious: what if a Muslim had written the article?
The over-riding concern is not that the story was suppressed, but HOW it was able to be suppressed.
Opaleye -
Believe it or not, the entry of of a carrier group into the Persian Gulf can be seen as a positive de-escalation move - the USN knows that it is vulnerable to Iranian anti-ship attack in the Gulf and instead of avoiding the threat it says: "We won't be starting anything here" - a weird kind of a hostage.
There is much more to fear if, in the course of threat and counter-threat, the carrier group leaves the Gulf.
Additionally:
"During the Second Lebanon War, a Chinese C-802 anti-ship missile struck Israel’s INS Hanit off the Lebanon coast. Four Israeli sailors were killed in the incident..."
"There could have been a more direct hit on the vessel. ...The Chinese C-802 anti-ship missile is a sea-skimmer, an advanced conventional weapon - not a ballistic missile - and carried a 400-pound time-delayed semi-armor-piercing high-explosive warhead that blew up near the fan tail of the ship. As it was, the explosion caused substantial damage, engulfing the aft section in flames and caving in the ship’s helicopter pad. But the Hanit didn’t sink. If the Chinese missile had struck amidships where most of the ship’s company was eating, or had impacted at the water line, many more crewmembers would have been killed or permanently injured, and it’s unlikely the ship would have survived."
link to washingtontimes.com
On various sites, several posters with military-technology knowledge have indicated that Iran possesses anti-ship missiles for which the US Navy has no defence and if that is correct, then even carriers in the Persian Gulf (with their 7000 crew-members) would be seriously threatened.
For anyone denigrating the deadliness of anti-ship missiles, please be reminded of the necessity of the British navy having to withdraw from the coast of Argentina when they were struck by missiles for which they had no defence - the Argentinians had five Exocets and sank two ships.
As this appears to be the definitive article re the Iranian anti-ship missile capability, I recommend it for its careful analysis:
link to rense.com
link to cbsnews.com
"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No"
Again and again, Panetta's Face The Nation statement has to be repeated.
The last comment (paraphrasing) -
"A non-authentic Jewish critic using his "Jewishness"..."
What is an authentic Jewish critic?
"ISRAELI spy agency Mossad's station chief in Australia has been expelled after a comprehensive investigation confirmed that Israel equipped a team of assassins with forged passports of Australians and other foreigners."
link to theaustralian.com.au
What are the chances of the US Gov't taking a similar course of action?
It should be mandatory for every news article or TV discussion regarding Iran to repeat what Panetta said last Sunday:
"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No."
Being the dyed-in-the-wool, pro-union, anti-corporate excess old lefty that I am, please let me recommend Thom Hartmann's daily show on RT for those similarly inclined.
All the topics that are verboten on the MSM (including the Israeli depradations vis-a-vis the Palestinians) are examined by him and his informed guests who you will never see on any other TV shows.
Don't you think that, if re-elected, Pres. Obama will have free rein for the first six to nine months or perhaps a year without concern for the mid-terms?
With the fervent hope for Pres. Obama's re-election and the absence of the necessity of pandering to AIPAC, he MUST make the a**hole Netanyahoo pay big-time - no more "carrots", but the "stick" repeatedly and harshly dispensed.
Thank you Ms. Rosengarten for your thoughtful and passionate article.
I have noted that you refer, not to the West Bank, but rather to "Occupied Palestine" which I feel more accurately describes the situation - if this nomenclature was adopted by all who write or discuss I/P matters, I believe that it would have more impact.
It's all in the wording of the questions.
Why can't the Brazil-Turkey-Iran agreement be revived?
link to news.bbc.co.uk
I have some Palestinian friends and, believe me, they find the term offensive.
Because of the Comcast- NBC relationship, do not expect the supposedly "progressive" MSNBC hosts to make any mention of I/P matters in the future.
link to mondoweiss.net
As a matter of interest, I wonder if the diktat to avoid I/P had anything to do with Olberman's departure.
Lobewyper - as to more information, let me recommend the Iranian film "A Separation" that is nominated for a Golden Globes award.
link to imdb.com
It provides insights into the day-to-day lives of a middle-class Iranian family as well as some very interesting insights as to the Iranian legal system.
At the end of the day, one is left with the impression of how much this family of a demonized state are so much like "us" and how the barrage of pro-war propaganda seems to ignore that the country is made up of families just like the one depicted in the film.
Wow! What an interesting article - thx Brewer.
A propos the media, but not bearing on this post directly - at 8:45 AM PST, Leon Panetta said the following on Face The Nation:
"WASHINGTON (AP) – Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step."
"...but is not yet building a bomb " - major news re the US sabre-rattling, but not a word about it on the NYT website at 4:30 PM PST.
How come?
There is absolutely no dispute that the ascendancy is "a glorious and beautiful story" but the issue as to how the correlative power that has been achieved is wielded is something that has to be considered in terms of the best interests of the US, both domestically and in terms of foreign policy.
Can anyone argue that the influence of AIPAC has been anything but malign in both areas or that Jewish influence has had an adverse effect in preventing television, newspaper and magazine coverage from presenting an accurate picture to the US public of Israeli outrages in respect of the Palestinians?
My original post wasn't clear - the question is WHO owns WHAT and therefore able to exert influence.
An example of the ability to exert influence is this recent M/W post re Comcast-
NBC:link to mondoweiss.net
David Cohen - exec v-p of Comcast - ardent Israel-Firster.
David Roberts - chairman of Comcast - deep connections to Israel.
Is it any wonder that the "progressive" hosts on MSNBC never utter a word of criticism re Israeli actions and policies and never have pro-Palestinian spokesmen?
The seemingly-obvious question is HOW is the MSM influenced in such a way.
On this website in the recent past, there have been articles and discussions about the impact of "Jewish money" on US politics -is there to be one relating to the media as well?
"he’s looking ahead and realizing this generation of kids don’t like apartheid and they are the ones who will be steering the ship in another decade or 2 or 3"
So what happens while this 20, 40 or 60 years go by?
Israel, with the huge support of AIPAC, has very successfully maintained the "status quo" - hoodwinking the world that they are involved in a "peace process" while gobbling up Palestinian land and water resources and completely stifling Palestinian opposition. If this "status quo" continues for even another ten years, will there be anything left to discuss or fight over?
The Israelis are so accustomed to breaching international law and disregarding UNSC resolutions ( b/c Uncle has allowed it to be so), that any hope of them submitting to them in the future is negligible.
(Compare this to the US braying about Iran failing to accept UNSC resolutions)
The conflation of "Jew" with "Zionist" and with "anti-Zionist" (anti-Israeli actions and policies) and "anti-Semitic" is obviously at the heart of this controversy.
If a Jew supports the existence of a Jewish homeland, but deplores the actions and policies of the Israelis vis-a-vis the Palestinians, is that Jew an anti-Zionist and thereby an anti-Semite?
The logic (or illogic) of it makes my head swim.
The pre-trial examinations for discovery ("depositions" in the US) will be fascinating to say the least.
Is a trial date set?
"It was not in any sense a proportional response to desultory and largely ineffective rocket attacks by militia groups..."
From 2000 to this date 17 Israelis have been killed by the glorified fireworks known as Qassams.
Some confusion here.
From the J-Post article:
"Hamas, meanwhile, called on the PA to boycott the Amman meeting, arguing the talks would only benefit Israel and help it improve its image in the international arena."
From Gideon Levy in Haaretz:
"The writing is clearly on the wall. The head of the Hamas political bureau, Khaled Meshal, has ordered his group's military wing to stop terrorist attacks against Israel, saying his organization will make do with popular protest. Hamas is declaring that it supports a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, and the Palestinian Authority has expressed a willingness, in exchange for 100 prisoners, to give up its demand for a freeze on Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank as a condition for the resumption of peace talks. What more will we ask for?
On our side, too, the writing is clearly on the wall. Israel is ignoring the changes in the Palestinian positions. Most of the media is systematically obscuring the situation. Security sources are saying in response that they know nothing about the shift, or that it is only tactical. Israel is also rejecting the Palestinian Authority's negligible conditions with repeated "nos" in the finest of Israeli rejectionism."
link to haaretz.com
Rather than rejecting the Amman talks, it appears that Hamas has made a major concession to strengthen the PA negotiating position.
Notwithstanding that Pres. Obama signed extremely anti-progressive legislation, what is the benefit of attacking him in this re-election year and increasing the chances of a Republican being elected? Bear in mind that this anti-progressive legislation originated in the most ideologically-driven Congress imaginable.
How would the Republicans and their MSM megaphone have reacted if Pres. Obama refused to sign the legislation? Should he have done "the right thing" and died on his sword with respect to his re-election prospects?
The only hope for progressive legislation in the future is if the Dems re-take the House and keep the Senate.
thx for the link - very informative.
Isn't it a shame that the brilliant and articulate Max Blumenthal doesn't get more TV exposure?
If he couldn't muster enough public outrage when Netanyahoo refused the 90 day settlement freeze even after being offered massive bribes, do you really believe an "appeal to the public for support in bringing the settler entity down to actual size" would have had an iota of success when AIPAC, the Republicans and the right-wing MSM were done with him and his re-election prospects?
Kathleen -
You've made my point - going soft on I/P b/c of the I lobby; Iran, ditto. As to AfPak, any move to disengage would be viciously attacked as "weakness".
All poison for his re-election campaign.
On drones I have no answer other than concern about Pakistani sovereignty and the general American unwillingness to risk US soldiers if a machine can do the job. As to Ross, I can only speculate that the shitstorm over the Chas Freeman appointment led him down that path.
"Implicit in some of the disappointment of Obama is an implied wish for someone who could just do it...
In the present US political climate, it is impossible for that "someone" to exist.
For my part, I believe that Pres. Obama fully intended to carry out his campaign promises and found himself trapped in the most incendiary and hostile political climate in the history of the US - by virtue of constant Republican pressure (and its vociferous support in the MSM) and the power of the Israel Lobby, he has been compelled to back off almost all positive policies and to capitulate if he wanted any chance of re-election.
Examples:
1. The Cairo Speech - he set out a commitment for peace to all the ME countries and in particular to commit the US in bringing about a peace agreement. Today, after the smoke has cleared from the incessant attacks from AIPAC and its MSM and Congressional minions, the 2ss is dead and he is fighting for his political life for votes in the Jewish community.
2. Pres.Obama asked the Gov'ts of Brazil and Turkey to attempt to broker a deal with Iran as to moving its supply of nuclear fuel to another country and when they succeeded, again a shitstorm of Republican and AIPAC bile that made it politically impossible to follow up on the agreement.
Other examples abound, but it is always the same story - the combination of intense Republican opposition and the power of AIPAC over Congress and his re-election chances have compelled him to back down or be politically destroyed. It appears that many posters would prefer to see him do the "right thing" and die on his sword, but I would prefer him to have a chance to fight another day when the forces affecting his re-election would be much less powerful.
Would any of you prefer a Republican president - if so, who?
The "monolithic monster" tag nails it - the Swiss art show, a lawsuit against a small Washington state co-op over boycotting WB products, organized hasbara campaigns on the most obscure blogs, etc., etc., ad nauseum - no issue is too insignificant, no stone is ever left unturned.
Pro-Palestinian? Against Israeli actions and policies? You're going to get "the treatment".