Total number of comments: 245 (since 2009-09-01 00:19:34)
-
-
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 1
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 0
- And we live on… 0
- US official — we went to Israel first 3
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 23
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look … 38
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 129
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 110
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
- Annie Robbins: Having recognized its weakness, the US knows that it will be the UN that takes the lead in Syria and...
- Did Israeli Eurovision contestant watch too much Juliano Mer Khamis? (54)
- Annie Robbins: GL, urban dictionary has PEP, just no explanation of progressive except for palestine....
- German Lefty: Annie, it looks like you got infected with the Eurovision virus. Great. The more fans, the better. The...
- US official — we went to Israel first (3)
- traintosiberia: OMG! Why I don”t have that Stockholm Syndrome yet! How long do I have to feign that I have it.
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- Carllarc: proof of ‘Israel firsters’, for sure
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (23)
- piotr: How many Jews who made aliya were actual refugees from Roman persecution? Thus the “Jew who taunted...
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (113)
- yourstruly: what was that sound? the special relationship breaking down and the loud and sustained chorus that...
- MHughes976: I’m still a bit uncertain about what R.Brian means by ‘Zionism’: what proposition did...
- yourstruly: given, that the israel’s brutal occupation of palestine is why much of the arab/islamic world hates...
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Allison Deger
- Annie Robbins
- Kate
- Today in Palestine
- Alex Kane
- Eleanor Kilroy
Blogroll
Nice piece! Goldberg never disappoints. And Sullivan is an Obama shill but he does good...
Well. I had doubts about Rand Paul. There were stories (probably true) of him meeting with Bill Kristol during his campaign. I thought it could have been about giving Billie Boy assurances about his views on Israel? On the fact that he would be less of a pain than his father? Well, I have to say that he delivers spectacularly with this move. Kudos to him.
As for the 99 other Senators... How many times can you repeat that the political system in the US is in a terminally corrupt state?
"considering all the money and politicians that these israel firsters threw into the campaign,"
Are our foes above manipulating the votes? I mean I certainly have doubts about the diebold voting machines so I'm not really sure why I should take any vote in an obscure NY coop at face value. Do we know about that?
Note: About diebold electoral machines controversy, you probably think that it is an old, warmed up story. Everybody thought they could be hacked after Bush got reelected and the exit-polls on election day went for Kerry (never seen any such discrepancy between estimates and results on election day in France - never - but I guess it's French genius: our pollsters must be way superior!). Conventional wisdom had it that since a half-black Democratic President got elected in 2008, it was definite proof that the electoral process in the US was sound. And I went along with everybody else. Now that we can look back a few years, we can be sure that the oligarchy (or whatever you call it) could not have made a better move than put Obama in charge to put a human face on Bushism and lock down the country once and for all in the post 9/11 neo-fascist mindset.
So I believed Obama proved the soundness of the electoral process without a doubt until I watched the Russian ambassador to the US on Charlie Rose a few weeks ago (last third of the interview). Charlie was his usual "impeccable" self lecturing the Ambassador about election processes and democracy and the ambassador lost it somewhat and replied to the discomfited Charlie: "And do we ask questions about your voting machines?".
Now if the Russian ambassador to the US brings that about if you push his hot buttons, I truly wonder what the Russians do know that we, Western opions, don't...
I'm afraid Norman Finkelstein has already made clear he's against BDS so it is very likely to be him. Ranting about "Holocaust Industry" and what have you all the time but when it comes to real action, there's nobody there. Very puzzling.
I'm not sure I buy Beinart's change of heart. I mean, Phil points out what this guy has been able to write before the Iraq war. I mean, come on, I know everybody looks at him like the nice and "oh so bright" Jewish boy but come on. If you write this kind of thing during the run up to the Iraq war you're either an idiot or a sorry propagandist. And if not an idiot, a guy who, if he's being sincere, will not ever deserve to be called "bright" nor "moral".
So I'd say Beinart was a sorry propagandist. Which brings me back to what is becoming my pet peeve on MW comment section: "controlled opposition". How "out of this world" is it to think that some people in Zionist circles may start thinking: "we're losing the youth, we'd better do something". And then they reflect and say: "who do we have who could look credible to young Jews? Hey Peter! We have an assignment for you: you make believe you've seen the progressive light on Israel, given your establishment credentials everybody is in awe and you quickly become a figure of the new "zionism criticism which will never push things too far" (oh yes, we'll even do this "fight to the death" back and forth with Jeffrey Goldberg - it'll be fun! ;-) ). Then you corral these young idiots into thinking things that are not to detrimental to our goals. They'll get to their senses growing old anyway!".
I mean this guy is so obviously the teacher's pet in desperate need to please any authority figure he might meet. He clearly threw intellectual integrity out the window before the Iraq war (not giving a dime about countless fatalities) and all of a sudden we are to supposed to believe that he's become this moral colossus who obeys all of a sudden to a very different set of rules and motivations? A free mind who does not seek validation from the same people anymore, he is now ready to challenge the very establishment that proclaimed him a whizz kid just a few years before to his delight.
How about Beinart being a one man "J-Street". All bark and absolutely no teeth?
"Controlled opposition". What Phil is saying is that the bosses are AIPAC type but that the rank and files are progressive even on Palestine type. 'Nuff said...
I mean I do admit that the nature of the debate seems very different at J-Street than at AIPAC conference but that's just for show. That's so that progressive won't get scared away by netanyahu flanked by two bodyguards with a scary music.
As for Iran... "(Though J Street has not opposed Aipac’s militant letter;"
'Nuff said... If you're against war with Iran, pull a "Rand Paul". Anything else is for show.
I mean when did J-Street show us the goods for real???
Anyway, I hope Phil continues to go and keeps us posted...
"Goldberg is, like it or not, the ‘liberal’ fig leaf of the Israel lobby."
Goldberg may be a "liberal fig leaf" in the UWS. Everywhere else, he is a hardcore Greater Israel enabler.
"I don’t see why AIPAC is so against J Street. By pretending to be liberal, J Street buys Israel critical time." J Street is a very poorly executed case of "controlled opposition". I can't believe we're still wasting so much time on them... They're not buying anything to anyone. Some people may have paid some attention to them within Jewish circles. I feel sorry for those who still do. Dwelling on them is really an ethnocentric pastime.
Are there any redeeming quality to what J-Street is doing? Am I missing something?
Isn't it time we categorize them once and for all in the "controlled opposition" category? And a very weak attempt at that for that matter?
This is a fascinating topic. If I were the CIA, I clearly would attempt to create things like wikileaks. Imagine that! Every wannabe leaker in the world giving her files first to... the CIA. Not passing judgment on wikileaks here, rhetorical hypothesis. Just trying to draw attention to organizations whose real purpose is exactly contrary to their stated/apparent goal. Organizations whose goal is only to tame and channel the opposition. This happens quite often and is probably "power 101". It's been seen in unions for instance. The only thing that pleads for J-Street not being one of those is that it looks so much like one. If you want to the build some street creds for an opposition group, you have to make it look like it's opposing at least once or twice. I don't even see that in J-Street...
I'm not sure how independent these proceedings are from the Obama Administration but after all the officials spilling the beans about the true state of Iranian nuclear program, it could be like high noon between Obama and the neocons/likudniks (aka Israel firsters).
I mean it looks like they could be hitting hard on all the undercover operations aiming at bullshitting the American people. They are below the radar for the general public but very real for the organizers. A bit as if Bush had started going after Doug Feith in 2003... Anyway, I'm probably dreaming.
Susan Rice is out of control. She was the idiot who gave credence to the "babies' incubators lie" of the Libya intervention: the pro Gaddafi mass-rapists who took viagra.
She's an idiot, a liar and a tool.
"It’s funny how the writer is insightful/smart enough to realize that, and at the same delusional enough to embrace a policy of rehabilitating colonialism. Good luck with that! Even if Western countries try to downplay or whitewash their colonial pasts, no one is going to be favorable to present day colonialism."
I disagree. Neocolonialism is everywhere. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. Pretty soon Syria even. Bush used such expressions as "civilized world" in his speeches. A lot of people supported the Libya intervention because they knew that the Arab Spring could mean less Western control over predominantly Arab/Muslism countries. It is understood that Western people have a sovereign right to shape the Middle East as they see fit. Starting with Bush but with Obama's rubber stamping (and Sarkozy who overturned the Chirac jurisprudence) colonialism is back with a vengeance. I grew up in a world where the Western world had been guilty of "colonialism" (and would not start aggressive wars too). Things have changed now. We're almost back to square one. The only thing that is still taboo is the vocabulary. This guy is right that rehabilitating colonialism as such would be very beneficial to Greater Israel. And to me, he's not the first to have this idea and I think this line of thinking has been thoroughly implemented for quite a while now. Sure everybody stops short of calling it colonialism but the Western World in the Middle East has been mimicking Israel in the occupied territories since the Iraq war.
What this guy describes as a wish is what is actually happening. He misses the big picture by wishing that people would use the actual world "colonialism". It is true that they don't us the word but it does not really matter. That France decided to become king maker in Libya without anyone raising any eyebrows is a testament to that. Just imagine France doing the same in 1965, three years after Algeria's independence! Colonialism is the new flavor of the day. Just don't call it that.
There is no way Netanyahu believes this crap. He's a sorry propagandist. What he doesn't want is Israel being part of a community in the Middle East. The only acceptable situation is if each and every neighbors of Israel can be wiped off the map at will with absolutely no possibility of retaliation. Anything below this threshold is "Auschwitz". He is the sociopathic mad man.
You sound like you want to take the man down. One fellow at a time. CAP style or MJRosenberg style. You want to ban blankfort from the site. Why do you remind me of a wolf in sheep's clothing?
"Hey fellow like-minded liberals (yes, yes I'm one of yours, read my touchy feely comments! ;-) ), how about we never hear from this guy ever again!"
You're acting exactly like the Dersh. And pretend to be "like-minded"... My reply to you without even a cursory review of what you have previously written would be: "How about you get lost, like-minded fellow!"
Just a quick reply on a gut feeling, I apologize in advance if you're not the mini-dersh I suspect, willing to corral the the discussion which is Phil's job, not yours. I have been on the internet for years and I have never suggested any moderator to erase anything. And the way you suggest to Phil to erase Blankfort from his mind forever strikes me as inappropriate. If you want to do that, just create mondokrauss.
Found this on wikiquotes:
• I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.
o To the Peel Commission (1937) on a Jewish Homeland in Palestine
Churchill has written a lot. Is he a known racist? Is this an aberration? Was everybody über-racist at the time? I mean WTF? This legitimates genocide on the basis of race superiority. I really do mean WTF?
link to en.wikiquote.org
This guy was the best! I haven't read him in ages. He showed up on Dailykos at some point. He was one of the best reads in 2002-2005. He had to move on for some reason.
As for BillM, it was more like wishful thinking. I did not read everything he wrote and wondered...
Are you the blogger formerly know as Billmon?
And there is no upside in getting info. People instinctively know they can only get hurt by forming an opinion on this.
I reread the extract from the book from Sidney Blumenthal "The Clinton Wars" and Bill Kristol did not break the story. However, Drudge broke the story "late Saturday night". I don't know how widely read Drudge was at the time but Kristol was the first to mention it on the Sunday morning show.
As per Blumenthal: "Kristol had learned of the latest Drudge posting from Richard Porter, who had been one of Kristol's aides in Vice President Quayle's office and was now Kenn Starr's law partner at Kirkland and Ellis." (p 321, hard cover edition)
See below about "the likud faction" mentionned by Blumenthal in a comment below.
Well, I remember reading someone's biography on Clinton and it said that the Lewinsky scandal was propped up at the very beginning by none other than our main man Bill Kristol!
Plus the eternal question: why not send the dress to the cleaner?
I'm glad Witty is out of the conversation because he hijacked many threads over the years by reacting very early and having people angrily replying to him. This was hindering the conversation people were trying to have on this site. And I'm sure Witty was perfectly content with this result. I mean people vociferously disagreeing with the editorial line may read like the site is a place of debate and tolerance. Now it's clear that if you have mini-dersh trolls hijacking all the threads, we're in a situation where readers cannot learn and share in the forum.
I understand now that it was Blankfort who was targeted a few weeks ago about this role of Zionism in the rise of the Nazis. Never read anything about it. Now he's been warned before and probably kept doing it so I'd agree with the ban. On the other hand, I hope Blankfort has a site so I can check out what he has to say...
Chirac and Schröder not being there anymore may explain some of it. Also the fact that people in the West have been taught to hate Iran ever since 1979 so it is really, really hard to explain that the case for war is oversold (again). Ahmadinejad being demonized is part of the story but he did not help himself out with his conference with David Duke etc...
Me replying to me again but my last edit did not go through:
Sharon knew from the get go (9/11) that Iran was a much higher hanging fruit than Iraq. And you can be sure he was all for invading and taking down Iraq as a power. So I'm quite confident that from 9/11 to the invasion, Sharon has been "skeptical" about invading Iraq for zero second.
This all stuff about "Iran being the real threat" (to Israel of course...), "Real men go to Tehran" is just neocons' snobbish "smarter than thou" daydreaming. It was never in the cards. And I doubt Sharon is a huge daydreamer. (addendum: notwithstanding his present situation to which I did not intend to refer originally. For an average person I probably would have changed the wording but really I don't feel the need here.)
Huh. Replying to my own post here but I followed the link to Lobe's article and I would suggest people interested read the second comment by Stephen Sniegoski who wrote a book about the rise up to war because he says too that Jim Lobe is pushing it but characterizing Sharon as "skeptical".
"But I differ somewhat with Jim Lobe’s view that Sharon “was quite skeptical” of the neocons’ plan to attack Iraq. Sharon and most Israeli strategists had held that Iran was far more dangerous to Israel than Iraq. But the neocons saw attacking Iraq as merely the first step to attacking Iran and Israel’s other enemies as part of the reconfiguration of the entire Middle East."
A possible explanation is that Jim Lobe is talking about the period right after 9/11. I'd be surprised if Iraq being the target had ever been questioned by Sharon publicly. We have to remember that Iraq was the natural target after years of beating the drum of war against it.
I do remember reading that "the real threat was Iran" but Iraq was the low hanging fruit militarily. A very good starting point for "securing the realm" (subtitle of the Clean Break Report). Did Sharon try to talk to the Americans about taking Iran first? I'd be surprised... Did Sharon think at some point that having the Americans not invading a huge Muslim country so close to Israel was not a good thing? Knowing what we know of the guy, it does not make any sense. So it is clear that from 9/11 on, Sharon was behind the Iraq attack and not skeptical at all. I think Jim Lobe is flat out WRONG.
AIPAC stayed on the sideline because it was not needed. The main thrust for invasion was coming from within the Bush administration. And no one wanted to draw any attention to the fact that the Iraq war was in Israel's interest as described in the Clean Break Report in 1996 by Perle/Wurmser/Feith.
So I'd agree with Lobe about AIPAC not being at the forefront for the Iraq invasion. His explanation about Sharon not supporting the Iraq war from the get go is just plain wrong from an August 2002 guardian article "Israel Urges US to strike" (there may be better stuff to prove this but it does the job) :
"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Raanan Gissin, a senior Sharon adviser, said yesterday.
"It will only give Saddam Hussein more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."
Israeli intelligence officials had new evidence that Iraq was speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, he said.
link to theage.com.au
I'm almost sure there was a direct quote from Sharon to this effect too. I've never seen this idea that he had been skeptical or anything. I'd love to see Lobe back it up. It was clear that Israel was discreet in the run-up to war. But "skeptical" at any point? Where does this one come from? And I respect and I am a huge fan of Jim Lobe but on this one, it's just not what I remember.
Elizabeth Warren has as much teeth as a toothless old lady (do I get a prize for this metaphor or what? Does it even qualify as a metaphor? I truly wonder...).
We're all dying to know what you think about us. Waiting for the grade. I hope it will be good! And whether you're gonna think whether what we say is acceptable, questionable, repulsive... You decide.
And if you think from time to time we are crossing some boundaries, please tell us because what we are really looking for if to fit into whatever orthodoxy you deem acceptable.
Thank you for the update, Annie. Glad to hear there may still be some life in this bid in the end.
"The Israel lobby performed the coup de grace with its dismissal of the statehood initiative of last fall, extinguishing hope."
What happened there? It feels like everybody stopped talking about it... Did the Palestinians cave in? I remember the seats on the UNSC were changing on January 1st. Is the new composition worse for the Palestinian statehood initiative? Where did this thing go? The MSM completely stopped reporting on it but I don't remember too many things on Mondoweiss either. How did this thing die? What does the autopsy report say?
Keiser has the goods on the financial crisis. He has his own style but it wakes people up. 2008, with the instant fusion of political/monetary/financial powers was an economic coup. As simple as that. The meta class decided at that point that mere sound accounting and good old law abiding were too much of a constraint to it. More to the point, respecting these principles would have meant an end to its rule.
The relative stillness these evil wizards have managed to maintain in the economy in the aftermath of this abomination is quite amazing and works immensely to their political profit. At this point, things have to go awfully wrong for these guys to be in the level of vulnerability they fell down to in 2008/09. Not that they won't. They will. And now, the armies of drones are ready to directly do their bidding in population control. Welcome to this new financial tyranny...
This is truly depressing. Everyone has to kiss the ring, every single day!
"Who gave the neocons power?"
Now this is the million dollar rhetorical question and I'm not sure the answer that Phil gives is satisfying:
"Liberals did. And culture played a significant role."
What does Phil mean exactly?
One thing about imperial geo-strategy as a diluting factor of neocons' influence on the Iraq war. Walt and Mearsheimer argue to the contrary that the very fact that the Iraq war was so far away from a realist imperial geo-strategy is a testament to the strength of the Israel lobby's impulse for the Iraq war.
You make it sound like 95% of the decision to invade Iraq could be seen as a normal course of business for the Empire. But the reason people wonder so much about the neocons' influence is precisely that there are almost no alternative explanations that make sense (WMDs? Oil was flowing already...). The Clean Break report is the closest thing we have to a (twisted) rational explanation from people involved in the decision making process!
Remember Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents dinner? "Why oh why did we invade Iraq?".
So the world is very complex, I'll give you that. There is an empire, I'll give you that too. But from that, you seem to draw the conclusion that singling out the neocons is foolish. The larger (unsaid) implication is that people who do are obsessive, irrational people who probably have an axe to grind (say, hatred for the Jewish people for instance but I'm putting words in your mouth now).
Tom Friedman (!) has said that if you had sent 25 people in an island in 2002, the Iraq war would not have happened. The idea here is that the Iraq war was a war of choice and not in the natural strategic trajectory of the US. I don't know what you were doing (or more to the point reading) in 2003 but what was clear at the time was that a lot of the people who were agitating for war with Iraq from within the US government were people who were committed to the territorial expansion of Israel and who wrote a report advocating the reshuffling of the entire Middle East in a way that could be compatible with Israeli expansionism (clean break report). You could see that along the years, many of these people had been associated with a larger crowd of people who had been pushing for war with Iraq (PNAC, the 1998 letter etc...). A lot of them could also be associated with very aggressive pro-Israel positions.
The most shocking thing to me was not that this was happening (although it was shocking) but rather that no one was talking about it. People like Feith were the poster children of conflict of interest and there was absolutely no one in the mainstream to point it out. These people were protected by the fact that they were part of the Israel lobby but also by the sheer enormity of the crime they were committing - for most people giving a cursory look to the situation, the mere idea that Israel operatives could be ambitious enough to try to remold the entire region just did (and does) not compute (and it's true that were it not for this document, it could be quite difficult to fathom and could be easily dismiss as a conspiracy theory - you have to remember that back in 1996, it was not clear to everybody that this kind of document could be all over the internet a few years later).
Since there was no debate at the time (try to find mentions of the Clean Break report in mainstream outlets from mid 2002 to mid 2003), it is much harder now to convey this difficult reality of the time. The hammer of antisemitism ("oh so you want to rebuild Auschwitz?") is making this discussion extraordinarily difficult. That is why Mondoweiss is nothing short of heroic in explaining what neocons are up to.
I called you a troll and maybe that was unfair as I can't say you're on Witty's level from what I have read from you. Yet the neocons were at the time and are now on Iran a clear and present danger to the rest of us. Nothing helps them more than silence and people who'd rather look elsewhere. And that's what you're encouraging us to do when you try to dilute them in a sea of competing possible explanations. I'm not saying there are none. I'm saying it's by far the least talked about compared to its impact (one book and a few websites in 10 years) and compared to its present influence on the Iranian question.
(there were more books than one, let's say just one book that's been talked about (somewhat))
"in jewishgoyim’s irrational screed above."
I must admit my post was of very low quality. Lazy, inarticulate and all over the place. Granted. Thankfully, American made points that explain to you most of what I would have wanted to add or explain better.
I started reading antiwar in 2002. Raimondo was quite a discovery. Back then, he had a strange picture of himself that made him look like he was telling everybody to take a hike. The all concept of "antiwar" made me feel uncomfortable. Weren't wars useful and a necessary evil? Then came the war in Iraq and it changed my worldview quite a bit. Basically, what you could read on the internet was completely different from anything else I had ever read. Google news was also just starting. Billmon, Cursor, Greenwald, Phil Weiss and Daily Kos, Counterpuch, TPM. Those were the days!
Anyway, antiwar is in Greenwald's blogroll. But not in Mondoweiss'. Greenwald is not pointing to Mondoweiss and Mondoweiss is not pointing to Greenwald. Yet Greenwald made a reference to Phil Weiss in a post two days ago which is not that common and shows that mondoweiss is getting more and more mainstream. Raimondo Quotes Weiss more readily than Greenwald and Weiss can be heard every now and then on Antiwar radio (Greenwald too). Mondoweiss does not refer to Greenwald or Raimondo that often. Except Adam Horowitz did today.
The Adelson story is bringing together this Mexican army of talented people. Mondoweiss is clearly the most daring publications when it comes to the Israel lobby with Raimondo a close second. Greenwald tries a little harder to offer no possible angle of attack to the Jeffrey Goldbergs of the world who hate him nonetheless. It works since Goldberg can only attack him on the suspicion of not loving Israel enough which is very very weak.
I'm just wondering how many readers here would say they also read regularly antiwar and Greenwald. I bet quite a lot...
Well, from Irving Kristol (taken from mondoweiss). How monocausal is all this, Keith?
It's just the "self-hate" smear in a slightly milder expression. What Goldberg implies to his like-minded readers is that all good Jews love Israel(/themselves). Glenn Greenwald looks to him like he doesn't love Israel(/himself). Hence Greenwald is self-hating.
Which leads me to wonder about "self-hating". Anybody can agree that hating oneself is not a healthy mental state. So what does throwing "self-hating" around tells us about people who do? To me, it is very similar to calling someone crazy. What are the kind of regime who retort to calling political opponents "mentally deranged"? The USSR comes to mind along with a great history of exciting ideologies!
Jeffrey Goldberg is a fascistic imbecile along with his fellow neocons. How this idiot got to become the gate keeper of all debate about Israel in the US is a very big mistery to me.
I don't get it. Is it a Palestinian product making money for Palestinian people? Or is made by a bunch of settlers in the occupied territories? Or worse: by a bunch of Palestinians for a dirt wage for an Israeli boss?
I understand Citizens United changed the rules of campaign finance by allowing superPACs to spend as much as they want on the candidate that they want.
What I don't understand is that the US political system has been corrupted to the core by money well before Citizens United. Yet, there were limits ($2000/person for presidential election?). So I know there were "bundlers" and all but I don't understand how the political system could have been so corrupt with these limits. Also the amounts involved seemed rather small. One could think "if it costs so little, why aren't there more bidders for the US political system?". (The explanation is probably that those who own it will price out any new bidders and that "would-be" new bidders know it.)
So I don't see how the US political system could become more corrupt than it was during the Iraq war or the financial crisis. Yet Citizens United is removing a real limitation. What am I missing?
I agree with Annie. By the end of the video, I had come to notice this bothering jazzy/noisy sound in the background which makes me think it is really out of the ordinary. Difficult to know what the people with the gizmos can do when the show takes a direction that is unwanted.
I think Robert Reich is very different from the other dudes you cite. I think the others are kind of "liberal" neocons. It would not surprise me to learn that Reich is on the Mondoweiss side of the fence but that he has too much to lose as a public figure to say it. It is a little different from the neocons in sheep's clothes that you single out.
It is true that some people are disappointing in what they say compared to what one can think they think (Krugman comes to mind). But then not being explicit in criticizing the Israel lobby cannot be put on the same level as carrying water for it.
I mean Jeffrey Goldberg = Robert Reich???? C'mon!!!! And I agree that he could have been a little more courageous on Adelson but still. The general direction of what he's saying is 180° from what your other guys would say.
Where exactly do you get that from, Dan? I just don't see it.
We hear that all the time. It's always "multi-dimensional" and oh so very "complex". "Support for Israel is one among so many explaining factors". Well, there you have it for Adelson... And frankly I'm sure you'd still be surprised if you heard the same thing for Sabban.
But if anybody impugns the motives of these gentlemen, it is so antisemitic and conspiratorial. If you don't see through someone like Adelson who is quite forward about his motives, no wonder you're always in disbelief when you hear about an Israel lobby. By systematically refusing to connect the obvious dots, you sound partisan and governed by tribal loyalties.
Which of these high profile donors said: "I'm a one man issue and this issue is Israel" or something similar?
Yeah on the financial crisis or Foreign Policy, I'd say RT is like Al Jazeera: way above whatever the US MSM can deliver.
So basically the US MSM is not doing its job and those outlets just rushed into the gaping hole. Smart of them and useful to the entire planet except maybe to US citizens who may have a very hard time understanding and admitting that RT and AJ is putting out a much better news product than the absolute crap they're being fed everyday (at least as far as the US is concerned).
Yes and by the way, I saw the Wesley Clark video on Greenwald's blog a few weeks ago. I think it needed to be quoted but then it may also have been some place else.
To Blankfort:
Hallelujah!
To Gellian:
You say: "What I’m saying is that this was the idea that was in the air,"
Who put the damned idea in the air?? Look at the signatories to all the neocons missives (PNAC...) dating back to the 90s!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have the problem of not having been aware of things at the time. For those who were, it was crystal clear and it is now very difficult to convey the simple evidence of how much neocons were involved in propagandizing for war. But that's at the heart of good propaganda "2.0": people should not realize where it's coming from and what interests it serves!
You've been bamboozled by your corporate media. But if now you're reading MW, there is hope... (though I would start some serious studying if you want to get up to speed - sorry for the patronizing but it needs to be said).
I've seen this video on Glenn Greenwald's blog a few weeks ago. I don't know where he got it from but I think it is important to credit him since he put that at the forefront and that he has quite the blogging firepower so it is not unreasonable to think we would not be discussing it if he had not blogged it.
I haven't read all the comments and maybe it's been said already but for the sake of accuracy: Bernard Henry Lévy did NOT support the Iraq war.
The pressure got so intense in France that people like Lévy (or Sarkozy) who were probabably on the fence leaning toward support of the invasion dit not cross the rubicon and support Bush.
VERY FEW people in France supported the Iraq invasion. In a way, the support to Chirac was "patriotic" in the same way that the support to Bush was. Few people dared disagreeing.
Well Phil, I'm glad you think there is a point here because it is a cornerstone of what I thought during this period. The cover-up was even more stunning than the underlying facts (which were pretty damning).
I would object when you say "everyone". "Everyone" is a lot of people. Very few people knew then, very few people know now. Walt & Mearsheimer, Justin Raimondo, Phil Weiss, Glenn Greenwald (I can only guess for him) and a few others were following the action. Which leads to another, more general and more nerve racking question: if such significant and "in plain sight" influence can be erased from journalism (which some say is "the draft of history"), then what can one really believe? There is an element of trust that is lost there.
Also, if Jews enjoy (understandably so) a special status among ethnic groups because they were mass murdered during WWII, isn't there a tacit understanding that types such as Wurmser, Feith, Perle or "Kristol & Kagan", agitating for war in a way that you'd only expect in an antisemitic pamphlet in the 30s, would be strongly disavowed by the community? That they would be viewed from within as "clear and present dangers"?
It looks like on the contrary, even Jews who despised what Feith & co were doing are trapped in their vast majority into enforcing orthodoxy because they are so scared that such a talk about Jewish influence could become public discourse. In this subtle way, the Jewish community is trapped by some dudes at the top: "Now that Feith & co have done that, we'd better stick together because we all remember what happened last time the cat of the conversation about Jewish influence was out of the bag." But was there ever a mandate for Feith & co from the people who feel now more or less obligated to to close rank? Of course not!
That's where Mondoweiss comes into play, fearlessly and subtly exposing the influence of the Israel Lobby. Promoting good faith and understanding rather than fascistic orthodoxy and idiotic conformity. But then, and I'm not in Phil's shoes so I can only guess in part, at the cost at losing your gig in the mainstream and be somewhat isolated in the community or met with hostility.
The Clean Break Report is the smoking gun. The idea that so many people working WITHIN the Bush administration had signed this report but most of all THAT EVERYBODY KEPT MUM ABOUT IT has been for me the real shocking thing in this story.
Why on Earth didn't the mainstream media take a thorough look at Wurmser, Perle, Feith and the clean break report at the time?
That pro Israel activists took part in the executive in fomenting the war is one thing. It can always happen, I guess. The real, absolutely shocking things is that the subject was "verbotten". That left me with a very strange impression. To this very day.
Impressive.
I think the US did leave Iraq but they did not relinquish control. They will try to control the country with as little troop as possible adding some whenever required. We'll see...
Also the big picture is that Iraq is destroyed as a power. So the stakes are not as high as they used to be.
Yes. And there are consequences. Utter the truth 20 years too soon and one gets mercilessly rolled over! Be warned!
Right on! And to some extent, Mondoweiss, in a more honest and much less snicky way is riding the same wave. Except Phil is ten years ahead and has taken real risks...
This sounds almost like a schism. Now clearly Friedman's column got cleared by the editorial board of the NYT. Is it yet another one-shot audacity by a mavericky, bored and pompous oped writer or is it the sign of a schism between the UWS and Netanyahu/Likud/settlers...?
If it's the latter, it's about time and let's get some popcorn.
Well it's pretty simple. Philip Weiss watched this movie this week and decided to discuss it. Since this site is called Mondoweiss, it is kind of his prerogative. Try starting a blog, you'll see you'll be in control of what it is about.
About the video: your tax dollars at work!
"Kalithea, Israel doesn’thave anything to do with that one"
Ok I haven't followed the Egyptian revolution enough to have an opinion on the involvement of Israel. Yet, given the level of information of people on this site of the influence of Israel and the Israel lobby on US policies, saying that there could be a revolution in Egypt and that it would be regarded purely as a US issue without anyone from Israel or the lobby trying to meddle won't get you anywhere around here.
Previous post was to Seauton, not Shinto with whom I think I agree! ;-)
Now Shingo, where should I start?
Perhaps the fact that you probably believe everything you hear on MSNBC?
Perhaps the fact that you're impressed by someone flaunting a Nobel prize in economics?
Perhaps the fact that you have very little understanding of what happened to your country in the last ten years on the economic front?
Perhaps the fact that you tend to believe what you read in the New York Times "as a rule"?
Perhaps the fact that you tend to trust bearded men? (How about Bernanke?).
Well, it is true that the very low level of inflation has been staggering in the last few years. What Krugman does not say is that the measures taken have been unprecedented and that it's much too early to decide whether they have been efficient and avoided an economic calamity or merely postponed an even worse catastrophe.
I'll tell you about unprecedented measures taken in the recent history. One was putting the interest rates to 1% in 2002 and pushing for a real estate bubble (Krugman advocated for a real estate bubble in 2002, you can google it). We know what ensued. Now the rates have been at zero for 3 years. Krugman claiming victory is similar to Bernanke claiming there was no housing bubble in 2005. This is "FED talk" and the FED is ruling this planet (give or take). Krugman is one of these unelected Princeton economists (Bernanke is also from Princeton as a lot of the US economy apparatchik) who are ruling our world and guess what, they are NEVER wrong! Come what may!
Housing bubble to finance a war? No problem!!
Zero interest rate policy to finance the fallout of the housing bubble? No Problem!!
Unprecedented (and awfully unjust) measures to keep afloat the international power structure (aka international financial system)? Bring it on!!!!! As long as bankers are in the driving seat, tools such as Krugman are delighted!
Krugman is a tool of the oligarchy. He's up there with the Summers and Paulsons of the world. Just maybe a little too pompous to have gotten as rich. But hey, he probably impresses his friends with his rubbish Nobel prize!
If you wonder how to corner Krugman, it's not difficult: just ask him what "too big a deficit" would be. He would just look at you with a stupid blank stare. He just does not think there is a limit.
And I'm not kidding. One of his op-ed lately said that this deficit scare is stupid because interest rates for the US Gov is so low. Well that's true. You know what other interest rates were low? Fucking interest rates on mortgage backed securities in 2006!!! That's how deep Krugman's economic thinking is. If it's low now, it's gonna be low forever. His BS is too obvious. I would bet he does not believe in it.
So if you're a pro-Palestinian activist and you wake-up one day and realize your Grandmother is Jewish, you become a super neocon and start supporting "Eretz Israel"? Not quite sure how this works...
DanMazella. I did not know this troll before. It's hard to keep up...
Do we know of anyone "infiltrated" in liberal circles, even pro-palestinian circles, whose real loyalty turned out to be to the Israel Lobby? Anyone over the years?
Not that Josh Block would fit that description as he seems to be your run of the mill PEP who just hid the level of his pro Israel radicalism, but I was just wondering...
That's a silver bullet against which we have no protection. If conditions become too adverse for the "war on terrorism" proponents, they have all the means in the world to organize some kind of new 9/11 (and they don't have to have organized 9/11 to be aware that it served their purpose when all is said and done).
Whether they could have the intent depends on how one assesses their extremism. I must say that to me, defining a line that the "Iraq war neocons" would not cross, is not an easy task. Their lust for mayhem seems to know no bounds.
In the big scheme of things, we are sitting ducks.
I kind of remembered Seymour Hersh touched on that on his pieces on Abu Ghraib. On the anecdotal level, I remember this picture with the soldier with a Star of David tatooed on his shoulder in the set of infamous pictures.
Congratulations to Annie!
And too bad for the usual suspects who would like to make "Commentary" out of Mondoweiss. They really can't stand a different voice can they? Yeah right, let's drown Mondoweiss in neoconism and make it fair and balanced! Let's replace Phil with Witty and Annie with Hopmi and let's call it Mondowitty! Now we're getting somewhere!
Trolls...
And whatever you may think of Annie's writing, there are small windows in time when criticism is just rude and inappropriate. This is such a small window. If Hopmi and Witty were just a tad polite, they would have congratulated Annie while maybe recognizing they often disagree with her. Not being able to hold your fire in these circumstances is piggish behavior. And it reflects so obviously badly on you that one wonders whether you have sociopathic tendencies.
I have a hard time figuring out the sudden enthusiasms of Phil for Blitzer or other MSM type like Chris Matthews. What's the big deal here? Are the MSM going to change overnight? We all know how these careerist got there.
And also the fantasy about the NYT putting Mondoweiss out of business. I know it's a joke but I don't see the revolution around the corner or the epiphany for these outlets...
Really? Our ever so smooth lobby... It's always funny to see them lose their tempers! Can you back it up? Did Gravel himself blame it on this PBS interview?
Ok, I've been reading mondoweiss for as long as I can remember (probably 2005) and I like this idea. Yet I hope we'll still find beyondo in the posts flow of the site because it is convenient not to have to check another news flow. My two cents...
"Personal blogging" from Phil has always made his writing interesting (as opposed to people like Raimondo or Greenwald who won't let "who they are" be an integral part of their discourse - except Greenwald on homosexual marriage maybe). I'm in awe of what mondoweiss has become but it's true that the personal connection to Phil is a bit harder to find these days. Good luck to beyondo!
Well if the Iran coverage is any sign, nothing has changed in the neoconnish bias of the NYT. So when Phil marvels: "It looks like Jill Abramson is having a remarkable, quiet effect on the gray lady's coverage of the issue at the heart of Middle Eastern foreign policy", I'd rather remain cautious for just a little while... The effect is way too quiet where it matters.
Well, this cuts through the fog of hypocrisy about the Arab Spring. Obama will have to follow suit and it's gonna be clear to everyone that neoconism has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. It is a fascism.
In French too: "une dinde" which comes from "d'Inde" which means "from India".
Are turkeys coming from India?
Minutes later:
Well, I did my own research. Conquistadors brought the bird back from Mexico in the 16th century but since they did not have iphones, they thought Mexico was India. Hence the name.
It's true that we have a very small tidbit of conversation. Sarkozy saying "he's a liar" is straightforward and leaves not a lot of room for interpretation. On the other hand, what Obama says is widely interpreted as negative for Netanyahu but it's not that obvious to me.
Sarkozy says "he's a liar". Let's think about what Obama could have replied. I understand most ziocrazies would have liked him to leave the room and nuke France. But he has to not antagonize Sarkozy so that he can get him more easily to do what he wants. People forget the context of Obama being in the middle of scolding Sarkozy for the UNESCO vote and to prevent him from voting further for Palestine being recognized by other UN bodies. So he does not bother contradicting the very strong view coming from Sarkozy but instead tells him that "in any case, Netanyahu is an unescapable reality". He may not be saying "I have to deal with this liar everyday", he could be saying: "We have to deal with Netanyahu like it or not".
In face of Sarkozy's hostility toward Netanyhu, Obama may just be trying to ask Sarkozy to toe the line without antagonizing him by directly contradicting his strong words. And maybe create the appearance of agreeing. The general context is an angry Sarkozy and Obama trying his utmost to be Israel's lawyer. Empathy and understanding (fake or not) with the person you're trying to convince is negotiation 101.
It is not a contradiction. Jews seem to be successful until things go awry for some reason. Then some people notice they are a sizeable presence in the establishment and they get blamed... Like the Weimar Republic or the Austro-Hungarian Empire falling into pieces.
That's why neocons are all over the place about the OWS rhetoric about the 1% against the 99%. They know their Jewish history and they know that Jews are a sizeable part of the 1% although they are only 1.8%. So the OWS is a non-starter for them. At least 35% of the 400 richest Americans are Jews as per the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Success is not a guarantee of everlasting safety. So Phil always says Jews are safe in the US but it's likely that if you had asked Jews whether they were safe in Germany in 1910, an overwhelming majority would have said: "But of course!". That's where the anxiety is coming from in my view.
Do you have any sources? Links? I mean these figures do not seem impossible but it's a sensitive subject so you'd better back it up.
Also success is not a defintive sign of acceptance. Success can breed resentment and suspicion. It makes one vulnerable to be singled out.
Charlie markets himself as this ever thoughtful humanist. The way he leads interview lets one think he has a grasp of the situation in Palestine. Also he decided to interview people from Hamas which I haven't seen done by many in the US media. He seems to have a "human" relationship with Mahmoud ahmadinejad whom he interviews almost each year.
Now when all said and done, Charlie is mostly the embodiment of the US establishment although in a gentler subtler manner. At the end of the day he always toes the party line. He goes to Bilderberg meetings and maybe others. No dissent there. It would not be polite.
Is Rose a Jewish name? I think in some cases it is. Phil talked of a Rose who was Jewish not so long ago. Any clue as to whether Charlie Rose is Jewish?
I do like it. Nice evolution from the beginnings but then I read Weiss since the NY Observer!
I'm a at a loss. How could that turn in anything seriously incriminating? Am I missing something?
That's a pretty interesting question! How does the pro-Israel lobby work? What's the chain of command? Who's the ultimate boss when all is said and done? Netanyahu?
Where does the buck stop?
"I do actually believe that Iran is trying to produce the bomb, unlike Iraq."
Why?
Yes. It is quite depressing that so few people know. On the other hand, if they did not realize that 10 years ago, it's kind of difficult to convey almost ten years after the facts.
There's a "rule of da hood" component in the neocon worldview. Schoolyard ethics. They are bullies so it is not surprising. Nationalism of their sort is also very infantile. At one point in early life, you're supposed to grow up, see the bigger picture and stop following a possibly natural instinct toward tribalism. Or you don't and become vindictive adults like Rachel Abrams or Jennifer Rubin or Tom Friedman (using neocons to make my point here but I don't see bullies only in this corner).
I'm surprised that Phil could have forgotten this very juicy little nugget of Friedman. True Friedman "connoisseurs" know it's one of his best quote!
Ok so I'm doing what I'm preaching one should not do: replying to Witty. I consider we're so far down in the comment section that it does not matter anymore.
Witty, with your involvement in the topic at hand, haven't you noticed a behavioral pattern among some players? Don't you realize at this point that swallowing what you're fed by the IAEA is idiotic? Any good faith commenter with your level of information should be very cautious with the last US/Israeli propaganda stint. So hijacking the thread with some propagandistic grandstanding makes you lose all credibility. And your frankly ridiculous epiphany following the CS article is pathetic. Trying to regain some credibility at comment 140 after (knowingly in my view) burning it all at the beginning?
I think you do know how the game is played. I think you do know the actors and their methods. I think you don't need the CS monitor article. You're a sorry propagandist. Playing dumb/well intentioned dude part here. Not buying it.
I'm not saying that knowing the actors should not keep everyone's mind open. I'm just saying that the way you thunderously started the comments in a context where you're on very thin ice was utterly dishonest. As is your "CS Monitor epiphany". Or you're not so smart which is also a possibility.
Hey Richard. This is from your very good friend Jewishgoyim:
link to youtube.com
(link to "You'd better stop!" from Sam Brown)
Hallelujah!!!!!!!!
I love especially this part: "the bulk of the comments go down some witty-dug rabbit hole."
Hallelujah!!!!!!!!
And this part too: what i’m asking is why so many mondo readers bother to respond to him.
Hallelujah!!!!!!!!
Can people please stop replying to anything Witty is spewing? Seriously! (I'm not Erin Burnett, no worries).
Ok so this super troll just drank a red bull and now he's framing the debate on mondoweiss? Make it stop!!!!
Now honestly, this Abrams fellow is pathetic. Basically if you're not a likudnik, you're antisemitic.
For your information, the French Website which broke the news, "Arrêt sur images", says "everyday". There is not the slightest ambiguity possible.
"Je ne peux plus le voir, c'est un menteur", a lancé Sarkozy. "Tu en as marre de lui, mais moi, je dois traiter avec lui tous les jours !", a rétorqué Obama,
I have noticed the switch to the mistranslation after 24 hours too. Your corporate media at work...
Well I'm sure there is no weed! Of course! When one looks at the super powerful weedkiller that is being used...
My God MRW, is that really your story? So you're the living proof that we liberals are right and that if conservatives just worked hard enough at checking facts, they'd agree with us! That makes me feel quite good. Joke aside, very few people are willing to question their beliefs so kudos to you.
Well, MRW, I thought this would happen after the Iraq (talk about a war launched for no perceived reason!) and it did not happen. It was in fact so far from happening that neocons are gung ho with Iran now. You can be sure that if there had been just a slight backlash after Iraq, a lot of people within the Jewish community would tell the neocons to shut up about Iran and make no waves.
Exciting times or what!
Yes. Yes. Yes. The financial crisis is a direct consequence of the Iraq War and it needs to be repeated over and over again. It's because of 9/11 and the looming war in Iraq (as acknowledge in the Fed meeting minutes) that Greenspan set the interest rates lower than they had ever been since at least the 60s in 2002 (1% whereas the previous floor was 3%). 5 years later the natural consequence of this policy, the largest credit bubble in history, blew up.
No rocket science here. People need to know. To launch the bloated Global War on Terror right in the aftermath of the tech bubble, fake growth had to be engineered. The Fed was happy to oblige...
The populace has been taught to dismiss out of hand the mere idea that conspiracies could exist. "Conspiracy theory" does not mean "suspicion of a conspiracy that needs to be proven" as it should, it is now commonly understood as "stupid and false story backed by loonies".
This betrayal of the meaning of "conspiracy theory" in the general discourse helps to persuade people that conspiracies don't exist at all, ever.
It is quite a feat because conspiracies have been with us in the real world forever as this quick list in wikipedia suggests:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Now let's say that conspiracies are driving forces behind a given power structure, wouldn't this power structure have all the reasons in the world to try to convince public opinion that conspiracies are impossible?
Ok so how does the change in the composition of the security council that is coming up on January 1st impact this? If the "next council" is going to be friendlier to Israel, then trying to linger on until January seems to be the way to go for those defending Israeli interests. Is it the case?
Yes. Ditto for "delegitimization". Israelis are always whining that people are trying to "deligitimize" them. It always rung kind of hollow to my ears and over the top as very, very few people are attempting or have the power to deligitimize Israel in any meaningful way.
On the other hand that is precisely the treatment that has been applied to Hamas. Because Israel had the muscle to make them absolute pariahs and almost akin to Al Qaeda in the Western worldview. So I think this propaganda about Israel being on the verge of being "deligitimized" is just a projection of something the Israelis are doing to Hamas with great success on the Palestinians who are miles away from being able to pull up such a trick against Israel. Exactly like whining that Unesco membership will allow the Palestinians hypothetically to do things that Israelis are actually doing at this very moment.
At least 34,25% of the Forbes 400 according to JTA.
link to blogs.jta.org
40% of the top 50.
On a side note: is "Rose" a Jewish name? Would that make Charlie Rose Jewish?
It's nice. It's going to cause them to be cautious for 3 months but it's nice. Neoconservatism has been obnoxious and indefensible since the beginning to those paying attention but this kind of talk makes it easy to explain to everybody.
Yes. And it's true for elite opinion on economy (much of what is happening) with what I call the triptych: FT, WSJ and The Economist. Their role in enforcing consensus in the elite is amazing. And their gospel is repeated in every corner of the Empire in all languages. Very tiring indeed.
They are more sophisticated and interesting than most other news media but even more toxic given their role. Charlie Rose is positioned on the same segment more or less (davosish, bilderbergish, bohemian grovish stuff). I've seen Charlie on a Bilderberg list and I remember him on a show saying "at these conferences we go to" with a guest who fit the profile exactly.
The first one seems quite explicit but the second one is a little less clear. What's written on the t-shirt?
Thank you Annie. I bookmarked it. And everybody else for the info. The youtube on the seminar for "giving a zionist tilt to wikipedia" is an eye-opener. I mean I kind of suspected such things were at play but seeing a meeting and the resources allocated to it is impressive.
Really? To what extent? I mean I guess the modus operandi is quite clear: identify new powers and corrupt them. Your comment makes me want to go check the discussion about the article.
I wonder if "net-net", the Israel Lobby is worried of happy about the internet. On the one hand it is harder to control what everyone is saying but on the other hand, people who declare themselves as enemies make themselves very vulnerable and networks very easily identifiable. More generally, could the internet become more a tool of control than it is a tool of freedom? Will one day the internet be as much controlled as the MSM are? If you're right on Wikipedia, then I'd say the jury is still out.
Strange. I just checked the wikipedia entry for Abrams: it reads like something the guy could have written himself. Very little info about neocons circles. No word of the fact he is a radical and that he thinks that Jews should "stand apart" and all this business. I would love to have other opinions on this. I find it quite amazing.
Wikipedia says "the neutrality of this article is disputed" since 2009. It may well be but meanwhile, Abrams clearly has the upper hand. He does not seem at all the bloodthirsty neocon that he is. For one thing, A SEARCH FOR "IRAQ" ON THE ENTIRE PAGE RETURNS NOTHING! (I did not get into the specifics of Iran contra stuff but he does not seem very much attacked either).
link to en.wikipedia.org
It looks like the neocons can have a very good handle on their wikipedia entry if they decide to. This is not helping.
Is wikipedia corrupt when it comes to neoconism and/or Israel/Palestine?
That is very true. You should add "expansionist" to the list though. And then you're one inch closer to what I've been taught as a kid was the worst political regime in history.
"The aberration would be too gross."
I'd say the aberration is already quite gross and things seem pretty much in control. If aberration were really a no-no, why would settlements be growing like there is no tomorrow.
There is not much resisting the aberration in my view, to the point where I wonder why it's not pushed even further. What would make Congress cringe in terms of Israeli behavious towards the Palestinians? I truly wonder...
"they operate out of fear that the Jews in Israel would have to let the Palestinians have 22% of the land."
would be the right way to put it in my view.
It's interesting to examine this view: could the OWS be some astroturfing? (astroturfing = fake grassroots movement). Like they say Tea Party = Koch brothers = astroturfing.
Creating and controlling your own opposition is certainly something powerful constituencies have considered in history. Business interests controlling unions is not a rare phenomenon.
In this particular case, I'd say media coverage relative to the size of the protests is an element that could make that credible. But I still find it hard to believe. Wouldn't that be playing with matches?
On the anecdotal level, I can't help but notice the very "banker friendly" dude that appeared on Charlie Rose to represent the OWS movement. I'm sure Charlie's audience slept very soundly that night after seeing this good protester. He seemed to have received some media training from big multinational or some lobbyist in Washington...
Do the trolls do it because they are part of organization that have determined that they should fight on mondoweiss or do they come on their own device. (Witty, I guess is here on his own device but the others?)
Book sales of course. I would not be shocked if Chomsky and Wolf were in the top 1%. Even Finkelstein must have made some money through book sales even if top 1% feels like a serious stretch for him. But then you have income and capital and these are to different metrics.
Hard to beat indeed...
Yep. He's been good on some aspects of the financial crisis. He equated the birthers and people who think Bush is a war criminal, wrapping them up in the "extremists" bag. He's been daring once or twice on Israel/Palestine notably during the assault on Gaza.
He's an entertainer and he's quite good at it. I don't think he could have done what Colbert did during the White House Correspondents dinner. He's a little too polite for that. Plus having Bill Kristol regularly is a little annoying...
Yes! Enough with this aura of respectability (and almost infallibility in some circles) for this "pro Iraq war", "subprime enabling" propaganda outlet.
"he is doing everything to stave off the powerful forces that are calling for war against Iran."
This game of always seeing the most improbable silver lining behind each of Obama's capitulation is really tiring. Obama does not control anything. And maybe we're all stuck with the rosy picture we have of him from the 2008 campaign but maybe his joke about "drones and his daughter" is closer to who he is in truth.
He will get along with bombing Iran whenever required as is shown by the Iranian assassination plot. I think Phil should give up on Obama. Everything crappy that he does is not good when one get the bigger picture. It's just crappy stuff.
It's not as daring as supporting Palestine but I remember very vividly Johnny Depp criticizing Bush before the Iraq war and pitifully retracting what he had said 6 hours later. A call from Ari Gold to straighten him out? (for those who don't know "Entourage", Ari Gold is the fictional hyperactive Jewish agent based on Rahm Emanuel's brother, advertised in the series as "the most powerful agent in Hollywood")
One of these times when the big screen hero seems somewhat less of a hero in real life.
Obviously you're not acquainted to El Senor Brooks' worldview. He's a little like Phil but on the other side of the fence: very concerned about the political impact of organized jewry in the US but whereas Phil is critical, Brooks is an apologist. Gloating occasionally about Jewish successes and influence but denying the goyim the right of simply noticing it.
Formerly from the Weekly Standard, it is hard for me to think of someone who would be more a servant to power than Brooks.
If Phil did not get some thrill from making people feel uncomfortable, he probably would not be writing Mondoweiss. What Phil's wife is calling his "symptoms" are not just petty social inadequacies that could be corrected, I think they drive his work and his life.
You cannot be a hard-hitting blogger on a very controversial topic (I mean really controversial: irritating to powerful constituencies) and be your average socializer or a party animal. And yes people with gravitas who believe in stuff are not very well regarded in social venues. Lightness and not expressing one's controversial views is considered polite.
One thing I can think of that is mitigating that is that I remember Phil writing at least once that in a particular context, he would not even try to speak about his views as he knew they would be met by no understanding at all and tremendous hostility. (in Cape Cod maybe?)
So Phil's social inadequacies may be somewhat controllable.
Yes! I've always wondered about that: what is the end game of the occupation? Is the goal a continuous state of war between Israeli and Palestinians that would keep healthy the "Jewish Nation".
Or is serious and thorough ethnic cleansing on the menu at some point? And if it's the case what kind of crisis/disaster could be the trigger for "Operation Greater Israel For Real"? A war with Iran maybe? I always thought it would have to be something more extraordinary. Let's say there is a nuclear 9/11 somewhere, wouldn't the Israelis be tempted to proceed with a thorough ethnic cleansing invoking "security" while the world is looking elsewhere? Like Rahm Emanuel said: "never waste a crisis" or something to that effect...
Le Canard Enchaîné never gets comments "first hand". The paper is usually trusted and widely read in the political class but whatever Sarkozy is quoted as saying, it is not public discourse. It may show that France will not join the US in a veto which is quite a relief.
Clean Break is mainly against "land for peace" (Oslo) and for creating a strategic environment in the Middle East that makes Greater Israel possible.
This policy is still going on unabated. If anything, the Israeli society seems to be going along with this program more than ever.
This could very well crumble in the future but with an attack on Iran looming, I would not say that we're passed "peak neoconism".
For one thing, attacking Iraq from the neocons standpoint was about eradicating the Iraqi State as a power. Checked. It makes me think that the destruction of Iraq (civil war and all) was not a mishap, it was the plan all along. When a country works, a coup can change its politics. When it's destroyed, you can stop worrying...
Fair enough. I've just had enough with these publications so I'm getting a little thin skinned...
"The whole thing has so backfired on them"
How so? As much as I would have liked that to happen, I can't see any evidence for it. Do you realize Iran could be attacked tomorrow and that all the US could say (if they're not part of the attack...) is that they support it? I missed the "so backfired" part.
Your question should not be: "Just why did we go to war against Iraq". As if it was a 50/50 decision with no moral implications whatsoever. This war was a crime.
You should narrow it down to: "Why were people willing to lie to the American public in order to go to war against Iraq? Who were the liars?". The OSP is a good place to start. Then you can also try: "Why were so few people in the media willing to make a name for themselves by exposing these obvious lies?". What does that say about the power structure?
Your "many causes make it very difficult to tell" is a stupid smokescreen. Sounds like "Witty lite".
"the fanatical efforts of the neoconservative and Christian Zionist wings of the Pro Israel Lobby"
Why is it that I can, on top of my head, cite dozens of neoconservative columnists or in the Bush administration and that I can only come up 2 maybe 3 Christian Zionists in the same kind of position?
I want a Christian Zionists list! Please! Just to see if the names ring a bell! Who is the "Christian Zionist Tom Friedman"? The "Christian Zionist Richard Perle"?
PLEASE HELP!
Suggest you go back to 2003 and the FT
You're one of these people: the financial crisis happens unannounced by such model of journalistic integrity as the FT, the WSJ and The Economist but you still vest them with "paper of reference" status. What is it that they can do that would make you take them with a grain of salt?
Maybe supporting the Iraq war as anyone paying attention knew Blair and Bush were lying. What does that say to their commitment to democratic principles? It says they have none.
It is untrue that Americans were enthralled by the Iraq War. At the time the question was worded like:
Should the US go to war without a UN mandate?
Should the US go to war if it gets a UN Mandate?
Should the US not go to war?
Until the very end, US citizens were very ambivalent about the war and even in the US people could realize that something was afoot in how Bush pushed for the war. There was unease.
Then the fighting started and predictably (as envisioned by the neocons) people rallied around the flag and later on around the perceived victory.
I have kept a Wapo/ABC News poll from that time that was awfully misleading. The title of the article was in contradiction (in a pro war way) with the raw material on the gallup site. Americans were wobbling but their media were, as has been documented, unswervingly driving them towards confrontation. This has been a defining moment for my understanding of the world and how power worked. And the moment the US lost prestige in my mind that it has not recovered since then. It has even lost some given that in addition to being an authoritarian warmongering country, its corrupt politics have destroyed its perceived competence as an economic power. It is still dominant, which is a testament to the work and fortitude of previous generation but it is irremediably corrupt. And the Iraq war was the event that, triggering the GWOT, put an end to the long term sustainability of "post WW2 style" American dominance.
Because what is lost to too many observers is the following: to finance the Iraq War and delay in the future the cost for the US population, the FED set interest rates for 3 years to level they had never been at before. This is what triggered the financial crisis we're going through since 2007. They sacrificed the future well being of the population to their warmongering. We're in this future now.
What an hasbarah troll...
This story on Fox was quite incredible given the usual Fox line on Israel. People working there can't ignore this line unless they truly are dimwits.
So seeing this story on Fox is a very big question mark. Can it have a purpose, unclear to the casual observer, that actually serves the constituencies that Fox usually represents? It's just beyond belief. The fact that Dick Cheney could have been the leaker goes in the same direction. Could creating a non mainstream anti-Israel storyline about 9/11 be useful to the neocons in some fashion?
Could creating an anti-jewish atmosphere/narrative post 9/11 be a way to keep most Jews "in check" relative to this event for instance?
This raises a few questions in my mind:
How prevalent is the reverse alyah? Can we understand it as liberal Jews leaving cause they're fed up with Israeli radicalism? How can we know since the Israeli government will deny it happens as it would be a disaster for the "Jewish State" narrative?
Any thoughts?
Very true.
Sullivan supported the war in Iraq in a nasty way. The word "Islamism" is clearly a byproduct of his neocon years (he wrote for TNR, right?). I never found him an interesting read. Now he has this "more Walt and Mearsheimer than thou" angle. I think he's a unique case in the blogosphere.
Anyway, the "Walt and Mearsheimer" angle quickly singles you out in the blogosphere.
Does Roger Cohen always appear in the print version? I'm not sure. And in this particular case?
I don't value his comments on the economy. And I clearly dislike the fact he advocated a housing bubble in 2002 (not kidding here).
link to blog.mises.org
But on the run up to the war in Iraq, he's been a beacon of common sense and honesty. I think he's bitter about it like everyone who knew what was going on as it was happening (like Phil I think).
Yes. I agree. And it's been obvious for a while. JStreet is just a bit of lubricant... Did anyone have any doubt at this point?
So you think you can hate everyone because YOU do it in the right, smart way? That you've understood some profound truth like "Witty is awesome!" but that the pathetic losers on this site could not figure it out? But still you hate Witty because otherwise one might think you actually have positive feelings about someone or something and that is not fashionable when one is 16yo?
Are you for real? Give the computer back to mummy.
You're right on. The way the neocons have hijacked the concept of democracy is one of the biggest scams of the "war on terror". They don't give a hoot about democracy. They only want obedience.
Anyway it is pretty obvious that the "big lie theory" is incompatible with democracy in any shape or form. It is an Orwellian hijacking of a word. They have been pretty successful with it. A lot of people in the Western world still go to bed at night thinking their armies are spreading democracy.
As for me, I still believe democracies don't launch wars of aggression. So that tells you what I think I think about the democratic nature of the US political system (it's a fantasy). The problem is that the US has now taken a lot of other countries down the path of abandoning democratic principles. Only very few countries have working democratic institutions. Switzerland? Northern Europe maybe? The mere idea of central banking post 2007 (ECB of FED style) is incompatible with democracy.
There's an icon right there. And for years to come...
"from its origins to the present, when has zionism not been dependent upon antisemites? "
Pointed. Antagonism is key to maintaining unity.
Why not create a "Mondoweiss forum"? Where people regularly posting comments here could engage, ask questions, meet each other. I understand it could be a lot of moderating... Aren't there any ways to create such a forum? Maybe outside the site. A Yahoo discussion group maybe?
longliveisrael? Really? But who is this new troll?
Couldn't that be also called the "John Edwards treatment"? I mean for all the excitement and hope that Obama brought, it was clear very early on in 2008 that he was an establishment candidate. The writing was on the wall during the primaries: Obama was a mandarin, not a spartacus.
John Edwards seemed resolute to be more of a pain in the neck for the powers that be. Henceforth: no media coverage. Full stop.
Sounds like a bug in the system to me... I bet Perry will kiss Bernanke's ring sooner rather than later.
Biorabbi: stop trolling...
"So why even bring it up?"
You have a point. My plan was to look for this oped and link to it after I wrote it but I've been unable to find it. So I guess my paragraph has no value until I can back it up. Granted.
Let's try another way and quote the excellent Mondoweiss blog:
"I underestimated Peter Beinart's piece (and role) from the start. Well, it's huge. Now, his latest thoughts on the ADL's Islamophobia enable Paul Krugman to say that he has a problem with the politics of Israel/Palestine in the U.S., and how the pro-Israel agenda got hijacked by the Likudniks. The language is imprecise or I'd quote it. Again I say that Krugman is a lilylivered narrator on a subject that he should have broached long ago, but this is Beinart's achievement, to talk to the Jewish liberal middle, to allow them to speak out, those people who deep down probably love Israel, and I infer that Krugman is in that company.
link to mondoweiss.net
I think one of the reason we hear so little about Israel from Krugman is because he is and wants to remain unquestionably "under the Jewish tent" so he has cowardly decided to tone down his criticism of Israel. Everything that transpires leads to believe this criticism would be quite harsh if he let it loose "Mondoweiss style".
link to mondoweiss.net
So you say there is no "Jewish cohesive thing" here. I say it's possible, even likely, that there is. For Friedman and Brooks being Jewish translates in unconditionnal (give or take for Friedman) support for Israel. For Krugman it could translate in not being as vocal an opponent as he would be otherwise be. Now granted, the pressure for not being vocal against Israel is strong for Jewish and Goyim people as well. But Krugman has been courageous by standing up to the neocons but openly criticized the new "radical" Israel seems a bridge too far for him.
My point being in the end: "diverse" is not a fortunate term to apply to apply to Krugman, Brooks and Friedman. (Unless you live on the upper west side.).
Question to the educated crew here: should one capitalize "Goyim"? Can one say "the Goyim people"?