Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 318 (since 2009-09-01 00:19:34)


Showing comments 200 - 101

  • Neoconservative responsibility for the Iraq war
    • To Blankfort:

      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).

  • Clark: There was no national debate over the policy coup by the 'hardnosed'
    • 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.

  • 'People who promoted the Iraq war ought to be so discredited that no one listens to them any more'
    • 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.

  • Kampeas: Jewish neocons are more than 2 degrees removed from Bush's decision to invade Iraq
    • 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.

  • Thank you!
  • Will Potus notice?
    • 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.

  • Busted by Goldberg, Klein now says commas caused war in Iraq, not neocons
    • 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...

  • Has NYT become an 'existential threat'? Oren says Friedman column was 'dangerous'
    • 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.

  • 'The Social Network' and the Acceptance World
    • 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.

  • Video: army brutalizes demonstrators in Cairo
    • 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.

  • Ron Paul's stunning antiwar performance: Iran threat recalls Iraq, 'a useless war that killed 1 million Iraqis' and 8000 Americans
    • 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.

  • Hitchens's Jewishness
    • 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...

  • Liberal pundits and Democrats are stifling conversation on failed peace process, AIPAC's power, and push for war on Iran
  • The lobby blinks! Democratic insiders throw Josh Block under the bus
    • 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...

  • 70-year-old Palestinian professor is now a political prisoner --updated
    • 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.

  • Karen Greenberg's evasion
    • 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.

  • Welcome Annie Robbins as Writer at Large
    • 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!


      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.

  • Wolf Blitzer will host surging Paul, but Republican Jewish Coalition won't
    • 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?

  • Mondo... Beyondo
    • 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!

  • JJ Goldberg is uncomfortable with 'astoundingly hostile' new 'New York Times'
    • 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.

  • Netanyahu takes another step to demolish the brand
    • 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.

  • Pamela Geller's Islamophobia hits new low with Thanksgiving Day smear of dietary laws
    • 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.

  • Phoenix Jewish columnist says Obama's complaint about Netanyahu made American Jews feel unsafe
    • 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.

  • Israeli gov't employs guilt to try and reverse reverse-aliyah
    • 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.

  • Dubious Charlie Rose asks Ehud Barak why not one state?
    • 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?

  • Welcome to the new Mondoweiss
  • Did Fox and Werritty meet 6 times with ambassador to Israel to plan 'secret agenda for war' with Iran?
  • Experts weigh in: What Dennis Ross's departure means for Iran and the 'peace process'
    • 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?

  • The escalation: 'Time' says Israel attacked Iranian missile base
  • Golden oldies: Tom Friedman at start of Iraq war telling Arabs to 'suck on this'
    • 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!

  • Dueling messages on Iran
    • 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 "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."


      And this part too: what i’m asking is why so many mondo readers bother to respond to him.


    • 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!!!!

  • Elliott Abrams seems to think that Obama is anti-Semitic (and so does Newt Gingrich)
  • Huh-- Obama deals with Netanyahu 'every day' but does not talk to Palestinian leader?
    • 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...

  • Spinozapalooza! Jewish leader says American Jewish community must kick out anyone who supports boycott
    • Well I'm sure there is no weed! Of course! When one looks at the super powerful weedkiller that is being used...

  • Tom Friedman's faulty Algiers/Jerusalem analogy
    • 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.

  • 'Powerful lobby is hellbent' for US to go to war w Iran
    • 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.

  • Tahrir tells Oakland-- 'Don't afraid, go ahead'
  • 'NYT''s Gordon (who gave us Saddam's 'mushroom cloud') relies on Israeli expert to interpret Saddam
    • 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

      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?

  • Palestine's UNESCO bid to come up Monday (amid Simon Wiesenthal Center hypocrisy)
    • 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.

  • Breakthrough: 'Ynet' honestly seeks answer to question, How did American Jews get so rich?
  • Soviet-style 'Foreign Affairs' stages 'debate' on Israel between '2 senior Israeli officials' and 'liberal American Zionist'
  • 'J Street' urges Israel lobby group to sever ties with Elliott Abrams's wife Rachel for 'unhinged hate speech' against Palestinians
    • 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.

  • Egyptian revolutionary cartoons (part 1)
    • 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?

  • 'Neocon' is suddenly a bad career move (and Rachel Abrams ain't helping the Elliott Abrams brand)
    • 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
      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.

  • Even Fayyad forecasts struggle for equal voting rights in I/P
    • "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...

  • Props for the amazing political space OWS created (but who is talking about Palestine?)
    • "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...

  • Pro-Israel donors are at the heart of Defence Ministry scandal in Britain
    • 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?)

  • Will 'Occupy Wall Street' give Jon Stewart political identity crisis?
    • 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...

  • 'Economist' debate on peace process features... 2 Israelis
    • Yes! Enough with this aura of respectability (and almost infallibility in some circles) for this "pro Iraq war", "subprime enabling" propaganda outlet.

  • Bill Kristol: 'We need to hear' that Obama has gone to war on Iran
    • "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.

  • Don't just stand there, let's get to it, strike a pose, there's nothing to it
    • 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.

  • Neocon orgs seek to paint Wall St protests as anti-semitic
    • 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.

  • The social fabric
    • 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.

  • Israeli embassy tried to get alarmist Iran question into 2008 presidential debate, then coordinated Gaza onslaught's end with Team Obama
    • 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...

  • What do a Jewish state and a Catholic table have in common?
    • 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.

  • NYT reviewer: Small group of Bush advisers will take real reason for Iraq war to their (restless) graves
    • 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"?


    • 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.

  • An American Jew who emigrated to Israel is asked if the end of the Jewish state would be a tragedy for her
  • Raising money, British Israel lobby brags about sending BBC anchor to Israel and pressing BBC editors to report 'favourable line'
    • 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?

  • Reverse aliyah: '92d St Y' works with Israeli consulate to provide program to Israeli parents
    • 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?

  • Richard Cohen instructs Obama: there must be no 'daylight' between you and Netanyahu
  • 'Fundamentalist-dominated state bent on expansion and war' --Sullivan
    • 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.

  • 'NYT' calls Dogan a Turk-- yes, and how many other American deaths go unaudited?
  • Krugman seems to want to talk about pundit-class responsibility for Iraq disaster
    • 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

      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).

  • 'J St' comes out against Palestinian statehood initiative
    • 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?

  • Robert Gates: 'Israel is an ungrateful ally'
    • 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.

  • 'Commentary' blames Turkey for starting the insurgency in Iraq
    • 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.

  • Emily Henochowicz posts sardonic 'love poem' to a country that 'stole' her eye and is gripped by fear
  • Isolation may force Israel to depend on anti-Semites
    • "from its origins to the present, when has zionism not been dependent upon antisemites? "

      Pointed. Antagonism is key to maintaining unity.

  • How would you redesign our comment section?
    • 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?

  • Line of the day
  • Jon Stewart on the media blackout of Ron Paul
    • 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.

  • Define demagogue
    • Sounds like a bug in the system to me... I bet Perry will kiss Bernanke's ring sooner rather than later.

  • Board member of MEMRI-- beneficiary of State Department grant-- seems to approve racist claptrap
  • WASP society is disintegrating
    • "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
      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

      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"?

Showing comments 200 - 101