Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 802 (since 2010-10-06 04:27:13)

irishmoses

I'm a retired civil rights attorney and a writer of both non-fiction and fiction. My interest in the Israel-Palestine issue came from my father's involvement flying Jewish refugees from around the world to the new state of Israel in 1948-49. David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister called my father "the Irish Moses" because of his exploits, hence the name of my blog site -- www.irishmoses.com

Website: http://www.irishmoses.com

Showing comments 802 - 801
Page:

  • Time Warner executive moonlights as speechwriter for Netanyahu
    • My understanding is that DOJ refuses to release the file on that investigation and also refuses to make public any subsequent investigation. The same happened with various cases involving allegation of providing secret docs to Israel. Case closed, file sealed.

      I believe FARA is playing same game. Won't investigate why someone failed to file and also won't say why.

    • OK. Having reread my original post from very late last night (above at 11:59pm), I found my use of profanity, snarkiness, and sarcasm embarrassingly inappropriate. Let me rephrase in the light of a bright new morning and attempt to focus on the real issue of whether the actions of pro-Israel lobbyists in this country are doing severe harm to US interests:

      I suspect Mr. Ginsberg is an honorable, patriotic guy who voluntarily provided his services to Prime Minister Netanyahu because he feels a strong connection and affection toward Israel, as do many, if not most, American Jews, indeed maybe most Americans. I also suspect Mr. Ginsberg believes in good faith that the interests of Israel and the US are identical, so what is good for Israel is also good for the US. For that reason, I think he likely believes that the Iran nuclear agreement would be bad for both Israel and the US and disagrees with President Obama entering into that agreement.

      As with any American citizen, Mr. Ginsberg has the right to voice his opinions and advocate for any cause he chooses even though people like me may disagree with him. Obviously, my angry response reflected my own opinions and disagreement with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s vocal opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement.

      My anger at Mr. Ginsberg was directed at his assisting the prime minister of Israel in his attempt to convince Congress to reject the Iran nuclear agreement which I believe would be very harmful to US interests as well as to Israel’s. While I too am entitled to my opinions, it was inappropriate for me to express my opinions using snarkiness, sarcasm, and profanity particularly when the subject of my remarks didn’t have an opportunity to respond. I regret stooping to that level and apologize for my incivility.

      My references to the FARA foreign agent registration requirement reflect my opinion that this statute was designed to allow the US government to keep track of those who are acting as agents of foreign countries so it can limit that conduct when it is deemed inappropriate or illegal. The FARA registration requirement appears to apply even for actions done for the benefit of an ally such as Israel, and even though a US citizen may be performing the services, and even though the services provided may be quite innocuous such as promoting US tourism to a foreign country. I gave the example of former CIA Director Porter Goss who recently registered with FARA because he is providing lobbying services to Turkey, an ally of the US, like Israel.

      While in my opinion, Mr. Ginsberg’s actions on behalf of Israel’s Prime Minister constitute actions on behalf of a foreign government that should trigger the FARA registration requirement my interpretation of the FARA statute may be incorrect. In any case, Mr. Ginsberg fully disclosed what he was doing and that he was doing so voluntarily and without compensation.

      My anger or frustration is more directed at the fact that US pro-Israel individuals or organizations who act on behalf of Israel, including lobbying members of Congress, and organizing donations to members of Congress, aren’t being required to register as agents for Israel as I think is required under the FARA statute. In my opinion, this failure is depriving the FARA agency of its ability to screen the activities of those acting as agents for Israel, some of whom may be acting directly against the interests of the US. This failure is also depriving Congress and the US public of the public knowledge of persons and organizations acting as agents for Israel, and the nature of their activities.

      Whether or not Mr. Ginsberg is required to register as a foreign agent for Israel under FARA, his actions represent only a very insignificant part of what I believe is a much larger problem, that US pro-Israel lobbying efforts on behalf of Israel may be doing significant harm to US interests. That’s a discussion worth having. Mr. Ginsberg’s actions on behalf of the Prime Minister of the state of Israel are at best tangential to that discussion.

      The issue isn’t whether Americans on either side of this issue can debate and advocate their views. They can. The question is whether the state of Israel is using its influence through US lobbying organizations and individuals acting as its agents which would be illegal. I’m of the view that this is what’s going on and that it should be subject to disclosure, discussion, and debate.

      What I’d hate to see is this debate not taking place until after Congress rejects the Iran nuclear agreement, plunging our nation into the diplomatic chaos such a rejection will cause..Better we have that debate now.

    • Page: 8
    • True, but Ginsberg's Jewishness isn't really relevant to what he did or whether it was right or wrong. It would have been wrong and illegal (IMHO) even (horrors!) if he were Irish.

      I don't think you could argue even that his Jewishness was a motive for his actions unless you could demonstrate he was motivated by his support for Israel. But even then, his Jewishness isn't really relevant because there are plenty of non-Jews who support Israel. For the same reasons, I think my snarky rhetorical question in my original comment, "Is it because he’s Jewish and the law doesn’t apply to him?" was also borderline inappropriate.

    • Please hophni, educate me about the true meaning of FARA agency. Maybe provide a link or 2 or maybe a FARA case cite.

      I find it difficult to comprehend how doing an act at the request of and on behalf of an individual is not acting as that person's agent. Here's some basic hornbook law on the subject. link to ruf.rice.edu

      I suspect FARA's interpretation is similar but you clearly are well informed, indeed better informed about FARA agency requirements than me. So have at it professor. I await, pencil in hand.

    • Let me see. This guy is writing speeches for the head of a foreign government who is trying to influence and change critical American foreign policy decisions created by our president and government. Could it possibly be said that he is acting as the agent of a foreign power? It would seem so.

      If so, why the fuck hasn't he been required to register as such an agent under the provisions of the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)? This act requires agents representing the interests of a foreign power, in a political or quasi-political capacity, to disclose their relationship including any information about their activities and compensation related to that relationship. The law is administered by the FARA Registration Unit of the Counterespionage Section in the Department of Justice. link to fara.gov

      Just a few months ago, Former CIA Director Porter Goss registered to lobby as a foreign agent of Turkey as required under FARA. If that presumably distinguished and reliable former high-level government servant felt he was required by law to register as a foreign agent, why the fuck isn't this clown registering? Is it because he's Jewish and the law doesn't apply to him? Or maybe its because he's acting as an agent of Israel which perhaps doesn't qualify under FARA as a foreign power? Ah, that must be it. The special relationship between the US and Israel is so close that it constitutes a legal embrace and obviously there can be nothing foreign about an embrace.

      I'm speechless.

  • It's time for American Jews to recognize they have been duped
    • A lame and very late night attempt at humor that looks less than funny seen in the light of early morning. My apologies.

    • Avigail,
      Here's a link regarding the origin of "Irish Moses" and my father's link to Israel in its formative years. link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

      Despite that history and his later award of valor from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, my father was very critical of Israel in his later years and refused an invitation to return there for its 50th anniversary. Obviously, that family history is what piqued my interest in the I-P topic and led to my presence here on MW.

    • Avigail,
      A fascinating and thought-provoking reply--a view from the therapist's side of the couch.

      I think empathy is really a key point. It's too easy to allow yourself to become hardened and cynical (as I've become) as a result of reading and responding in hundreds of often heated discussions. We see that on both sides here. Anger leads to allegations of antisemitism or conversely, allegations of being a hasbarite tool or troll, or worse. Both are ad hominems and inappropriate unless there is strong evidence in support of the allegation.

      I started on MW I think about 5 years ago thinking I could persuade others about the validity of the Palestinians' claims and the need to end their suffering. I found it's an uphill battle because both sides are really attached to their narratives (myself included) and we resist any attempt to accept the other's narrative. While I believe fervently in my (our) narrative, I'm baffled about how to get through the psychological barriers to really affect some change in my opponents who, in my view, are often misguided and misinformed. Certainly logic and rational discourse don't work except in maybe a few cases. I suppose all you can do is try to remain civil and hope eventually you have some impact.

      Some of those who I've sparred with over the years, Yonah is a good example, I thought were genuinely open and capable of change (I'm aware of the irony in my statement). But sometimes the arguments and accusations get too heated and and you get angry and give up. That happened awhile back with me and Yonah. The good news is that based on the openness you've created on this thread, I've made an attempt to reopen the dialogue between Yonah and me if we can both agree to remain civil and committed to a minimum of snarkiness. We'll see how that goes.

      As to my "Irish Moses" handle, no I'm not Irish. I was born and raised in the US and live in Southern California. I picked that name in honor of my father who led an air transport operation back in 1948-49 in which thousands of Jews from around the world were flown to the nascent state of Israel. David Ben Gurion was said to have called my dad the Irish Moses because all these Jews were returning to Israel on the wings of my father's silver eagles (the old, 4 engine C54 or DC4 prop planes).

    • Upon reflection Yonah, I believe I used a more elegant term than "troll". Perhaps "insufferable, impenetrable hasbarite"?

      As I recall, you had accused me of being an antisemite which, for some odd reason, I took offense. However, in the spirit of the well over-the-top Kumbaya spirit of this very long thread (if I see another thank you, I will vomit on the screen), I offer you a humble truce. One of joint civility with a minimum of snark.

    • Danaa,

      I think some of us retreat from MW and return occasionally for important forays mainly because it's too easy to become obsessive about the issue. I think its healthy to come and go and I'm delighted you're still coming and going.

      As to your comment, "Can now go off and contemplate the meaninglessness of life in peace…).", I've convinced myself, after more than a few bouts of the black dog, that that question is unknowable and that the minutes and people in between are all that really count.

      Be well, says this Danaa admirer. Next year (or so) we'll all meet in Ramallah, or Jerusalem, or both, to celebrate. Now that'l be some party.

    • Good point. Thanks for the reminder.

    • Good analysis Sibiriak. But I do quibble a bit about the effectiveness of the B in BDS. There is a lot of evidence that Israel is very worried about the current boycott efforts because apparently the losses could rise to the high billions.

      Another point, the sanctions regimes against Iran, particularly those beginning in 2012, did bring Iran to the negotiating table and did bring about a pretty one-sided agreement against Iran. In other words, sanction can work very effectively, and in a relatively limited amount of time.

      Final point, US/UN/EU sanctions against Israel could be very specific in their demands. i.e. if no agreement is entered into that meets the sanctions criteria by a date certain, Israel must provide full and equal rights to all citizens including all diaspora Palestinians. While Israel could certainly refuse to comply, the continuing squeeze of heavy sanctions would eventually make that choice too unbearable. To avoid that scenario, Israel would almost certainly move directly to a two-state solution in order to prevent an imposed single state solution in which it would be outnumbered by non-Jewish citizens.

      I'm hoping EU/US/ and UN patience is running thin and that sanctions might be just around the corner. I know, I dream.

    • Who we talking here, Yonah, me, Leon Uris, Martin Kramer???

    • rosross said:
      "@Yonah, Exodus was a novel. It was a work of fiction. Are you saying you believed it to be history?"

      Here's an interesting take on the origin of the novel Exodus: link to en.wikipedia.org,
      that it was commissioned specifically to create good PR and a very favorable narrative for the emerging (1959) state of Israel.

      I haven't looked at this issue in a number of years and I now discover the hasbarists have mounted a full-court defense. See: link to historynewsnetwork.org

      Me thinks they protest too much. The author of the new defense is one Martin Kramer, a man of impeccable Likud-Zionist and neocon credentials. See: link to en.wikipedia.org.

      Apparently, this fine fellow once "...advocated cuts in what he termed "pro-natal subsidies" to Palestinians in Gaza as a means of discouraging population growth, thus curbing Islamic radicalization." Judging from the high body count among Palestinian women and children during the last two Gaza invasions, it appears Israel has discovered more efficient means of birth control.

    • Avigail,

      My last posting looks a bit pedantic even to me. My point wasn't to criticize or lecture you but rather to point out that there is a lot of well-disguised hasbara on MW that's intended to change the subject. I hate seeing your brilliant and elegantly crafted article buried or diminished by clever ploys and diversions from hasbara-central.

      Thanks for taking the time to respond so generously on this thread.

    • Avigail: "Good response to Yonah, Irishmoses. Thanks!"

      You're most welcome. However, there's a general lesson to learned in my response: Don't trust seemingly reasonable/innocuous postings. e.g.

      - Yonah's was intended to sound like a reasonable form of compromise by a fellow liberal person anguishing for a solution to this intractable problem. Sorry, it's just another tactic from hasbara-central.

      - A more subtle version I suspect is "Ruth-Anne's" comment about half way through this thread. She said: "…But surely it also applies to the USA? That is a settler-colonial state, complete with all the crimes against the indigenous people that went into establishing that country.” Ruth-Anne, now there's a name anyone would trust,. And a first-time poster who attacks the US as a great sinner while trying to show poor Israel isn't doing anything worse than the prior and present actions of the world's greatest democracy. Now that's a clever ploy because it diverted the thread (with your unwitting assistance) into a discussion of the crimes of colonialism which reinforced the idea that Israel isn't doing anything any other good country has also done.

      I've been discussing, arguing, and writing about the I-P issue for at least 30 years, here in the US. I've seen no evidence that prior US sins against its native peoples, or guilt over that conduct is somehow related to any misguided individual's support for Israeli misconduct. The answers and arguments I get instead reflect years of hearing a very well-crafter and clever but very false narrative. As I said in my earlier response to you,

      "US support for Israel has NOTHING to do with some sort of residual guilt complex over our treatment of our native peoples in the mid-19th century. It has everything to do with Zionist organization skills and brilliance in creating and dominating the past and current narratives in our media and political spheres, and in creating immense influence through brilliant lobbying strategy and tactics."

      That same brilliance can be seen in many of the MW "reasonable" responses we get from seemingly reasonable posters. The aim is often to divert rather than respond substantively.

      Call me a cynic, but I've been around this shit too long to take any of it on face value.

    • Two problems with this proposal:
      1. It excludes Gaza's 1.9 million Palestinians.
      2. It excludes the Right of Return of several million more expat Palestinians, at least a million of whom still reside in refugee camps.

      The beauty or evil of this proposal is that it would legalize and make permanent the ethnic cleansing of all these Palestinians, including those in Gaza who would be stuck in its vast outdoor prison.

      Nice try.

    • Great comment. I've missed your cogent analysis, Danaa. Glad to see you back even if only briefly.

    • de ri·gueur
      də riˈɡər,rēˈɡœr/
      adjective
      required by etiquette or current fashion. As in, "The proper use of the term, de rigueur requires a de rigueur focus on correct spelling.

      Certified MW grammar police person.
      (learned while googling the meaning of "de riguer".

    • tokyobk,
      "Congrats on your moral purity and forwardness.
      The article is about Israel hoodwinking American Jews.
      The “we” refers to American Jews.
      Obviously."

      I think you missed Mooser's point which is that all Jews, including him, weren't hoodwinked by the hasbara, which, incidentally, includes the term "the Jewish People".

    • Avigail,

      A wonderful article, elegant in its simplicity. Thank you.

      However, US support for Israel has NOTHING to do with some sort of residual guilt complex over our treatment of our native peoples in the mid-19th century. It has everything to do with Zionist organization skills and brilliance in creating and dominating the past and current narratives in our media and political spheres, and in creating immense influence through brilliant lobbying strategy and tactics.

      The American people have been duped while its media and political system have been largely co-opted.

      We need to keep our eyes on the ball. Offering up American guilt or our 19th century version of settler-colonialism as excuses for Israel's 21st century behavior toward the Palestinians just plays into the hands of the neocon-Zionist-Israeli hasbara machine.

    • RuthAnne said:
      "...But surely it also applies to the USA? That is a settler-colonial state, complete with all the crimes against the indigenous people that went into establishing that country."

      I'd be careful about giving Israel an excuse to justify its own post WW2 settler-colonialism on the grounds that the US was doing the same 100 plus years earlier. As Citizen says more completely below (or above?) our (US) version of settler-colonialism occurred during a period (19th century) when colonialism was acceptable (at least to the colonial powers).

      The US imperfectly made amends for that policy. We also put a stop to slavery and then, a century later, imperfectly put a stop to segregation. We also put a stop to Nazi Germany and were instrumental in the creation of the Geneva Conventions aimed at preventing the sins of the past from reoccurring. Imperfect as we are as a nation today , our 19th century actions shouldn't be used to condone or diminish Israel's culpability for its post WW2 version of settler-colonialism.

      While I agree with Citizen that our invasion of Iraq constitutes a war crime, there was more than a little neocon-Zionist-Israeli encouragement in that endeavor, as there is in today's more blatant neocon-Zionist-Israeli efforts to quash the Iran deal to enable the bombing and war with that country they so fervently hope for. As Citizen points out, there is also a domestic version of neocon-Zionist-Israeli influence seen in the Israelification of our local police forces.

      None of this justifies our behavior as a nation, but it does show how pervasive neocon-Zionist-Israeli influence has become in the US. It has made a mockery of US values and set us up as the icons of hypocrisy. US values today are best described as largely those of Israel's Zionist Likudniks mixed in with a healthy dose of neoconservative ideology.

      Pardon the rant.

  • The brave new world of mapping occupied East Jerusalem
    • Thank you Socialconscience for the link and pictures. That took place right outside the door of the apartment we rented in Sandymount.

    • I wonder how big a part religion actually played in the Irish revolution. It seems like it was more about British colonial rule than religion. I think the same holds true with the so-called war against terrorism. The problem isn't caused by religion, it's caused by the West's (particularly the US') presence and interference in the the area. OBL made that pretty clear in all of his statements. I think it's convenient to blame religion ("radical Islam") as the cause of the conflict because we then don't have to look at and take responsibility for our own actions as the cause of the conflict.

      Couldn't the same be said for the troubles in Northern Ireland? It seems to me to be about ending partition not religion. Religion is a useful symbol and rallying point but isn't it really about whether the Brits can still hold onto a slice of Ireland?

    • I stand corrected. Childers was a critical figure in the negotiation of the treaty but turned against its final provisions. He was a close friend of Michael Collins and suffered the same fate. Complicated business.

      While I was in Dublin, a pro-Palestinian Irish organization planted 500 small sails in the tidal sands of the Sandymount strand symbolizing the more than 500 children killed by Israel during the 2014 Gaza war. They also succeeded in convincing the Irish folk dance group to cancel their trip to Israel to participate in an Irish dance festival. Unfortunately, a panel on the Palestinian issue planned for Trinity College was mysteriously removed from the schedule. I had hoped to see the panel discussion and meet some of the organizers and participants.

    • Lysias said:
      "The IRA violence in Ireland started against the Royal Irish Constabulary, the police force in Ireland made up of Irishmen, to a large extent Catholic Irishmen. They were serving what on paper was a democratic government, even if nationalists objected to it.

      The IRA’s tactic worked, and in the end it was probably worth it, since it did lead to Irish independence. But what happened to those members of the RIC was tragic. They were simple men just doing an ordinary job."

      Lysias, the many centuries of Irish struggle for independence is complicated and tragic. While my comments were oversimplifications of that complexity, I meant no offense and apologize for any taken.
      I was referring to the events of Bloody Sunday in which the IRA assassinated 14 British intelligence agents. link to en.wikipedia.org.

      One of my all-time favorite authors, Erskine Childers, who wrote Riddle of the Sands, one of the first spy novels and a wonderful sailing yarn to boot, was executed by Irish anti-treaty forces during the subsequent Irish civil war because he agreed with Michael Collins that a treaty that gave the Irish their independence, even with the partition of 6 Irish counties into Northern Ireland, was the best deal available. link to en.wikipedia.org.

      Our recent two weeks in Dublin introduced us to a beautiful country and a wonderful people with a history going back some 5000 years.

      I could easily go on for pages and pages about my new found familiarity with Irish history, Irish music, Irish pubs, Irish archeology, Irish literary greats, etc. Instead, I'll have my first dollop of Red Breast for this evening and attempt to educate my son-in-law about the true superiority of Irish whiskey over the Scotch "whisky" (the Scots forgot the "e" in whiskey) imitations to the east, across the Irish Sea.

    • I wouldn't be surprised to see a connection between"Ofek Aerial Photography" and Google. They seem to be merely duplicating Google mapping and street view technology. I doubt Google would want its name attached to this activity being applied by an illegal occupier in occupied territories.

      Just, it won't "soon be in your neighborhood, too...", it already is, through Google.

      We had a really jaw dropping thing happen a few days back when we were in Dublin. I had sent an email to my daughter in Washington, DC, regarding our arrival times. The next day I received a predicted weather report on Google weather for DC referencing that email! I suspect I somehow gave Google the permission to link email text, and location, to Google weather reports to "enhance" my Google experience.

      I bought several bottles of Ireland's finest whiskeys at the duty free store at Dublin airport. I won't be surprised if I soon start receiving sale notices for Irish whiskey at my local liquor stores.

      It is really becoming very creepy and scary stuff. It's enough to drive a man to drink.

    • This was a technique Palestine's Zionist Jews learned from the British during the 1936-39 Arab Revolt. The Brits developed detailed intelligence files on each Palestinian village (the "village files"). It was a technique they used throughout the Empire to maintain colonial control. Adding Google Mapping technology just provides an enhancement to the file. The tools Israel uses to maintain control in its "occupied" territories, are largely derived from methods invented and used by the Brits in Palestine pre-1948.

      We just got back from a couple of weeks in Dublin. The Irish know well the oppressive techniques of the Brits. They invented the best method to combat such oppression, selective terrorism against British police, army units, and internal traitors. Eventually, the Irish got their freedom but only after accepting an unfair partition. There are a lot of parallels between the Irish and Palestinian struggles for self determination.

      Palestine's Zionists used IRA terrorism tactics to convince the Brits they had no future in Palestine.

  • Israel's real fear about the Iran deal: It puts pressure on the occupation
    • Thanks for that link, Pixel, a wonderful tool for communicating with our Conessional representatives in Tel Aviv and Greater Jerusalem.

      Sarcasm aside, a loud drumbeat from angry constituents is an approach that will turn the tide. We saw that last year when the drumbeats for war with Syria were quickly quashed by the immediate public outcry that had not been voiced by our elected representatives who were meekly accepting the need for bombing Syria. In the final analysis, they know what side their bread is buttered on. Lobby dollars and pressure only go so far. Once the American voter begins voicing disdain for Israel and its immoral policies, our representatives will quickly change their tune.

      Thanks for the link which is now bookmarked.

  • When will justice's 'thunderbolt' come for Palestine?
    • Didn't mean to imply that my Irish heritage consists of different brands of Irish whiskey. I see the whiskies as a lubricant to smooth my reintroduction to the wonders of Ireland.

    • And, Amigo, I am proud as a several generations removed member of the American Irish diaspora to be visiting the Emerald Isle for the next couple of weeks. The parallels between the Irish and Palestinian experience are both remarkable and sad. But the Irish can give us hope that at the end of the day justice will prevail even though the bitter seeds of British rule and partition remain.

      I look at Ireland and see what my country could have been. The roots of JFK, RFK, and even BHO are there, but we've been afflicted with a blight that has smothered all that glorious potential, maybe some internal form of the same blight that sent our ancestors desperately fleeing west in the hope of a decent future. A future we may have squandered.

      Some say it was the Irish who saved civilization from the Dark Ages. I pray their American kin won't be the cause of a new descent into that darkness. The events of this week have given me new confidence. Just the halting singing of the few words of Amazing Grace by my American-Irish president gave me hope and brought me to tears.

      It would be nice to think this past week was a harbinger of the glorious last months of a historic presidency. I'll dwell on that thought as I sip my way through the varieties of Irish whiskey and try to capture a sense of my Irish heritage.

      We will be in and around Dublin during our stay. Any recommendations for food, drink, and social events, sport, and even civic activism would be welcome.

  • The Peter Beinart Double Standard: Why is this boycott different from all other boycotts?
    • Oops, it looks like my original and edited versions were both posted. Read the second one

    • The BDS movement’s charter requires only that the refugee problem be resolved as stipulated in UN Resolution 194:

      “…refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

      Resolution 194, passed by the UN General Assembly in November of 1948, sought to resolve all issues, including the refugee issue, caused by the 1948 war, through mediation by a Conciliation Commission. It is a non-binding resolution which means it serves mainly as a recommendation that the issue be resolved through mediation or negotiation between the parties.

      The essence of the BDS movement’s demands are that Israel end its occupation and settlement of Palestinian lands so that Palestinians can achieve the self-determination and state of their own they have long been entitled to. As a necessary part of allowing Palestinian self-determination, the issues of settlements, final borders, and the status of Jerusalem must also be resolved.

      The Arab Peace Initiative, the Geneva Accord, and the Clinton parameters all address the refugee issue as a matter of compromise in which a token amount or even just the surviving refugees be given the option of returning to Israel or to the new Palestinian state, or compensation and relocation to another country. Those refugees born after 1948 would be allowed to relocate to the new Palestinian state or to another country and also compensated for their losses.

      There is nothing in the BDS charter or by its members that can reasonably be interpreted as a threat to Israel’s existence. Israel’s claims of antisemitism and an existential threat from BDS are intended to change the subject from its unlawful actions in the occupied territories, for which it has no reasonable defense, to a shrill claim of victimhood in the hope that the world opinion will instead condemn supporters of BDS as antisemites intending Israel’s destruction.

      Hasbara Central has organized a 2 prong defense to BDS. Neither involves dealing with the substance of the BDS claim, that the occupation be ended and the Palestinians allowed self-determination. Instead, prong 1, is the specious claim that BDS poses an existential threat to Israel. Prong 2 is the tired What-About-ery claim. Our evil acts are not worthy of BDS because there is greater evil in the world.

    • The BDS movement’s charter requires only that the refugee problem be resolved as stipulated in UN Resolution 194:
      “…refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”
      Resolution 194, passed by the UN General Assembly in November of 1948, sought to resolve all issues, including the refugee issue, caused by the 1948 war, through mediation by a Conciliation Commission. It is a non-binding resolution which means it serves mainly as a recommendation that the issue be resolved through mediation or negotiation between the parties. The essence of the BDS movement’s demands are that Israel end its occupation and settlement of Palestinian lands so that Palestinians can achieve the self-determination and state of their own they have long been entitled to.
      As a necessary part of allowing Palestinian self-determination, the issues of settlements, final borders, and the status of Jerusalem must also be resolved. The Arab Peace Initiative, the Geneva Accord, and the Clinton parameters all address the refugee issue as a matter of compromise in which a token amount or even just the surviving refugees be given the option of returning to Israel or to the new Palestinian state, or compensation and relocation to another country. Those refugees born after 1948 would be allowed to relocate to the new Palestinian state or to another country and also compensated for their losses. There is nothing in the BDS charter or by its members that can reasonably be interpreted as a threat to Israel’s existence.
      Israel’s claims of antisemitism and an existential threat from BDS are intended to change the subject from its unlawful actions in the occupied territories, for which it has no reasonable defense, to a shrill claim of victimhood in the hope that the world opinion will instead condemn supporters of BDS as antisemites intending Israel’s destruction.

    • I was on ritzl's side of this (paraphrasing, "Beinart has come so far and is oh so close") until I read Krauss' comment, "I take him as the most sophisticated hasbara activist in the U.S. He’s the stopping block against the left, and he does so by attacking the Jewish right constantly, in order to build credibility."

      Whether Beinart is witting or un, his is the last ditch defense in what looks more and more like a very porous Zionist line. Cleverness in the cause of injustice amounts to little more than clever lawyering on behalf of an evil client. Plus, he's way too bright a guy not to realize what he's doing.

      Beinart is sort of the flip side of Goldberg. Neither of them ever has anything to say about the day-to-day plight of the Palestinians. Both are laser-focused on maintaining the Zionist enterprise and as much of Greater Israel as can still be salvaged.

      I find clever evilness far more repugnant than the direct version. Give me a Jabotinsky anytime.

  • A banner day for BDS -- though you'd have to read the Jewish press to know it
  • Front-page attack in New York Times says BDS movement is driven by minorities' 'hostility toward Jews'
    • Chu,

      Omar Barghouti, in his NYT op-ed today, claimed that a recent poll shows one out six American Jews favors boycotting Israeli products. link to platosguns.wordpress.com

      That's a pretty encouraging number, if correct.

    • Ckg and Chu,

      This is the discussion I was hoping for, generated by Blaine raising this important issue albeit in a less than civil manner.

      At this point, I still don't know which side I come down on, but my opinion matters little as I'm not on the front lines demonstrating and organizing like Blaine and all the other brave souls in JVP and other activist organizations who are on the cutting edge of BDS.

      I've noticed, over the years, that we have a disturbing tendency to start eating our own when we have internal disputes over tactics and doctrine. Some are even banished into the desert despite being important, if controversial, voices, and tarred with the (you guessed it) brush of antisemitism (e.g. Gilad Atzmon).

    • Annie,
      My first response was based on the initial 5 replies to Blaine's comment, all of which were directed at him and not at his argument. At that point, I had no idea of his history with you and MW. As my latest reply to you shows, his strident and emotional approach to this issue is counterproductive and he needs to change it if he wants to have any real impact.

      I'm not sure what else I can say. I am sorry you had to put so much effort into responding to his charges.

    • CKG,

      I mentioned that dilemma in my response to Annie (above).Politics is the art of the possible. My point, in all of this, was that Blaine's point should be discussed on the merits (which you did).

    • Annie,

      Thanks for responding.

      My main point was that the issue of whether the current BDS-Lite is working or whether a stronger version is needed is an important discussion. Taking the stronger view, extending BDS to cover Israel, not just its settlement-produced products, is not intrinsically disrespectful of the immense efforts of JVP and MW. Discussions about whether tactics or strategies are working are important.

      That said, Blaine's tone and approach to this important discussion does seem pretty confrontational and strident. His approach is having the opposite affect intended by angering those who he thinks disagree with his side of the argument. The more he does that, the less people will be willing to listen to his otherwise valid points. My advice to him would be tone it down several notches and try to persuade people to accept his point of view. To his credit, he sees the continuing oppression of the Palestinians as unacceptable and that BDS-Lite, in his view, is not making any tangible difference in their suffering. His frustration is certainly understandable.

      As to MW editorial decisions about what to publish, that's your call. Those decisions are difficult to make and I don't envy you and the time and effort it takes to review submission and make those decisions (or recommendations in your case). I personally like the mix of articles published on MW and the current more moderated tone of discussion.

      Finally, Blaine raised an important issue that's worthy of discussion, but Blaine, with his current overly strident approach, is inhibiting that discussion by making adversaries of those who he needs as allies.

    • Good points and interesting connections but scary in the sense that these could feed into some of the old antisemitic Protocol tropes.

    • JeffB,

      Nice try. Illegal behavior is illegal whether or not it is committed by Zionist Jews. I would condemn that behavior if it was committed by the Swiss, or even the Danes. You've again resorted to your favorite fallacy, "You're singling out the Israelis for their bad behavior, ergo you are an antisemite."

    • Great quote. Scary times. Pabelmount made a comment earlier in this thread that seems to dovetail with yours. link to mondoweiss.net

    • Great quote. Scary times. Pabelmount made a comment earlier in this thread that seems to dovetail with yours.

    • Donald,

      Thanks for the clarification.

      I don't see Israel's existence as justified by the Holocaust, after all, the idea of allowing Jews to create a homeland within Palestine came from the Balfour Declaration which was ratified by the League of Nations in 1922. The legality of Israel as a state seems to stem from the UNGA's ratification of the 1947 Partition Plan and Israel's subsequent acceptance an a member state of the UN under the terms of that plan.

      To me, while grossly unfair to the Palestinians, that's the legal justification for the existence of the state of Israel. A liberal Zionist, like Jerry Slater, may see that as a reasonable basis for being a Zionist while disagreeing with and condemning all illegal Zionist actions post ratification. So, to me, being a liberal Zionist is not necessarily a fatal flaw so long as one doesn't deny Palestinian rights (e.g. the other half of the Balfour Declaration) or attempt to justify illegal Zionist behavior.

    • Hmmm,

      What if someone doesn't approve of specific Zionist behavior, like ethnic cleansing, illegally occupying and colonizing someone else's land, etc., and criticizes that behavior? Since that criticism is directed at a specific subset of Jews (including some non-Jews) and not all Jews, why is that person ipso facto an antisemite?

      If I can recall what I've learned about basic rules of logic from the learned Roha, you have said,
      "All antisemities are anti-Zionists. Jose is an anti-Zionist. Ergo, Jose must also be an antisemite.

      I'll leave it to Roha to provide the Venn diagram showing why your argument and conclusion is a classic non sequitur.

    • Donald,

      "Slater and his ilk..." has a very disparaging sound to it. although I don't think you intended it that way. Jerry Slater is a very important voice (as you point out). He is well past "liberal Zionism" and has put his academic credentials on the line with a very brave and accurate analysis of Jewish terrorism: link to mondoweiss.net which was rejected outright by a host of gutless academic publications that normally publish his work.

    • Hmmm. Not one of the 5 responses to Blaine dealt with the substance of his argument, that BDS-lite isn't working. Your responses were little more than ad hominem. If you don't like the man's argument, dispute it with your own. Snarky personal attacks are unbecoming and unproductive.

      As to Blaine's tone, sure it was a bit over the top, but sometimes blunt, impolite language is necessary to wake people up to the reality of what is happening and how current efforts are having a marginal impact at best.

    • Hey, Blaine has a point. Fiddle fucking around with BDS on the edges to hurt Israeli manufacturers for products made in the territories is a pathetically weak response for a state that has been knowingly committing apartheid for half a century. link to mondoweiss.net

      If it really is apartheid, and it is, you need a South Africa-like response. The problem isn't Israeli manufacturers who operate in the territories, the problem is Israel itself. You need to make Israel and Israelis pay the price of continuing apartheid, not just a few manufacturers.

      The man's analysis is spot-on even if it is making some of you uncomfortable.

    • Pabelmount,

      I would sign your petition, but I'm not now nor have I even been a member of the Antisemite Party.

    • "Israel Sans Frontieres". Absolutely hilarious Amigo, and so apt. That phrase should become the new label or watcxhword for Israel on college campuses, if not everywhere. It perfectly evokes the hypocrisy of the Greater Israel project:

      "'Israel Sans Frontieres', like 'Medecins Sans Frontieres', only different, better." link to en.wikipedia.org

      Why should we impose borders on the only democracy in the Middle East which has the most moral army in the world?

    • Well put. Trying to figure out which Israeli products were produced in Judea and Samaria seems to miss the point. Is the point of BDS to exonerate Israel proper for crimes it commits in its occupied territories?

    • Is this a good sign or a more ominous one? To me, it shows the Nation's Paper of Record has now joined the campaign to redefine antisemitism into a more broad category which encompasses any and all criticism of Israel, including the tactic of BDS.

      That's kind of scary in view of nations like France and Canada changing their hate speech laws to include criticism of Israel as a form of Jew Hatred. Maybe we are seeing the beginning of a full-court press aimed at smothering all critical dialogue about Israel on the grounds that it is really just criminal antisemitic hate speech?

      To allow my paranoia to run to its logical conclusion, once these laws are passed, anyone who criticizes or has criticized Israel, becomes a antisemitic felon, whether post facto or ex. Under that unpleasant scenario, would MW qualify as the greatest antisemitic criminal conspiracy in recent history?

  • 'Israel should extend the right of return to all Palestinian refugees' -- Jebreal in 'The Nation'
    • DoublesSandard,

      To be fair, your fare was so substandard that the correction of a misspelled word is ludicrous. Why don't you start by correcting the substance of your hasbara-speak post? We'll forgive your spelling errors. You can start by researching the many posts on refugees by Hostage, Tree, and many others.

      Do I detect something new in your charge that the article is "...racist and is basically blaming the Jews..."? Normally, that would be simplified into the more standard claim of antisemitism, or Jew-Hatred (self and non-self). Perhaps Hasbara-Central has concluded that the antisemitism/Jew Hater card has been so overused as to lose its impact? Is "racist" to be the new term for "antisemite" in the deck of Likud-Zionism's House of Cards?

    • The only wild card in Krauss' analysis may be the Russian "Jewish" immigrant population. How many are there and do they really fit in as Ashkenazim?

    • My attempted edit to my previous post apparently took too long. Here's what was left out:

      Maybe the Ashkenazi (Ashkenazim?) mirror the once-dominant New England, White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant ruling class in the US, and maybe they'll suffer the same fate when their darker-skinned, working class lessers suddenly realize they too can have power.

      While this may seem unlikely, the dawning of the Arab List may humanize the Arab minority in the eyes of Mizrahi and even Ashkenazi Jews, opening political doors never before seen possible. Suddenly, the demographic threat is not the Palestinian Arab population, but the Israeli Arab population of Jews, Christians, Druze, and Muslims, all people of color, all with a true historical connection to their ancient homeland.

      Wonderful, perceptive post, Krauss.

    • Krauss said:

      "The big nightmare is if the Mizrahi start to realize that they have more in common with the Palestinians than the Ashkenazi ruling class who lord over them. "

      A brilliant post, Krauss, Imagine the effect on Israeli politics if suddenly the Arab List and the Mizrahi see a common cause together. Suddenly, Israel becomes a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society in which all groups vie for power and the Zionist connection slowly recedes.

      Maybe the Ashkenazi (Ashkenazim?) mirror the once-dominant New England, White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant ruling class in the US, and maybe they'll suffer the same fate?

      Wonderful, perceptive post, Krauss.

    • Elizabeth quoted:

      “Another reason for the attachment of Orientals to the Right in Israel is their socio-economic status. It is a world-wide phenomenon that in colonial countries, the lowest layer of the dominant nation (“white scum” in the US) is the most extreme enemy of the national minorities.”

      Maybe the distinction is that the Mizrahi are not white scum and that their relative darkness is what makes them scum, or at least inferior in the eyes of the Ashkenazi.

  • Israeli army can't stop patting itself on the back for helping Nepal victims
  • Haneen Zoabi's power and vision (and answers to Theodore)
  • Obama's role model to journalists -- Dorothy Thompson -- turned against Zionism and was silenced
    • I appreciate the retraction. I'll dial my invective back if you do as well. I see you are brand new to Mondoweiss so I'll cut you some slack. On the positive side, you seem to do some research. On the negative, you go way over the top on emotional labeling {"monsters", etc.), and you stray pretty far from the field in your historical analogies. If you cut back on some of that, you'll fit in better here.

      Mondoweiss is definitely a blog with a viewpoint. It focuses on behavior by Israel that violates international law and the rights of the Palestinian people to a state of their own and a modicum of basic civil rights and protection from oppression in the meantime. It also focuses on the excesses of Israel's US lobby. It is not anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, or antisemitic. It is anti illegal and dysfunctional behavior. The dialog here is generally pretty analytic and civil although it quickly can deteriorate when one or another commentator goes over the top. Moderation has helped MW keep on topic and control commentors who cross lines, but it's not perfect and it's a thankless task at best.

      I suggest you watch a bit and get a feel for the site then jump in when you have a point of value to make. So, welcome aboard and welcome to Mondoweiss.

    • DT's and AFME's CIA connection is real and fascinating. I'm just finishing a book that describes that connection. I hope to write about it soon.

      The ARAMCO donations to AFME, if true, might be the basis for the claim AFME was receiving support from Saudi Arabia.

    • Thanks IAK. I attributed the DT find to Alison further up-thread. link to mondoweiss.net

      Do you know how Alison discovered DT?

    • Good catch Annie. I bought and read her book along with the Kurth biography about DT. She seemed to dismiss DT a bit too easily. I wondered about her connections. Her book seems pretty well written in other respects but she clearly had an ax to grind when it came to DT's later anti-Israel statements and her connections to AFME. Certainly not a hit piece (half the book is about another famous woman of that era, and good friend of DT, Rebecca West.

      Good to have you back.

    • Jupiter,
      I'm not going to comment on partial quotes from you sprinkled with interpretations by you of somehow who I'm unfamiliar with and can see little if any relevance to DT.

      There also seems to be a decidedly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian element in your argument that is causing me some concern. e.g. "Note the reference to “charity” listed; in Catholic liturgy before Vatican II, it meant, not alms to the less fortunate, but the love of Christ, originally meaning, & here implied, in opposition to the love proclaimed by Judaism. One loved Christ by opposing his enemies the Jews." You seem to be suggesting that Christians' love of Christ is antisemitic and based on Jew hatred.

      In any case, as I said earlier, DT favored and advocated a non-revenge based rehabilitation of Germany and Germans rather than duplicating the vindictive/punitive methods used by the Allies after World War I which many scholars believe provided the circumstances that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to come to power. Judging from the results of the US policy of rehabilitation, in both Germany and Japan, DT’s view seems to have stood the test of time.

      Since you don't agree with the US policy toward Germany after WWII, what should the US have done?

    • Jupiter said:
      "You list from the set America First the elements Gerald Ford & JFK, implying that America First is presidential, perhaps even heroic. If follows, as surely as night does day, that you, Mr. Maguire are positively characterizing America First, perhaps even lionizing it. Every member of America First bears the characteristic “morally reprehensible while a member”. This is so because the delay of entry into WWII, such as was done by President Hoover as respects the Manchurian incident, inflated the violent deaths beyond belief, given that whacking Japan would have cost minimal lives, instead of the hundreds of thousands in the Pacific theater. Similarly, the failure to whack Nazi Germany after the Rheinland militarization resulted in the growth of military power of Nazi Germany, such that, whereas crushing the thugs, according to a Nazi German general, at the Rheinland would have crushed the pigs with certainty, tens of millions of violently disrupted corpses were produce by persistent delay. Hence, JFK & Gerald Ford acted in a morally reprehensible manner when they were members of America First."

      I don't know where to start in replying to your latest drivil and I don't even know why I'm trying. You seem to feel you are entitled to play monday morning quarterback with history and then make moral judgments about decisions leaders and citizens made, in good faith, without knowing with any certainty what the future would bring. You are also big on drawing entirely unwarranted and nefarious implications from statements or questions directed at you, such as I was lionizing America First, or that all members of that organization were "morally reprehensible while members" because they didn't have the same knowledge about the future as you now have, 75 years later.

      Scurrilous, despicable, embarrassing? I've run out of adjectives.

    • Jupiter said:
      "One possible reason that Ms. Thompson supported Wilkie was an as yet subconscious desire to see all the Jews gassed; that’s a quite reasonable suspicion, given that Ms. Thompson claimed the US & the UK were gassing the Germans."

      You have totally lost it. Clearly you will say anything, not matter how unfair, unsubstantiated, or outlandish, in an attempt to make a point. You are either a fool or you need to get caught up on your meds.

      You've expressed a fear that your comments might be moderated on Mondoweiss. Certainly your last comment should have been. Continuing this sort of unrestrained discourse may well get you excluded from Mondoweiss, but only because your comments are rapidly going far beyond the pale of rational discourse and discussion.

    • Having just reread the quote by Kurth you cite, I see no basis whatsover for concluding Kurth was a neo-fascist, nor for concluding that Kurth felt Germans were somehow the exclusive suffering souls after the war. Your comment is shameful.

    • Here's a basic link to a discussion about America's "Germany First" strategy in WWII. While both Germany and Japan were "monsters", Germany was by far a greater threat to the US than Japan, not to mention being a greater threat to Europe's Jews, Slavs, Roma, Homosexuals, etc.

    • You seem to have modified your original claim that DT favored "German Nazis" after the war to her and Kurth (not "Karch") merely favoring and exonerating "Germans" after war. I suppose that's progress. However, a more fair and balanced view would be that she favored and advocated a non-revenge based rehabilitation of Germany and Germans rather than duplicating the vindictive/punitive methods used by the Allies after World War I which many scholars believe provided the circumstances that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to come to power. Judging from the results of the US policy of rehabilitation, in both Germany and Japan, DT's view seems to have stood the test of time.

    • Jupiter said:
      "Now then. Please state any objections you have to “One World in Charity.” If you do not state any, it will be reasonable, having asked you multiple times for your opinion, to think that you have no objection to that set of sermons composed by Archbishop Muench."

      Jupiter, let us review how you introduced "One World in Charity" to this thread. You did so with one short sentence: "He may well have predicted her favoritism for German Nazis after war, a feeling shared by Archbishop Muench in “One World in Charity.” Who is the "he" in your sentence, Freud?

      You have not provided any quotes or cites to this work yet you expect me to pass judgment on it. Worse yet, you apparently believe it is reasonable to condemn me for whatever sins you attribute to Arch Bishop Muench merely because I have expressed no opinior nor even responded to your hyperbolic repeated questions about someone I know nothing about. I suggest, judging from your scurrilous tactics, it might be appropriate for you to change your pen name from Jupiter to Joseph McCarthy.

      Now, if you think the good archbishop Muench and his "One World in Charity" work are an important topic for Mondoweiss, I suggest to write on piece about him and submit it. We can all then learn much about the fellow and why you view him with such disfavor. We can also then discuss our views of your argument with you. In the meantime, I'm not about to do my own research project on an individual who as far as I can tell from you brief comments had nothing to do with Dorothy Thompson other than your belief that she shared his views, whatever these were.

    • Jupiter said, "She simply was never a prophetess [sic]". Since DT did predict, in 1930, that a war in Europe would be started by Germany, by the end of the decade, she seemed to have accurately judged the situation in Europe and accurately predicted the likely outcome, whether or not she was technically a "prophetess".

      As to her failure to engage or predict events in the Pacific concerning Japan, her reporting experience was in Europe, and she spoke fluent German, not Japanese, so perhaps she didn't feel qualified to offer her opinion.

      Please explain why you believe Imperial Japan was the US' "most important focus" as opposed to defending our allies in Europe against Nazi Germany. Certainly nobody in the US government (perhaps with the exception of Douglas McArthur, felt that.

      I would be grateful if you would stick to the subject of the thread, Dorothy Thompson, rather than using it as a forum for pontificating on your favorite historical theories, not to mention ancient religious figures such as Martin Luther.

    • Please explain why DT's support of 1940 presidential candidate Wendell Wilkie something to be derisivwe of? Please also tell us why belonging to the America First organization is worthy of your derision, particularly in view of the fact that its membership included many notable Americans who fought bravely during the war, such as Gerald Ford, JFK (who donated $100 and sent them a nice letter), and others.

      Please explain why your gratuitous and absurd comparison of DT to Martin Luther is in any way useful to this discussion, and is not, instead, merely offered to show the depth and profundity of your own literary background.

      Please also explain why the page cites you provide from Hertog's "Dangerous Ambition" are totally unrelated to the quotes you attribute those pages to.

      Please explain and provide evidence and cites for you statement, "..Ms. Thompson’s [was] a spokesperson for a slave state like Saudi Arabia."

      You profess disbelief that DT suffered retaliation because of her criticism of Israel's actions, and that it affected her career. Yet, her biographer, Peter Kurth, provides plenty of evidence of that. Is his evidence false, and, if so, why do you believe it is false?

    • Jupiter said: "But after the war, and especially with the founding of Israel, she turned rancorous."
      Since DT had been an ardent public supporter of Zionism up until the end of the war, please have the decency to provide some of the reasons for her rancor against the nascent Jewish state, like ethnic cleansing, terrorism, etc. If you disagree with her criticisms of actions by the Jewish state, please tell us why her criticisms were wrong.

      Please provide evidence/cites in support of your allegation that AFME "was partly funded by the Saudis". Peter Kurth, her biographer said (p. 428) AFME "took no Arab subsidy and had no Arab members on its board."

      You say, "Thompson insisted that criticism of Israel was, in her own words, “not anti-Semitic."". Are you saying that criticism of Israel is antisemitic? Please explain why, if you do believe that.

      Please provide cites in supportf of your claim that DT supported slavery or justified slavery in Saudi Arabia. Neither the Kurth or Hertog book mention this, and between the two, there is only one tangential reference to Saudi Arabia.

    • Jupiter said: "He may well have predicted her favoritism for German Nazis after war."

      Where did she say she favored German Nazis after the war? Please give us your source for that outrageous claim. She argued against Morganthau's desire to return Germany to a pastoral land, but so did a lot of others.

      "In fact, it has been said that she thought the Allies were basically putting them in gas chambers." Please provide a cite for this. Who said it and when?

    • Hophmi,
      Thanks for the two google books cites. Both are valuable for a fuller picture of Thompson. Nice bit of research even though I may not entirely agree with your or the authors' interpretations.

    • High praise indeed. Thank you so much. Much of it is just cobbled together comments from her biography, but what a biography she had!

    • Yonah, you and JeffB (or maybe it's JonS, or maybe both?) have been promoted by me to the level of Zionist Central Troll because:
      1. You typically ignore the substance or main point of an article or posting and instead nitpick some lesser detail, usually without any source attribution.
      2. This (as intended) forces the author to respond at length to the nitpick.
      3. You then either nitpick the response or ignore it in favor of some other nitpick or diversion.
      4. In the event the author's response is too overwhelming for you to answer without looking like a fool, you take the coward's way out and disappear from that thread.
      5. Usually, your responses in a thread will contain some allegation of antisemitism aimed towards the subject of the article or sometimes toward the author himself.

      Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of you and your cohort's bullshit game or tactic. Hence, I refuse and WILL NO LONGER FEED THE ZIONIST TROLLS.

      Congratulations on your promotion. After all your hard work, you deserve it.

    • Philip,
      Thompson's switch away from Zionism and the Israel project began at the beginning of 1945. She was still in her prime then, and arguably was still in 1948 when Claire Booth Luce and others thought she could be a viable presidential candidate. Her demise started in 1947 and then grew rapidly in 1949-50 when she became very vocal about the plight of the Palestinians and the excesses of Israel.

      Losing key outlets and influence was a gradual process which was brought on by her refusal to kow tow. Who knows when her prime would have been if she hadn't tangled with Zionism and its Israel project. In 1948, she was 55 years old. Hardly past her prime.

    • A bit of a generality applied to 5 examples.

    • Another classless insult to the US from "that shitty little country". Like Dorothy Thompson, Carter did much for Zionism and Israel (like the Camp David accord!). Too bad there's no one in our leadership willing to call them out and put the screws to them. Disgusting, really.

    • Actually, I first heard about Dorothy from Alison Weir in her segment at last year's Lobby conference in DC. I then bought her book (see info in thread below). I recently heard about the upcoming documentary, "Silencing Dorothy Thompson" and then bought her biography. I was floored when President Obama quoted her in his toast to the press.

      So kudos for the revelation of DT should go to Alison.

    • She knew everybody at her high point which spanned a period of almost 2 decades (1933 to 1950?). Considering she ran in the top tier of society, I'd be surprised if she didn't know them.

      My favorite vignette: Her first marriage was a failure and a public humiliation at the end. She was devastated so went to see Dr. Freud who told her to change her lipstick color, buy a new wardrobe, and move on, which she did. Sigmund apparently didn't see Dorothy as a prospect for long term analysis.

    • I bet it was the first episode of "Dangerous Catch".

    • Hophmi,
      Did you even bother to read DT's very long analytic article on dual loyalty (published in Commentary, no less) that I linked to?

      "In a long and thoughtful 1950 article published in the Jewish magazine Commentary, Thompson warned American Jews of the dangers of dual loyalty and of “the terrorism of criticism”.
      '…there is another tendency equally dangerous as it affects non-Jews, and that is to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. This really amounts to making anti-Semites, by appointment, of everybody who either does not believe in Zionism or criticizes any phase of Zionist and Israeli policy.'"

      Here's the link again: link to commentarymagazine.com

      Read it please and then perhaps you will understand how inane, shallow, and grossly unfair your analogy of her and Hitler was.

      Dorothy Thompson was an important historical figure who advocated tirelessly against Hitler and the Nazis, against antisemitism, and for the Jews of Europe and for Zionism. When she saw first hand the reality of Zionism in Palestine, she changed her mind and warned against it. Her transformation from Zionist to anti-Zionist does not make her an antisemite any more than the same transformation by Einstein and Arendt and others made them self-hating Jews.

      I had hoped my article would generate a serious discussion about a little-known yet important historical figure and major player in Zionism's history. Taking cheap shots by nit-picking stray comments from her decades-long publishing and speaking history to knit a tapestry of antisemitism should be beneath you.

    • Same lobby. I think it's traceable back to Brandeis and his contemporaries who did all the initial organization. Those guys were good.

    • I agree Obama is a major disappointment. His toast to our pathetic, toadying press corps was cringe-worthy at best. I also doubt he and his crack staff have even a remote clue who Dorothy Thompson was. I think they likely got the quote through a random google search.

    • You're most welcome, Mr. Mooser. As to your second paragraph, ya lost me. I even googled it and still don't have a clue.

    • Keith,
      Dorothy was as east coast as you can get. She was a leading player in New York's suffrage movement. Her advice was welcomed by major leaders and presidential candidates. But once she was tarred as an antisemite, and wouldn't back down, she became a pariah, socially and politically.

  • Understanding the Jewish National Home
    • What I found fascinating about the Malcolm memo was that it provided the key to why American Jews (specifically the Zionists who were a very small minority at that point) were critical in getting the US involved in the war. American Jews in general weren't particularly interested in either getting the US involved, or in supporting Zionist aims. The key (per Malcolm and Landsman) was when Palestine was offered as a quid pro quo for efforts to convince Wilson to come into the war, using Brandeis' and Frankfurter's influence.

      So, it was a small minority of US Zionist Jews that made that happen. There were other reasons, but Brandeis' influence was certainly critical.

    • Hostage, neither of your links goes to the Malcolm memo. My link provided a free copy, however dubious the website (which also links to a speech by an ex-Jew which amounted to little more than antisemitic screed).

    • Hostage, neither of your links goes to the Malcolm memo. My link provided a free copy, however dubious the website (which also links to a speech by an ex-Jew which amounts to little more than antisemitic screed).

    • I edited my response a couple of times but the edited version was lost in the ether. The title to the Naomi Cohen book is in the original link, as is the title to the Bruce Allen Murphy book. Another good source is historian James Galvin's The Israel-Palestine Conflict, link to amazon.co.uk

      A fascinating memo from a key British player, James A. Malcolm, can be found at, link to mailstar.net The site seems a bit dubious but the document copy from the British Museum appears authentic.

    • yonah fredman April 19, 2015, 5:33 pm
      "irishmoses- Please name a historical work (or two or three) that attribute Wilson’s decision to enter WWI on Brandeis’s influence."
      And,
      "...I have meager knowledge of that time frame and almost anyone who shows just a modicum of knowledge probably knows more than me about the causes of that war. Still I will not credit theories of causation based upon mere assertion. Which is what this turns out to be."

      Yonah, Brandeis' friendship and influence on Wilson is no great mystery. Plus, I did preface my remarks with, "In my view..."

      Still, you're right, my assertion was absent any reference to authority. It was not, however, a "mere" assertion. Unlike some on MW, I am not in the habit of pulling outrageous charges (typically of antisemitism) out of my rear end. I hope the following helps assuage your concerns:

      A good discussion of Brandeis' influence can be found in Alison Weir's book, Against our Better Judgment, link to amazon.com on pages 17-21. While Weir is certainly not a neutral voice, her book is very well documented (over 60 percent of the book is end notes and end matter). You'll find a variety of quotes from original sources like Nahum Sokolow, David Ben-Gurion, Samuel Landman, and by historian Naomi Cohen link to amazon.ca. Historian Bruce Allen Murphy's link to amazon.com, also discusses Brandeis' influence on Wilson and his involvement in the creation and promotion of the Balfour Declaration at great length.

      I appreciate your patience and I apologize for my late reply.

Showing comments 802 - 801
Page: