Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 148 (since 2010-10-23 14:08:25)


I am an anti-war activist, a prisoner rights activist and an advocate for Palestinian rights.


Showing comments 148 - 101

  • Why Trump's revolution succeeded, and Bernie's fizzled
    • Excellent remark. Indeed, a Trump presidency may well be in the offing. The Dems have over reached. The reactionary nature of the American steeple will put Trump at the helm. It won't be pretty, but it may be the only way out of this catastrophic slide into oblivion the Dems and their lesser-of-two-evils base has us engaged in. Perhaps under a Trump regime some form of true opposition will arise. I'm not optimistic, but there is no chance of any opposition to a Clinton presidency, just as there was no opposition to Obama's bloodthirsty rule.

    • "Sanders never did run hard against the neoconservatives who were flocking to Clinton,..."

      Sanders didn't run hard against the neoconservatives because he is from that same mold. To say "Both candidates ran as antiwar candidates" is a little much. Sanders may have talked softly about being opposed to war, and he tried to make hay out of his faux opposition to the Iraq war (he voted with the Dems to fund that same war repeatedly) but his record indicates otherwise. There would have been very little change in American foreign policy, at its core, under a Sanders administration. Imperialism would still have been the order of the day.

      In the end, what many of us said at the outset turned out to be true. Sanders was a sheepdog for the corporate Dems. He said on day one he would endorse Clinton. That's just what he did. Progressives were duped again.

  • Front-page play for Israel battle shows that Israel has lost the Democratic Party base
    • And the jury is also still out on whether the Sun rises in the east and sets in the West.

  • Democratic Party is now split over Israel, and Clinton and Sanders represent opposing camps, says Pew
    • "...two tough ladies who've learned to master diplomacy..."

      How about, "two sociopaths who have learned to master the art of lying, bullying and killing." These two "master[s] of diplomacy" have been responsible for untold amounts of death and destruction. Both should be on trial for war crimes, not the object of blithe conjecture about the similarity of their appearance.

  • Chabon calls occupation 'the most grievous injustice I have ever seen in my life' and says he is 'culpable'
    • And don't forget, eljay, it's " injustice [you were] forced into..."

      Sometimes one has to wonder what kind of moral compass hophmi steers by. When injustice becomes the "justified" norm, in other words, when justice and the rule of law are no longer considered a necessary part of a society, isn't it obvious to hophmi that the exceptionalist philosophy of Zionism has failed the very people it purports to protect?

      The same holds true for American exceptionalism. In order to maintain our superiority over the world, we have discarded the notion of human dignity and social justice for any but ourselves. Consequently we have lost our humanity. So what is the point, after all?

    • " injustice Israel was forced into..."

      Yea, the same thing happened to me. I started building a guest house in my neighbors back yard. When they attempted to stop me, I was forced take over their entire home and property and begin restricting their movements. It's unjust, I know. But what else was I to do?

  • Donna Edwards's campaign unsettles the Israel lobby inside the Democratic Party
    • "How many Sanders supporters are going to work for the election of someone who resorts to war as readily as she does?"

      link to

      No indication here of how many might be "going to work" for Clinton. But apparently, 67% will vote for her. No big surprise since most so-called progressives could care less about the machinations of our fetid empire. That's evident in the lack of any substantive discussion about our illegal wars and assassination programs around the globe in much of what passes for progressive media, including here at MW. (Granted, that's not the intention nor focus of the great work being done by MW)

      If one dares to point out Sanders history of support for war (granted, nothing compares to Killary's bloodthirsty record) at some "progressive" sites you get slammed. No one wants to acknowledge that Sanders' overall foreign policy will likely be very similar to the status quo, no matter what his rhetoric on Palestine.

  • 'NYT' exposes Clinton as most hawkish candidate when it's too late for readers to choose
    • Those who need the Times to point out to them what a warmongering sociopath Clinton is are beyond hope anyway. Unfortunately, that includes a majority of so-called progressives. Her bloodthirsty machinations around the globe are no secret, and it requires a concerted effort to remain unaware of her record. But again, that concerted effort is being made by vast numbers of people in this country.

  • The Jewish-Israeli navel-gazers
    • The American public is right up there in the running. Look how popular Bernie Sanders' rhetoric about equality and human rights is with so-called progressives. Yet they only apply such considerations to Americans (themselves), with no thought for the barbaric, murderous rampages of our empire. With all this talk about a "revolutionary" change in our politics, there is very little talk on the Left about ending our criminal enterprises around the globe. Sanders wants to continue our drone assassination program, and he fully supports the carnage we have unleashed on Yemen. (Yes, that's us doing that by proxy through the Saudis.)

      How many "liberals" are willing to point this out, or are even willing to hear it? When I comment on the facts of Sanders' support for our imperialistic crimes on alternative media sites I am often reviled and attacked as a Sanders basher. Any reality that doesn't affect themselves is considered irrelevant. U.S. society is a poster child for exceptionalism.

      But, yes, the Zionists have us beat by a mile.

  • Bernie Sanders' record on Palestine
    • Seems as though he has carefully crafted his rhetoric to conform to typical "liberal" Zionist views, for the most part. Oh, those poor Palestinians, but Jews still have a right to maintain a racist, exclusivist state.

      This, is combination with Sanders pro-interventionist/pro-empire voting record should give any true progressive pause.

  • Sanders is in Jewish tradition that rejected exceptionalist nationalism of Zionism
    • Thanks, echinococcus., for keeping the discussion honest as concerns Sanders. Phil is trying way too hard to find a reason to like him. There are some reasons, no doubt, when it comes to his domestic agenda, But Sanders' foreign policy views are a strictly status quo in terms of U.S. empire. And his views on Israel, as you point out, differ very little from any of the other candidates. He's begun to make a few gratuitous statements about Palestinian rights, etc., but his history of full-blown support for Zionism belies his recent rhetoric. To imply that he has any kind of anti-Zionist leanings is purely magical thinking.

      It's okay if people want to support Sanders. But lets not make stuff up to justify that support. Better we laud him for his domestic agenda while keeping the pressure on for him to quit being such a hypocrite when it comes to human rights and social justice for anyone other than Americans.

      The tendency for people to label him as some kind of peacenik is truly disgusting. He's no psychopath, like Clinton, but he's certainly no anti-war candidate either.

      Saying it doesn't make it so. It will only make it harder to hold him accountable later on.

  • Ha’aretz journalist lauds wine from Jewish terrorist/vintner Menachem Livni
    • "...Yehuda Etzion who was recently adoringly interviewed for the New York Times by an apparently very gullible Jodi Rudoren and Isabel Kirshner."

      "...for Rudoren and Kershner to portray Livni as they mistakenly wrote about Yehuda Etzion,"

      Wonderful article. But, in fact, neither Rudoren nor Kirshner ever write anything from a position of gullibility nor through mistaken perception. They are both hard core paid Zionist propagandists, each very proficient at their trade. When they spin a subject it is very carefully and purposefully done. To suggest otherwise is to give them more credit, and more legitimacy, than they deserve.

  • 'What certainly influenced me' to support Iraq war, Clinton says, was Bush's billions of aid to NYC
    • This woman is truly a psychopath. She recently commented that "We didn't lose a single person" in Libya." Absolutely obscene, considering it was U.S. imperial machinations (with Clinton as puppet master) which fomented the civil war there, and U.S. actions which completely destroyed that country killing untold thousands. And now we're headed for more death and destruction there under Clinton's guidance.

      When she becomes President (sorry Sanders' hopefuls) there will be carnage worldwide that will make Obama's reign of terror seem like child's play.

  • Sanders's outreach to Arab Americans on Islamophobia helped deliver Michigan surprise
    • Like Clinton, Sanders also supports the war in Yemen. He just thinks the Saudis should do more of than killing.
      link to

      And though his much-touted vote against the invasion of Iraq is being used to paint him as some kind of anti-war peacenik, he has blood on his hands with that issue too.
      link to

      Plus, Sanders will continue the U.S. drone program which pretty much exclusively kills muslims. He'll just make it a "kinder, gentler" illegal assassination program.
      link to

      There will be no significant reduction in U.S. imperial rampages around the globe under a Sanders presidency. Those who think so are projecting their own aspirations on to Sanders, much as was done when Obama ran for president.

    • "And if we stand for anything we have got to stand together and end all forms of racism, and I will lead that effort as president of the United States. "

      Well, all forms of racism except Zionism. That one he's okay with.

  • Did dodging foreign policy doom Bernie Sanders?
    • I agree. Sanders is not going to be President. So these discussions are somewhat moot. But just for the record: people like to refer to Sanders vote against the Iraq war as some kind of testament to his anti-war credentials. Jeffrey St. Clair points out Sanders hypocrisy on Iraq in the attached article.

      link to

      In fact, Sanders is a strong supporter of U.S. Imperialism and his record is anything but anti-war overall. He recently endorsed Obama's criminal foreign policy record despite the fact that Obama has initiated more direct and proxy wars than any other president in our history. Even if Sanders were to take the Oval office (ain't gonna happen) we would see very little change in the bloodthirsty march of our fetid empire.

      Sanders is a real humanitarian when it comes to American humans. For any other nationality, particularly if they are muslim, not so much.

  • Bernie Sanders' spirituality is resonating with young religious 'None's
    • So ethno-religious discrimination in the interest of maintaining purity within a particular ethnic community is okay for small communities but not for large communities. In other words, a little bit of racism and ethnic exceptionalism is acceptable. Especially if it's a group you happen to be a member of.

      Interesting standard. How large does the community need to be before we decry such practices. Was the Arian race too large? The Nazis didn't seem to think so.

    • "So my spirituality is that we are all in this together. "

      Unless of course you are a Palestinian, or a Yemeni who is being bombed by our drones or U.S. supported Saudi air strikes, or any of the other innocent victims of Empire. Then, not so much. In that case, it's all us Americans in it together at the expense of everyone else.

      We need to call this guy out on his hypocrisy. You can't be a humanist and a Zionist. You can't be a humanist and an imperialist. You can't be a humanist and a militarist.

  • Generational sea change within the Democratic party will also include policy towards Israel
    • Your argument sounds like a replay of the apologist rhetoric of those who projected their own hopes and dreams onto Obama. Everything Obama wrote and did prior to running for president foreshadowed his actions once in office. But the dreamers refused to listen to the warnings of those of us who actually looked at what Obama had said and done as opposed to what people wanted to believe he "might" do once in office.

      I don't believe there is any comparison between the sociopathic liar that Obama is and Bernie Sanders. Sanders does have a reputable record on many of the issues he talks about now. But on Israel and on U.S. Imperialism the same holds true. We know what Sanders stands for and how he has voted and behaved in these areas. As echinococcus points out, to suggest that he will suddenly change direction on these issues is nothing more than projection and magical thinking.

      Support for Sander has its merits. But only if at the same time his legions of followers demand that he change is attitudes toward Israel and our corrupt foreign policy overall. Without those caveats, a vote for Sanders will gain us nothing on those issues and probably much less that expected on his domestic agenda. Because eason and logic dictate that unless Sanders turns the ship of Empire around and redirects the obscene spending which fuels it none of his domestic pipe dreams stand of change of being realized.

      The likelihood that he will do that is very slim. It just isn't in his history or his attitude.

    • "Do you have any evidence of Sanders’ intent to change anything in US policy for Palestine (or more generally and directly touching our topic, US imperialism in general)?"

      I think this is the point of eccinocochus's comment. In my opinion, people who refer to Sander's attitude toward Netenyahu as proof of a possible overall policy change are attempting to spin this issue. The commenter asks for evidence of any realistic possibility of a policy change from a Sanders administration. I too would like to see some. So far, I haven't found any.

      One of the more popular spin jobs being done on this question is the quote from Sanders decrying the bombing of UN facilities during the last slaughter in Gaza. That's a far cry from even the faintest notion that Sanders ever did or will oppose Israel or its war crimes.

      Same goes for U.S. Imperialism in general. Aside from a few minor criticisms of specific actions the U.S. has engaged in, Sanders has shown no inclination to challenge empire on any meaningful level. He has said he supports our illegal drone assassinations (claiming he would do fewer of them, and more carefully is a disgusting cop out) and he encourages the Saudis to kill even more innocent people in Yemen.

      Let's keep these realities in mind if we choose to support Sanders. Losing sight of them would be the kind of subjective wishes eccinocochus is referring to.

  • Biggest loser in Iowa was foreign policy
    • But the facts aren't suppressed now. Will full ignorance about this issue demonstrates a lack of morality. If it is delusion it's self delusion.

    • Thanks for pointing out Sander's lack of a moral conscience regarding Israel. He's also quite lacking on other foreign policy issues. It will be Empire as usual if he becomes president. (which is never going to be allowed to happen.)

      But to suggest that last night was "the most exciting life of our lives" is pretty sad. The fact that we have a two fascists, a warmongering corporatist, and a faux socialist imperialist running for office should depress everyone. There is nothing to be excited about if one believes that this empire is a cancer on the planet. That's not going to change, not matter which one of this lot gets elected.

  • 'We are all Jews' -- the Holocaust as imperial export
    • Yes, but Annie, clearly the lives of the jewish half are the only ones that matter. That's what Zionism is all about, isn't it? Jews are more important than other people.

  • 'I cannot support Israel as long as Netanyahu is in office'-- many American Jews are saying
    • Oh, and they could support the racist Zionist state if someone else was in power there? That's real comforting.

  • For the finest in settlement living try Airbnb Judea and Samaria
    • Wonderful. Especially the one about the septic system. I've seen with my own eyes sewage from a settlement draining directly onto agricultural lands in a Palestinian village. It is one of the most disgusting images I carry about my experiences in Palestine. The overflow line from the sewage treatment system for the settlement was engineered to spill out on the village land. Such deliberate disdain for the humanity of the Palestinians living there was something I could hardly integrate into rational thought. It says it all about the racist, exceptionalist and overtly cruel and abusive nature of Zionism.

  • Clinton baits Sanders over 'destruction of Israel'
    • Unfortunately, this is exactly why Sanders is likely to lose to Trump should he receive the nomination (which I doubt the powers that be in the Democratic Party establishment will allow to happen anyway).

      Red baiting will be only one of the many disgusting fear-and-ignorance-based tactics the American people will fall for in a Trump vs. Sanders race. We are conditioned to respond like idiots because we are idiots.

  • 'NYT's next Jerusalem chief routinely offers Israel as a model for American conduct
    • Thanks for this early eye on Baker. I think it's safe to say, he will be the usual propaganda hack for Zionism. If there were any other likelihood, he would never have gotten the job. If any other scenario unfolds, he won't keep it for long. Plus, you gotta know that anyone who has been a White House correspondent is already a bought and paid for toady. Again, otherwise they wouldn't be White House correspondents.

  • Obama wiretapped a cunning and dishonest foreign leader, for the sake of world peace
    • Yes, Boomer. And let's not forget, Obama himself is a "cunning and dishonest" leader. The current state of horrific instability and unrest throughout the Middle East (and elsewhere) is largely a result of his foreign policy. He currently has started more direct and proxy wars of aggression than any other President in our history. He oversees the extrajudicial murder of scores of innocent men, woman and children on a nearly daily basis.Along with Netanyahu, he should be on trial in the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and should not be the subject of praise for any of his actions until he is held accountable for his many crimes.

  • 'NYT' reports differing perspectives when there is no doubt that one is false
    • Thanks Jerome. It's fairly safe to say that whenever The Times publishes an article which contains some element of criticism of or truth about Israel, the real purpose of that article will be to salt half-truths and outright lies into the discussion. This is a tried and true method of propagandizing which so many writers at the times have perfected. Not only does it serve to promote pro-Israel mythology, it also serves as a token "criticism article" of Israel so the Times can have something to point to pretend they are actually reporting and not just spewing propaganda. It's a win win for them, lose lose for the cause of truth in journalism.

  • Adam Sandler says he's devoted to Israel because of his parents
    • During the filming of Sandler's latest movie, filmed here in Santa Fe, the Native American cast and extras walked off the set because of the gross stereotyping of Native Americans in the Script. That tells us a lot about the level of Sandler's cultural sensitivity.
      link to

  • Sanders warns U.S. against 'quagmire' of 'perpetual warfare' in Mideast for 20, 30 years
    • Sorry, but I don't see a professed Zionist such as Sanders making any real difference in U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East in the long run. He will tow the Israeli line. So he wants Saudia Arabia to be our proxy war criminal against ISIS instead of against Yemen. Nice for the suffering innocents in Yemen, but how does that really improve the situation overall? Plus, it reflects his overall support of the illegal and immoral machinations of our fetid Empire .He'll slaughter different innocents in different places, but the blood will continue to flow.

  • NYT's Rudoren says Mondoweiss critique of her recent article is 'nuts'
    • It's sort of like if someone wrote an article about Charles Manson's tattoos without mentioning his cult behaviors, because, after all, that information is only "background"

      No, Rudorin is not clueless at all. She knows exactly what she's doing. This type of propaganda is her stock in trade.

  • To the next 'NYT' Jerusalem chief -- Here is your job description
  • 'I endorse the cultural boycott of Israel': Prominent artists support New York-based campaign for cultural boycott of Israel
    • No, they endorse the shunning of the world's largest Zionist community because that community is founded on and promulgated by racist, exclusivist ideologies and practices.

  • NPR's Martin says that Beirut and Baghdad victims matter as much as Parisian ones
    • Yes, but Donald, you must remember, when "We" (the U.S. and Israel, either directly or through our proxies) slaughter innocent people we do it the civilized way, using drones and bombs and tanks and stuff. Why can't these terrorists commit massacres like decent human beings? Such savages!

  • DC protests mark the end of PEP era -- progressive except Palestine
    • Yes. Thank you, Avigail.

      And though one hates to have to agree with hophmi (ever!) his comment in response to Avigail is (unfortunately) also right on. These days in the U.S. the word "activist" is too often a synonym for narcissist. "Look at me. I'm willing to spend a whole afternoon pretending I make a difference." Then its back to the sofa and the mall.

      I learned this the hard way as an organizer in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Millions were willing to show up at demonstrations, have some fun in the sun for a few hours. But very few were willing to do anything more than that. Which is why demonstrations have become useless wastes of time and resources.

      Like voting, these pointless endeavors serve only to allow people to pretend they are doing something.

  • 'Netanyahu destroyed hope' -- Erekat
    • There is a special place in hell for guys like Erekat and Abbas. "Netanyaho destroyed Hope?" Indeed. He did it with both of these two monsters on his payroll. Truly disgusting to listen to Erekat posturing. Sleaze, sleaze, sleaze.

  • Beinart says 'Israeli government is reaping what it has sowed' with Palestinian violence
    • Exactly right, Don. Unfortunately, the only thing Beinart has reaped is tons of money for his ever-changing distortions of reality. Which begs the question once again, why do the intelligent writers and commenters at MW continue to give this little punk credibility by writing about his inane perspectives as if they have even a shred of legitimacy?

      No doubt, Peter will be out with a new book soon touting his latest "blowing in the wind" answers to all things Zionist. Then there will be the accompanying speaking tour. There's plenty of money to be made by being a willfully ignorant and amoral blowhard.

  • Permanently ghettoizing the Palestinian people is Yitzhak Rabin's true legacy
    • Thanks for this article. It's getting really old seeing articles suggesting Rabin was some kind of heroic peace maker. The guy was a murderous thug and a racist. He was assassinated because he wasn't murderous or racist enough for the uber-crazy ultra-Zionists.

  • When Palestinian 'protection' stands in the way of equality
    • Ascherman spoke to our group when I visited Palestine 12 years ago. No doubt, he is a heroic figure, willing to put his life on the line to protect innocent Palestinians. But he wound up engaging in heated arguments with most every one of the 15 people in our group because he is a Zionist zealot. At that time, he told us he categorically believes all the land of Palestine belongs to the Zionists. He's only concession to Palestinian sovereignty was to suggest that Palestinians be given separate but equal rights within a Jewish state dominated by Zionist Jews.

      Most of us came away believing he was kind of a crackpot more interested in glorifying his own sense of heroism than in actually standing up for Palestinian rights. He doesn't want to see Palestinians killed or oppressed. But he definitely believes (or stated so at that time) that Jews should be the dominant force within a Zionist state. He also stated that there needs to be a demographic superiority maintained within any eventual Jewish state. How that mindset can coexist with his belief in equal rights for Palestinians reflects the strange naiveté which Ellis mentions in his article.

      He's much more courageous than I could ever be. But he is a very confused, tribalistic and racist individual.

  • 'Why I am a Zionist'
    • Respect these individuals? Really? I can barely keep my lunch down while reading this litany of elitist tribalistic nonsense. Zionism is racism, pure and simple. Respecting racists is a misguided moral compromise, and in the long run will prove to be a strategic error as well. What is accomplished, beyond enabling their willfully ignorant delusions about their own sense of entitlement and exceptionalism?

      Truly disgusting. These individuals appear to have absolutely no conscience. They are covered in the blood of so many innocents.

  • Palestinian Harry Potter fan challenges J. K. Rowling on BDS using lessons from Hogwarts
  • Debacle for the Israel lobby: Booker jilts Boteach, and Netanyahu sinks AIPAC
    • Principled senator? There's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. No such animal. You don't get to join that club if you have principles. One way or another, these creatures are all on the auction block, available to the highest bidder. Same holds true for House of Reps.

  • For the high holidays, Bernie should bring his presidential campaign to Tzedek Chicago
    • Good article. But since the author chooses to use Cornell West's endorsement of Sanders as an anchor for his thesis I feel compelled to remind everyone just who and what West is.

      Cornell West threw in big-time with Obama, making over 70 appearances around the country during Obama's first campaign. I've never been able to find out how much West was paid for this onslaught, but since his speaking fees range from $20,000 to $40,000 a pop (how much per hour would that be?!) one can only imagine he didn't do it for free.

      Too often considered to be some sort of modern day prophet, West is sure making a bundle off of his "prophetic" pronouncements. Not exactly an inspirational figure, in my view. It didn't take him long to get past his initial racist "any black man running for President is okay in my book" perspective on Obama. But one has to doubt West gave back any of the money he earned on speaking fees whole promoting the man who would become the country's first black War-Criminal in Chief.

      There were plenty of us out there who weren't fooled by Obama. All it required was a little bit of research and a pair of open eyes. Apparently West was blinded by color, both black and green.

      Maybe West is looking for a sweet gravy-train ride on the Sander's campaign. Plenty of prophetic statements to be made there.

  • Palestinian forced to strip to underwear before attending briefing at Israeli Embassy in Washington DC
    • I don't know, Annie. If we bring this outrage to the attention of our State Department they might make the strip search of all "Arabs" a new directive.

  • 'I love Obama' 'You're infatuated' (The argument on the left)
    • If your entire family was wiped out in a drone strike ordered by Obama would you still think his actions represent some sort of justifiable "compromise?" Would you still say you "love" Obama because of his views on Cuba? In my opinion, such a view is an obscenity.

      There are no ends which can justify the slaughter of countless innocents. If you truly believe that, then you too have lost your moral compass.

    • Phil is delusional on this matter. He has lost his moral compass. It saddens me to read the nonsense he wrote in this exchange. Would Phil "love" the Leader of China if he was directly ordering the bombing and killing of hundreds of civilians in towns and villages around the U.S. on the pretext that he was just killing "terrorists?" Could Phil sit down with the surviving families of all the victims of Obama's aggression and tell them to their face that he loves this killer?

      Barack Obama is indisputably a mass murder and a war criminal. He has waged more direct and proxy wars than any president in our history. He is a dangerous sociopath who should be on trial in the Hague. What else needs to be said?

  • Sanders risks losing left over unprogressive views of Palestine -- Washington Post
    • Oh my. I'm afraid I have to agree with the dreaded hophmi on this on. It's pretty clear that "progressives," for the most part, don't give a rats ass about Palestinians. Just as they don't give a rats ass about Sanders support for war and defense spending. The "left" is a perfect representation of the narcissistic nature of our culture. As long as they can support someone who addresses their own personal economic needs, the rest of the human rights and social justice agenda doesn't matter.

      Here's a good look at Sanders by Jeffrey St. Claire.

      link to

      Besides, once Sanders goes down in flames (the inevitable final outcome of his effort to achieve the nomination) he will throw his support to Clinton. He has already stated this categorically. In fact, there is a case to be made (my opinion only for the most part) that he is simply birddogging for the Clinton campaign. He'll woo disillusioned Progressives ( faux progressives in my view) back to the Democratic Party. There is a long history of this paradigm, going back as far as Humphrey, McCarthy and McGovern. These guys are just pawns of the Corporate Dems. Though I believe Sanders is a much more willing pawn than some of the others

      I find Sanders to be extremely distasteful. He's a socialist in name only, and a disgusting hypocrite when it comes to Palestine and War. He's been feeding at the public trough his entire career and has actually accomplished very little with the torrents of rhetoric he loves to spew.

    • Page: 1
  • Congress needs to stand up for American people's interest over Netanyahu's
    • Lots of magical thinking in this article. Congress hasn't stood up for the interests of the American People for decades, if not centuries. They stand up for their own interests and the interests of their corporate pay masters. Also, the author opens with an endorsement of his thesis from Peter Beinart, then moves on to reference Pat Buchanan. Ho Hum. Could he find any sources more unreliable than these two clowns?

      "When will voters get the message?"

      That's about the only thing this author gets right. Of course, the voters aren't ever going to get the message. If they did, they wouldn't be voting, they'd be overthrowing the government instead.

  • Crisis for the lobby: Clinton bucks Saban, AIPAC doesn't know what to say
    • Evidence of something that hasn't happened yet? No. But history is it's own evidence in this case. How many times has the U.S. brokered a lasting peace deal with anyone? How many wars of aggression have we initiated? I say the odds are very much in favor of the scenario I suggested.

      Just ask any Native American about how well our government honors its treaties/agreements. Ask any of the fourteen countries we have bombed since 9/11 just how interested in peace we are.

    • link to

      This article by Tony Cartalucci is a reminder that this "deal" with Iran is quite likely little more than a fuse for the eventual war of aggression which will be waged against Iran by the U.S./Israel. They have to have a "deal" in place which Iran can then "violate" (by means of a false flag operation carried out by U.S./Israel) to justify the aggression.

      It's difficult to believe there aren't more commentators pointing out this very likely scenario. Historically, the U.S. has a nearly perfect track record of not making peace with anyone. We don't co-exist, we dominate and destroy. Think about it. Then tell me we should believe this situation with Iran will be any different.

      The optimists are kidding themselves. My money is (and has always been) on a war of aggression with Iran sooner or later. Any other outcome would be so far out of character for the U.S. it strains credulity to suggest it.

  • Abe Foxman says goodbye to an America of secret Jew haters
    • Thanks for catching that, Boomer. As much as I appreciate Phil's work, at times he seems to suffer from a serious case of cognitive disconnect when it comes to Obama.

  • Oren's demands make Israel's liberal apologists squirm
  • Israeli lawmaker wants to force foreign-funded NGO officials to wear stigmatizing i.d.'s
  • After a hard week in the news, Israeli gets valentines all weekend from NPR
    • "I get a lot of my news from NPR."

      Great article. But just as a reminder, what you are getting from NPR is not news. It is propaganda. And not just on the subject of Palestine. Across the board NPR is a source of misinformation and corporate/government spin. If it were giving us anything else, it would be defunded in a jiffy.

  • In NY, a Palestinian and Israeli detail forgotten war in Gaza -- 'wiping families off the planet'
  • Goldberg predicts 'civil war' between American and Israeli Jews as Israel is 'defined as an apartheid state'
    • Thanks to Kris and eljay for pointing it out. But I have to add my observation just to be sure no one misses it.

      "Obama by inclination respects universal human rights."

      Seriously? The man who sits in the oval office every Tuesday and signs death warrants to be implemented by the Drone assassination squad? Phil does a lot of thoughtful and careful analysis, then he comes off with a zinger like this. Obama is a war criminal and a mass murderer. Human rights mean absolutely nothing to this sociopath.

  • 'New York Times' cites Palestinians as 'demographic' threat
    • "Today in a news article,..."

      "News" article? Hardly. Rudorin doesn't engage in journalism or reporting. She is a paid propagandist. This was just another of her propaganda pieces disguised as news.

      Thanks, as always, for your careful reporting (actual journalism!) calling the Times to task. But language referring to its content is important. Call a spade a spade. Call propaganda propaganda, not news.

  • 'Heart-wrenching, harrowing, transfixing' -- NYT needs to end blackout on Blumenthal
    • "...the Times is playing into its own irrelevance..."

      Unfortunately, the Times is not irrelevant at all. It is perhaps the most effective propaganda tool the Zionist movement has. Not to mention the Times infamous service to our corporatist government and the machinations of our criminal Empire. The notion that the Times "needs to do" this or that creates a legitimizing paradigm for this propaganda rag.

      Rather than beseeching the Times to do what is obviously beyond the scope if its intent, we "need to" reject and discredit this organization at every turn, otherwise it will continue to be regarded as an acceptable source of information.

  • Tell Congress Now: Israeli military detention is no way to treat a child
    • Seriously? This writer is suggesting that writing a letter to your Congressperson is going to make a difference. Haven't we grown far beyond that kind of naiveté by now? If not, then we are surely doomed.

  • Sheesh: A conservative response to the special relationship
    • With all the problems the F-35 has (Business Insider has called it a "historic $1 trillion disaster") Israel may get just what it deserves by asking for more of these lead anchors. Ain't the irony grand.

  • 'NYT' public editor faults paper for failing to quote Jews who support BDS
    • A good propaganda outlet always throws a bone or two to the unwitting to make it appear as if they are "balanced." That's all these statements by Sullivan amount to. The powers that be at the NYT can now say, "See, our pubic editor is there to provide a check and balance to our coverage."

      One doesn't have to be too cynical to imagine Sullivan's remarks were orchestrated and strategized at the highest levels. She would never have had the nerve, nor in the end been allowed, to voice such criticism without thorough prior review.

  • The 'New York Times' is now a pro-Israel weapon. Who decided that, I don't know
    • "The New York Times is now a pro-Israel weapon."

      And North is only just now realizing this?

      The NYT has been little more than a propaganda rag for decades. They support, without shame or question, the corporate agenda as well as the Zionist agenda. They lied us into war with Iraq and they are in the process of lying us into war with Iran and possibly even war with Russia. If you read their absurd "coverage" of the situation in the Ukraine, it is clear that the Times is our version of Pravda.

      Maybe, just maybe, writers like North will finally accept this fact and quit referring to the Times as an actual journalistic outlet. It is not. The only time it should be mentioned or quoted is with the clear qualification that it is a propaganda tool, not a nesw outlet.

      Sorry to be so smug. But a whole lot of us have been trying to point this out for a very long time. No one seems to want to hear it.

      It's sort of the same thing as how so many people keep pretending the U.S. is a functional democracy. It is not and has not been for a very long time now.

  • 'Most reactionary government in Israel's history' -- when will liberal Zionists hit bottom?
    • "But Beinart wrote a book about the crisis three years ago, The Crisis of Zionism. And how long can a crisis last before a movement must make a realistic choice, and give up the old ways of dealing with things?"

      Don't worry about Peter. No doubt, he has another book in the works. Beinart knows how to cash in on his Zionist views no matter which way the wind blows. And notice how it always seems to blow particularly hot and hard towards Peter's bank account.

      Thanks for this excellent compendium of the latest views, Phil.

  • 'NY Review of Books' says Tony Judt didn't really mean it when he called for the end of a Jewish state
  • Sanders is leftwing on economic issues, but sees Israel as up against ISIS
    • He is also very purchasable on defense spending. Note his support of the F-35 fighter jet and his tireless efforts to have it based in Burlington. His excuse is something along the lines of "Well, it's going to be approved anyway, so I might as well get some jobs for my constituents out of it."

      Also note his vote to approve huge cuts in the Food Stamp program. Again, he had some sort of "Oh I had to compromise for expediency" type excuse.

      Look closely at his voting record and you will see he rarely if ever votes outside the Democratic Party line unless it's a "safe" vote, one he knows won't cause a bill to actually be passed.

      His claims to be a Socialist are dubious at best, in my opinion. He's been feeding at the public trough for decades now and really hasn't accomplished much beyond making a lot of noise when it's safe to do so.

  • David Horowitz to OSU: 'Jews didn't expel the Arabs in 1948' and 'the occupation is a huge lie'
    • No one who can marshall this kind of hatred and venomous hypocrisy should ever be taken lightly. There are many who believe and follow this "clown." Hitler was a "clown" too. Horowitz is very scary and we ignore him and people like him at our peril.

  • Obama's role model to journalists -- Dorothy Thompson -- turned against Zionism and was silenced
    • Thanks, eljay. I was hoping someone would point this out. The irony is this author using Obama to pin his article. And more so, implying that the room full of toadies who comprise the White House press corp are actually journalists.

  • Non-Jewish Israelis remain faceless, nameless, voiceless in 'New York Times' coverage
    • Once again, this writer is working on the assumption that Rudoren is a journalist. She is not. She is a paid propagandist. Big difference. She doesn't need reminding that Palestinians exist. She knows it full well. Her job is to obfuscate that reality whenever possible. If she must mention Palestinians at all, it is best they be nameless, faceless "others" that Jews must fear. To suggest that they are regular people who can be inconvenienced by the conventions of the theocracy in which they live is not her job.

  • In defense of Cornel West's prophetic voice
    • Kris,

      See my post below for information about West's Speaking fees. At $40,000 a pop, I'm thinking that's as good a reason as any for West to apologize for shilling for Obama in 2008. (assuming he got paid for those appearances. I couldn't verify that.) Our prophet is making more money in one evening than I make in a year. I doubt he has given back any of the money he made "speaking the truth" for Obama during the campaign.

      Maybe he could send some of his extreme wealth to the victims of Obama's global assassination rampage. That might earn him some forgiveness from me.

      You? You I forgive! :) Unless of course you're getting paid big bucks to speak truth to power. Myself, I don't know what to do with all the money I make standing up for what's right. Maybe lunch at Hardy's.

    • Here is a link to a site that quotes West's speaking fees as ranging from $20,000 to $40,000 per speech.

      link to

      He made dozens of appearances in support of Obama during the 2008 campaign. I can't find any reference as to what he charged for those gigs. But one can imagine he didn't do it for free. Or if he did, I doubt he was taking the Greyhound and staying in a Motel 6 during his travels. We all need to make a living. But $40,000 for a one night stand? Really?

      If this is what it means to be "disciplined" for speaking the truth, I want in on some of that discipline.

      We need to be careful we don't idolize people beyond what they deserve. Sure, West has some wonderful things to say. But he rakes in an extraordinary income for the effort. Often times, our modern day prophets turn out to be profiteers as well. That's the world we live in.

    • West was one of many who gave unquestioning and unflagging support to Barack Obama during his 2008 campaign. Any principles and ideals West possessed were set aside because West wanted a black President, no matter what the cost.

      How come there were so many of us out there who could see through Obama's faux-progressive veneer from the very beginning? That's because we were color blind, preferring instead to look at what the man said and did rather than at his racial back ground.

      Look where this has gotten us. We are currently engaged in more direct and proxy wars than at any other time in our history. We assassinate people all around the globe with robot drones. The wealth gap (which of course impacts minorities more than any other demographic) is the largest ever.

      West's current criticisms of this criminal administration are too little to late. An apology for his willful ignorance and lack of moral fortitude in supporting Obama in 2008 would go a lot further in bolstering my opinion of West. The truth was pretty obvious. Like so many alleged Progressives, West chose to ignore it.

  • Rand Paul greeted by neocon opposition, in $1 million ad calling him 'dangerous'
    • Rand Paul is dangerous. But not for any of the reasons given by the neo-cons. He has said that if the Tea Party were an actual party, he would join and run under their banner. In my opinion, this guy is a nut ball of some proportion. And if we think social services in this country are underfunded now, wait till a libertarian gets his hands on the Federal Budget.

      And to borrow from the title of one of Phil's other articles today, who cares what Chris Matthews or Bill Kristol thing about ANYTHING. Talk about nut balls....

  • The epic season of spinning Iran deal begins!
    • I'm with you, HarryLaw. U.S. Influence on the IAEA is only one of the areas where our arm twisting and belligerence will make it nearly impossible for Iran to adhere to this or any other deal. As I've stated in comments on other articles here at MW, it's likely this deal is being set up as a trigger to justify an attack on Iran.

      And as has been pointed out elsewhere, we probably don't need a justification; we'll do whatever we want, as always. But if we have triggers like this in place it will give our impending illegal war of aggression against Iran at least some air of legitimacy.

      It's a con being implemented by the shepherds of Empire. Not the first. Not the last. With the U.S. track record of war mongering, deception, and instigation of illegal wars, it's difficult, if not impossible (certainly not advisable) to believe any of this alleged diplomacy is sincere.

  • How Obama won on Iran
    • Annie, as RoHa pointed out, I wasn't suggesting Iran would actually violate the agreement. I was suggesting that we would make it look like they had to justify an attack.

      One thing we can agree on for sure. As you say, if the U.S.wants to make war with Iran, we can just make war with Iran. As much as I wish it wouldn't happen, I believe that it will, eventually. Only time will tell. Let's hope you are right and I am wrong.

    • In that case, as I suggested in my comment, there will then be an automatic trigger in place for war with Iran when they "violate" the agreement. It is a win win situation for the war mongers.

      Remember how excited everyone was when Obama allegedly "avoided" war with Syria? We saw how long that little bit of peace making on the part of our Nobel Peace Laureate lasted. He did that because he knew we would be initiating a proxy war with Syria via the ISIS scam eventually anyway. Regime change there by hook or by crook. That was always the plan.

      These guys are masters of the long con. They will get their war with Iran, one way or another. Bet on it. It's all a part of the Project for a New American Century. Lybia, Syria. Next up, Iran. It may not happen until the new administration in hired, but it will happen.

    • IMHO, this deal is more Kabuki theater on the part of ObamaCon, the Wizard of Guile. The odds of this deal making it past our Congress are little to none. Obama knows this. But putting together this sham "framework" which has no chance of ever being finalized makes him look like a good guy. After all we've seen this con man do over the last 6 years, does anyone really believe he and his gang of warmongering thugs are actually interested in peace, with Iran or anyone else? Really? We are talking about an administration which is currently engaged in more direct and proxy wars than any other administration in the history of our country. Suddenly they are ambassadors for Peace? Think about it.

      If by some long shot this or any other deal with Iran is ever put into place, chances are it will be little more than a trigger for an actual war. Because no matter how one-sided and degrading such an agreement would be for Iran (and this framework deal is bizarrely weighted against Iran) the U.S. and Israel will find a way to make it look like Iran is in violation of it at some point.

      Ten bucks says there will eventually be an unprovoked attack on Iran by either the U.S. and or Israel. History has shown repeatedly that the U.S. rarely if ever opts for peace when war (no matter how irrational or destructive) is an option.

  • Philosophy prof who likened Palestinians to 'rabid pit bull' ignites protest on CT campus
  • I want my country back
    • Thanks, Annie, for another simple and well-reasoned analysis of hophmi's hasbara.

    • "But this piece suggests that the lobby is imbedded in the New York Times itself, that our leading newspaper sees it as its job to support Israel..."

      This is not new news. It just takes some people longer to admit than others.

      Maybe we are done now using terms like "journalist" to refer to anyone writing about Israel for the Times. The NYT is purely a propaganda outlet (and not only on the issue of Israel) and those like Rudoren who write for the Times are simply paid lobbyists.

  • Bill Maher justifies Netanyahu's racism by saying U.S. has done much worse
    • To Donald, Maximus and Peeesss:

      My bad. I can see I did a lousy job of trying to make an awkward point. I was suggesting that his racism may stem from a dissociative disorder which could be a result of his Zionist ideology. He can't rationally accept the nightmare that Zionism has created in Israel, so he projects his hatred onto the "other," in this case, Arabs/Muslims.

      But yea, he is a disgusting racist. No doubt about it. And my suggesting he is probably a "good person" was not a well thought out remark.

      I've tried for years to come up with an explanation as to why many otherwise rational people (people that I know personally and know aren't evil monsters) become such bizarre zealots when it comes to Israel and Zionism. They totally lose sight of reality. The mental illness theory is me grasping at straws in an attempt to understand the inexplicable.

    • Maher is someone who, like many Zionist zealots, demonstrates what can only be described as a form of mental illness when it comes to his views on Zionism. He is decidedly progressive on many issues, but when it comes to Israel and Zionism he operates under the influence of a complete psychological disconnect from reality. The truth does not matter. You could make yourself blue in the face trying to explain the reality of the situation in Palestine to him and he would deny or deflect every fact, no matter how much proof was presented to him.

      I suspect he is a very good person who is genuinely disgusted by many of the human rights abuses that go on around the world. Yet, there is likely no horror or transgression that Israel could commit which would penetrate his emotional firewall and seem wrong or immoral to him. His racist attitude is the only way he can justify this cognitive disconnect to himself. As long as there is a "them" to blame, he can ignore his own conscience and intellect. If it is right for Israel, it is right. Period. Any other perspective would be unattainable for him in his current state of derangement.

      It does seem that in order for Zionism to be illuminated from our culture, an actual program of re-education and deprogramming would have to be implemented for large numbers of people who support Israel and the Zionist ideology. They do not have the emotional or intellectual ability to react or respond rationally to the truth when it comes to Israel because they suffer from a type of dissociative disorder.

  • Pelosi blasts Netanyahu speech as 'insult to intelligence of U.S.', Amanpour calls it 'dark, Strangelovian'
    • And why, exactly, are we quoting Pelosi as if she is some sort of defender of truth and justice? She is rabidly pro-Zionist; one grandstanding sound bite doesn't change that. The same could be said of pretty much all those in Congress who didn't attend the speech. None of their Kabuki theater outrage being expressed concerning Bibi's deranged blathering changes anything. It's hypocritical posturing of the most despicable kind.

      Pelosi, a war profiteer and corporate shill, was "saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States." In fact, we should all be saddened by the insult to our collective intelligence which is demonstrated by the behavior of each of these bozos we call "leaders."

  • Thanks to Netanyahu, Israel support turns into a political football
    • Yes, a very solid point. In addition, Obama knows full well that his posturing will make him look like some sort of "Progressive" while having little or no impact on the long term policy or strategy of the Empire. He's doing a lot of this now that he is a lame duck. He wants to leave behind him the same illusion he has maintained throughout his presidency, that he is some sort of "liberal" politician. The memory-challenged U.S. public won't remember all the cave ins he made concerning Israel ,nor all his support for the continued ethnic cleansing and carnage taking place in Palestine. What they will remember is him "standing up" to Netanyahu.

      Nonsense. Just more Kabuki theater by ObamaCon, Wizard of Guile.

  • Is flying a nationalist flag ever a progressive act?
    • Brilliant article. Nationalism and capitalism are the root of the problem, not the seed of a solution. Religious fundamentalism is an important part of the equation too. Human evolution, or devolution as the case may be, is a perpetual class struggle involving the oppressor versus the oppressed. That overriding paradigm crosses all national, ethnic and religious boundaries.

  • White House suggests Israel is lying about Iran talks-- as Obama officials shun Netanyahu
    • The irony never ends. The U.S. accusing Israel (or any other country for that matter) of lying? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Before we rejoice too much about this latest play on the part of the Obama administration, just remember that Obama and his gang of thugs are world class liars themselves and pretty much everything out of their mouths about Iran is a lie or a twisting of the truth.

  • Warren supporters can't talk about Palestine
    • I think the days when politicians can claim ignorance of the core issues concerning Palestine are long past. The truth is out there. A few hours on the internet and Warren could have all the information she needs. One does not have to be immersed in the subject to be aware of the obvious injustice of the situation and the human rights abuses being perpetrated by Israel. I suspect Warren takes the position she does on Palestine precisely because of her interest in the money she can receive from supporters of Zionism, and also to avoid the wrath of the Israel Lobby.

      If she is indeed completely ignorant of the realities of the situation in Palestine, is this someone we want to be holding public office, in particular the Presidency?

  • I misremember Iraq
    • Thanks to Mondoweiss for posting this excellent analysis. The responses to this article so far give us an opportunity to see that many of the commenters here at Mondoweiss are just as well informed about the machinations of U.S. Empire as they are about the lies and deceptions inherent in the Zionist movement.

      Now, if only the masses of asses here in the U.S. would learn from their own history. But noooo....Libya, Syria, Ukraine. All examples of Iraq 101 being replayed to the willfully ignorant citizens of our lost nation. And once again our co-conspiritorial corporate media rises to the occasion by parroting and amplifying everything the warmongers spew out.

      The voices here at Mondoweiss provide a glimmer of hope in an absurd, Orwellian world.

  • Netanyahu is a paper tiger
    • I think it is very important to point out that Mondoweiss has certainly been a factor in the gradual change taking place across the board on attitudes toward Israel.

      Thanks to everyone at Mondoweiss, editors and commenters, for always taking a courageous and principled stand on this issue!

  • Drones over Auschwitz and Gaza
    • "...but from the 1967 war, when Israel started out fighting Egypt, Jordan and Syria for its very survival..."

      And there it is. That little lie salted in to Rudoren's article in the NYT, now innocently quoted here at MW by Mark Ellis. And since it's from the mighty Times, how may people might read this and take it as the truth? Well, okay, not many MW readers, but how many other places will this lie appear throughout the media echo chamber and suddenly become uncontested fact?

      That's how Rudoren does Propaganda 101. She is quite adept at this technique, whereby an article which she will be able to claim was a critique of Israel actually winds up spreading disinformation far and wide. No one does it better than the NYT.

  • Catnip and civilians -- a report card on the 'New York Times'
    • Sorry. I can't accept the idea that these two propagandists deserve "praise" for their recent articles. What, one article each which sort of exposes the truth about Israel's war crimes (with plenty of qualifications and spin, of course) out of how many previous and yet to come articles which will be filled with lies and misinformation?

      Rudoren's supposed praiseworthy article is little more than an assignment for Propaganda 101. She promotes the lie that Israel was under some sore of existential threat in 1967, justifies their war of aggression based on that lie, and salts this little tidbit of propaganda into the NYT archives for future use by other Hasbarists.

      Kershner comes a little closer to actually writing a piece of decent journalism. But of course, as Slater points out, she then tarnishes the effort with a blatant lie at the end. Again, a nice bit of salting for later use of a lie by other's who will quote the mighty NYT as a source of legitimate information.

      Praise? Nah. These two should one day be brought before a Truth and Justice Commission, (along with many of the other spin doctors at the Times who write about U.S. foreign policy and use lies to promote our wars of aggression) to account for their misdeeds.

  • Zero (0) Palestinians quoted in 'NYT' piece on rift between US and Israel
    • "To me it reads like a dispatch from the Israel lobby."

      Again, not to belabor the point (okay, I love to belabor this point), any article with Judi Rudoren's name on it (and pretty much any article on the subject of Israel in the NYT) actually is a dispatch from the Israel lobby.

  • Since when is the Southern Poverty Law Center a pro-Israel organization?
    • Here is a link to a video in which Maddow gives us the stock, Zionist propaganda line on Israel. Don't watch it on a full stomach.

      One can't, of course, account for what goes through a person's mind, but given the depth of her knowledge of foreign policy issues overall and her extreme level of intelligence (as I understand it, she has a genius level IQ) my personal opinion is that she is purposefully misinforming her viewers, as she does on so many subjects. It would be difficult to imagine she is unaware of the actually history behind the lies and spin she regurgitates here.

      Like so many talking heads, she is a millionaire propagandist first and foremost, serving up just the necessary amount of infotainment mixed with the occasional factoid to keep her willfully ignorant audience enthralled without ever risking offending her corporate sponsors and pay masters.

      It's sad. At one point during the Bush administration, her radio show actually provided a modicum of truth and resistance to the power elite. She was staunchly antiwar. But that was before the Dems got into office and Rachel got the big promotion to prime time and the huge seven figure salary. Now she is little more than a shill for the Corporate Dems and a huge apologist for the war-mongering Assassinator in Chief who occupies the White House. Clearly she knows who signs her paycheck.

  • 'Great American villain' Henry Kissinger faces citizen's arrest inside a Senate hearing room
  • Netanyahu speech could allow Obama to 'take on the Jewish lobby' as he took on Cuba lobby -- Indyk
    • I have to agree with hopmi on two points. First, "We have a deep and abiding alliance with Israel, including security and intelligence cooperation. It’s not going to change, regardless of the posturing."

      Second, as to the matter of Israel and the U.S. and shared values. Indeed, both countries share many of the same values, such as a complete disregard for international law and even the most basic standards of human rights and social justice when it comes to advancing their own interests. And both countries share a willingness to kill vast numbers of innocent men, women and children by dropping bombs on them and starving them using barbaric economic and political sanctions. Both countries also engage widely in extrajudicial assassinations. Both countries imprison people indefinitely without charge or trial. Both countries share a core notion of exceptionalism which has poisoned the moral underpinnings of their nation's society and culture.

      We share lots of values we can be proud of.

  • 'NYT' perpetuates myth Israel was 'fighting for its very survival' during 1967 war
    • Another fine example of the kind of blatant propaganda practiced by Rudoren and the Times. This is propaganda 101, a clever and often-used technique. Drop a few criticisms of Israel, or salt an actual fact or two into your article, then surround it with false justifications and outright lies. This accomplishes three objectives.

      First, it gives the appearance of "balanced" coverage. The Times can point to these articles and say, "See, we criticize Israel." Second, it excuses and even justifies crimes committed by Israel with the old "They had no choice" defense. Third, it promotes a mythology which can then be quoted by other news sources and taken as fact because, after all, it's from the NYT. The writer is knowingly seeding misinformation for future use.

      One of Rudoren's predecessors, Ethan Bronner, was also particularly skilled in this technique.

      It's articles like this that completely discredit the notion that the Times only slants its coverage of Israel because of the pressure it receives from the Right. No one bullied or pressured Rudoren to tell this lie or use this misinformation technique. She did it on her own. And if there is some suggestion that Rudorin doesn't know the truth about the 1967 war (an idea which is truly impossible to believe, given the fountain of information available to her on this subject) then the next question has to be, how could someone this ignorant of the facts be allowed to serve as Jerusalem Bureau Chief for the Times?

      The answer is, she was hired expressly because of her willingness to obfuscate the truth and promulgate myths and lies. That is her job, and it has always been the job of the Jerusalem Bureau Chief for the Times.

      This is why it is imperative that we quit quoting the Times on this and many other subjects. Their publication is littered with so many lies and so much misinformation, we reference their writing at our peril. And by quoting them and pretending they are a reliable source, we only legitimize and enable their continued program of propaganda and misdirection.

  • 'The New York Times' throws another sop to lovers of Israel
    • "they get them to change the wording"; "these guys (probably) threaten lawsuits and such. they are really rude, pushy, threatening and well funded."

      Sorry, but this doesn't strike me as a legitimate defense of the Times. Even if one is willing to ignore the obvious propagandistic nature of their coverage of Israel (and foreign policy in general), what does it say about any so-called journalistic organization that they are willing to slant their coverage to accommodate a few loudmouths? One could and should expect more from what is allegedly one of the most powerful and respected newspapers in the country.

      I''m usually right there with you on your views, Annie. But IMO you've got this one wrong. The Times' campaign of misinformation is deliberate and well orchestrated. It's not about caving in to pressure groups. It's about advancing a very carefully crafted agenda. Again, just my take on the situation.

    • "The New York Times still feels more pressure from the right than it does from the left."

      Seriously? North expects us to believe that the reason the NYT is a Zionist (and Corporatist) propaganda rag, with Judi Rodoren as their star Zionist propagandist, is because they are under pressure from the right?

      The NYT willfully engages in the most transparent and disgusting forms of yellow journalism and blatant propaganda because the owners and editors want to. And Judi Rudoren has proven time and time again that she is an extremely skilled spin doctor who crafts misrepresentation and misdirection into every piece she writes. She is a liar for hire.

      North needs to get a clue.

  • Can we just retire the phrase 'relative calm'?
    • Even better, how about we retire the NYT and any and all references to it? Especially as concerns creatures like Kershner and Rudoren. They are just two among many shills writing for the Times who with any luck will one day be brought before Truth and Justice Commissions (okay, so I'm an optimist) for their "work" supporting the many war crimes of the U.S. and Israel.

  • Don't let's go to the war of civilizations again
    • Brilliant article. Almost!

      Why in the world taint this excellent analysis by using a quote from the master hypocrite and war criminal, John Kerry? It's like using a line from Charlie Manson, who may well have said some true stuff in his lifetime. But would we quote him on anything for any reason?

      There are so many other honorable and dependable sources which could have been used to point out that "the Palestinian conflict is a material source of terrorist violence." John Kerry?! Oh, please. Can we just stop already with legitimizing characters of his ilk by making them part of a rational discussion?

  • 'NYT' reporter says Palestinians must make 'concessions... they have long avoided'
    • "The New York Times should have provided this context, so we could judge how well these investigations are likely to go."

      Once again, a writer who assumes that the NYT is something other than a blatant propaganda tool. Why we continue to legitimize this rag is beyond me. The only thing that should be written about the Times, the only time it should be quoted or referenced as concerns Israel or any foreign policy issue, is to point out the lies and misinformation that are its stock in trade. North does this, but then he reinforces the notion that the Times is an actual News source by suggesting that all we need to do is remind them that they should provide a context for their propaganda smears. This is particularly true of any thing written by Judi Rudoren. To even suggest that she is a journalist is offensive. Her articles are so absurdly transparent as to be downright criminal. She should be ridiculed and dismissed out of hand.

  • Couldn't there be just one 'NYT' columnist who was critical of Israel? (No)
    • Again, to reiterate, my objection to the NYT is not because they don't "think like I do." It is because they actually print lies that promote war and racism. Your snarky remark suggesting that I only read those that are my "replicas" is uncalled for. You have no idea what I read. Please leave the personal attacks behind.

      And what is clear to me is that if an attitude which refuses to legitimize lies and blatantly destructive propaganda were to become common, the world would be a better place. We can still support alternate points of view and alternative levels of bias. But we should insist on at least a basic level of truth in journalism. And we should certainly shun publications who lie us into wars. The Times, like any newspaper, is entitled to its own opinion and perspective. But they aren't entitled to their own set of facts.

    • The point being, there are lots of places we can get good coverage of genetics, and other such issues, without supporting a publication which lies us into wars and blatantly supports a racist, apartheid regime such as exists in Israel. I think we can agree that the Times attitude and perspective on Zionism goes far beyond the notion that "everyone has a bias." Sure, everyone has a bias, including me. But I don't fabricate stories that foment racial hatred to promote my bias.

      And please, I respect your comments here at MW, Krauss. So I would appreciate it if you wouldn't resort to personal attacks on me. You have no idea how "well-read" I am. In fact, I am quit well-read and well informed. Thank you.

    • My advice: Quit reading the NYT. Quit quoting the NYT. Quit referring to the NYT as anything but a blatant tool of corporate and Zionist propaganda. Anything short of this only legitimizes that disgusting rag which is not fit to line my garbage can.

      There are so many other sources of information available to us. Why do we persist in engaging with the Times? I'm mystified.

  • Fireworks in Ramallah, as Abbas signs treaty to join International Criminal Court
    • As CloakAndDagger points out below, signing these letters is a far cry from acting on them. Abbas is a snake in the grass. He works for Israel and the U.S. Everything he does is calculated to postpone any advancement for the Palestinian people. I hope no one is going to hold their breath waiting for him to act. And even if he does manage to take some kind of action, the hurdles are many and he knows this in advance. As usual, he can look like he is doing something without there being any possibility that anything will come of his actions.

      Suggesting that it is better that Abbas forced a vote too early (one he knew he would lose) so that he could then sign these treaties is somewhat disingenuous. He should have waited to call for the vote, AND signed the treaties. Why are people implying that it was an either/or choice?

  • Palestinian resolution fails at the Security Council, U.S. votes against 'staged confrontation' at the UN
    • Absolutely. This creature Abbas is and always has been a traitor to his people. He works for Israel and the U.S. We can only hope there is a special place in hell for him one day.

  • Sony email chain on behalf of Israel joined Russell Simmons and Michael Lynton with rightwing Zionists
    • Yes. Eleven million is often used also. The reason we only hear about "the 6 million" is because of the Zionists' exclusive focus on the Jewish victims, which totaled approximately 6 million. The loss of memory about the other 5 to 6 million says a lot about the exploitation of the Holocaust by Zionists for their own, Jewish-centric purposes. Remember, for hard core Zionists, only Jewish lives are important.

  • You're on a roll, Mr. President, so abstain from vetoing the Palestinian bid to the UN Security Council
    • This is the second article here at Mondoweiss to imply that Obama's policy change toward Cuba is some sort of enlightened awakening and that somehow this now means he will change his tack toward Palestine. Sorry. Reality encroaches once more.

      link to

      Here is a link to a fine article from Ron Ridenour. There are others our there. The fact is, the change in policy toward Cuba is nothing more than a change of strategy to accomplish regime change there and install (re-install, since the dictatorship which ruled Cuba before the Castro "revolution" was a U.S. installed puppet theater) a government friendly to U.S. Corporations.

      So unless a change in policy toward Israel might somehow benefit the corporatocracy, it ain't gonna happen. Certainly not as a result of some sort of "enlightenment" on the part of our war-mongering sociopathic Assassinator in Chief.

  • NY Times says a Palestinian majority would 'endanger Israel's democratic ideals'
    • I can always be counted on to point out that the NYT is a blatant propagandistic enterprise, not just as concerns its biases on Israel, but as concerns it's international and foreign policy coverage as well. This begs the question, why do we keep writing about it, quoting it, and pretending it is a legitimate news organization? This is a waste of time and a useless intellectual exercise that only enables the Times' often criminal program of disinformation.

      Can we just stop now?

  • We're all anti-American now
    • Thanks Phil. The awakening process can be a long a painful one. I laud you for your continued process over the years. But as Keith points out, you have a lot of catching up to do.

      You might begin by not congratulating Feinstein for doing what she took an oath to do, protect and defend the Constitution. Instead, this war-mongering hypocrite usually protects her own interests first and foremost. She is a despicable war profiteer, among other violations of U.S. law and her oath of office. Perhaps I am being overly cynical, but it wouldn't surprise me to discover that the 'courage' you suggest she has demonstrated is in some way benefitting her financially. Certainly she must view it as of some use to her politically. Otherwise she wouldn't bother.

      During her time as leader of the Senate's Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (2001-2005) she and her husband, Richard Blum benefited enormously from decisions she made directing appropriations to two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband.

      She has also been a staunch defender of the many illegal domestic spying programs rubber-stamped by our absurd FISA court system. Oh, well she did get a little upset when the CIA was caught spying on her and her committee! How dare they!

      Her support of all of our illegal and immoral wars of aggression is also a crime.

      Anyone who has reached the level of power and influence represented by membership in our Senate is by definition a criminal and a corrupt hypocrite. That's the very nature of our fetid corporate political system. Once we all realize that, then some real awakening will begin to occur.

  • Mamdani's 'holistic' challenge: Anti-Zionists must persuade Jews they can only be safe by dismantling the Jewish state
    • Right. All those poor Jews living as a "scattered minority" across the United do they ever survive in such an unsafe environment? They should unite and form a Jewish State here, then pass laws privileging them and giving them dominance over all the non-Jews. That would make them much safer, no doubt.

  • Whew! Likely DefSec nominee said U.S.-Israel relationship has never been stronger
  • 'You don't want us to breathe!': Video captures everyday frustration of life under occupation in East Jerusalem
  • Sea change down under: Ex-Australian Foreign Minister announces himself a 'Friend of Palestine'
    • Right Steve,

      We see this a lot from politicians. It says they were bought and paid for while they were in office. Now that they have their pension and their investments sewn up, hey, why not pretend to have principles? It will help the cause, but it's pretty disgusting on its face.

  • Ambassador Power to kick off 3-hour event on 'never-ending' genocide of Jews
    • "Ms. Power is one of the most despicable people on the world stage today. She is the living, breathing definition of hypocrisy."

      So true, Maximus. Which begs the question, why does someone like Phil Weiss feel he has to suck up to her with stuff like he says in this article?

      To repeat what I always say, Phil has done amazing work with this site, but he has what at times can only be called a mind-boggling penchant for fawning over people in power. No pun intended. Reference his remarks about Brooks in an article yesterday, his comments half-praising Judi Rudoren and other pro-Zionist propagandists at the NYT.

      Can't live with him, can't live without him. It's the inconsistency I find distasteful.

      But keep up the good work anyway, Phil. Just try to use better judgement in your choice of individuals to laud. Powers is truly a sociopath and a monstrous war criminal. Please take her off your list of people whom you think show courage and leadership. Yuck!

  • David Brooks's romance of community
    • Donald, thanks for pointing this out. As much as I admire Phil Weiss and appreciate the amazing work he does with this site, he still has a tendency to fawn over guys like Brooks.

      "I’ve always liked Brooks because he’s actually interested in meaning and he’s such a clear writer."

      The only "meaning" Brooks is interested in is the meaning of his pay check. He's a pandering yellow journalist (though one hates to use the word journalist in conduction with Brooks), at best. At worst, he's a scheming propagandist. Why anyone would give him even a moments encouragement or suggest that he has any legitimacy at all is beyond me.

  • Another New York Times' reporter's son is in the Israeli army
    • Here is a link to a good article from Jeffrey St. Claire at CounterPunch about this penchant those of us on the left have for quoting the Times, over and over again, no matter how biased and absurd we realize its coverage is.
      link to

      The substantive quote from the article:

      "Chomsky taught two generations how to read the paper of record, how to detect the warps in its stories, the subtle biases and false constructions, the decisive elisions of context, and servility toward elite power. What Chomsky could do not was to teach us how to stop reading the New York Times."

      And how to stop legitimizing it by using it as a reference as if it were an actual news organization. We'll see plenty of criticism of the NYT pro-Zionist coverage, but then the very next article we read will be littered with quotes from the Times.

      I believe a good term for this paradox is "epistemic closure: In US political debate, a reference to closed systems of deduction that are unaffected by empirical evidence." In other words, despite the overwhelming evidence that the NYT is nothing more than a propagandistic rag, we continue to refer to it as a source for real information.

  • Sweden's recognition of Palestine will license activists
    • "America’s apparent inability to stop the slaughter…" in reference to the 2008/2009 massacre, and "Washington’s impotence in the face of Israel’s latest massacre in Gaza," in reference to this summer's carnage is so far off base as to be laughable. To suggest or imagine that the U.S. is anything but a partner and willing participant in these bouts of ethnocide that take place in Gaza is absurd. We aren't unable, nor are we impotent. As Glenn Greenwald points out in the article linked here, we are financing, encouraging and participating in the slaughter.

      Ahmed Moor knows better. So why does he make these ridiculous remarks in this article?

  • Abbas calls on UN Security Council to end the occupation
    • And no doubt, despite his empty rhetoric at the UN, Abbas, the traitorous collaborator, will do everything he can to obstruct any effort on the part of the Palestinians to accede to the Rome Statute. Let's hope there is a special place in Hell for creatures like Abbas. He is the Palestinians worst enemy.

  • Rosh Hashanah After Gaza
    • Wow. Perfect. This is the best call for realism in the Jewish community I have seen in a while. The notion that the kind of tepid middle-of-the -road moralism expressed by Rabbi Jacobs will accomplish anything is absurd. Yet so many writers continue to endorse it.

      "Rabbis need to simultaneously address the very real fears of those of us with loved ones in Israel,…"

      The "very real fears" would evaporate if Rabbis would demand justice and call Israel to account for the horrors they have unleashed against the Palestinian people. Would she suggest that a rapist's fear of his victim's defensive response is some sort of "very real" and justified concern?

      Address the crimes being committed, Rabbi Jacobs, and the rest of your apologist rhetoric will be unnecessary.

  • US elites are vulnerable to donor pressure on Israel question
    • Great piece. But I feel obliged to add that the entire analysis loses credibility when it uses Thomas Friedman and the New York Times as sources.

      It's well past time we quit enabling the propaganda rag that the NYT is. And Friedman? Come on. This buffoon should be run out of town on a rail, not quoted as if he has some kind of legitimacy.

      There is plenty of credible information in this article without resorting to these yellow-journalism sources.

  • Senator Warren's progressive supporters demand accountability for her rightwing pro-Israel positioning
    • Hophmi, those of us who support human rights for everyone are not "anti-Israel fanatics." We are human rights and social justice fanatics!

      Also, when we hrasjf's hold so-called Progressive politicians to account for supporting U.S. war crimes and the crimes of the Zionist regime in Israel , it's because these types of candidates generally accomplish little or no advancement of liberal agendas anyway. If their support for death and destruction can be so easily bought and paid for, how can we possible expect them to have enough integrity to support any real Progressive agenda? History has proven that we can't.

    • "Remaining silent was one thing, but repeating Likud talking points was worse."

      This notion that it's kind of okay to be silent on issues of war and peace is part of the problem with so-called Progressives. "Many of Warren’s progressive supporters, who had been urging the senator to speak out on war and peace issues, were shocked." There are only two possible reasons why they could possibly be "shocked" by Warren's statements, or by her continued support for U.S. wars of aggression around the globe. One is because they haven't been paying attention; Warren has been giddily pro-war and pro-Zionist from the get-go. The other (and more likely reason in my opinion) is that they are too willing to compromise their core values just to get these kind of faux-liberal candidates into office. It's a familiar "Don't ask, don't tell" strategy on the part of Progressives which has brought us the likes of Barack Obama.

      Bernie Sander is another example of a heartily pro-war, pro-Zionist politician who continually gets a pass from "liberals" because they buy into his sham populist rhetoric. Even a cursory look at Warren's or Sanders' voting records makes it clear that neither of them is a Progressive. The same could be said of Obama (well before Progressives elected him, not once, but twice).

      Looking the other way when it comes to war, just to make what they perceive to be "gains" on a few Progressive wedge issues, is a tried and true tradition for many on the Left. Of course, as history has proven, they wind up losing on all fronts because they are supporting con artists who have no principles in the first place. It's a failed strategy that will be repeated this coming election cycle.

  • Front-page 'NYT' piece on foreign influence on D.C. thinktanks leaves out Israel
    • I'm not sure why anyone still expresses amazement at the lengths the NYT will go to to propagandize Israel, or any other foreign policy issue for that matter. Robert Parry has an excellent piece out about the blatant whitewashing being done by the Times as concerns the Nazis extremists in the Ukraine.

      link to

      Isn't it high time we accepted the fact that the NYT is nothing more than our own Empire's version of the Soviet era Pravda? By constantly writing about this rag as if it were anything else, and by constantly quoting it and referring to it, we are only legitimizing and enabling its lies and misrepresentations. The NYT should be left out of any serious discussion because the information it publishes is pure fictional nonsense, intended to confuse and misdirect.

  • Israel has three years to end the occupation -- Abbas
  • The Palestinian message to Israel: Deal with us justly. Or disappear
    • I hope the moderator will check out the link Pixel supplied and post it to the main Mondowiess page. Here it is again, just in case, and for those who couldn't get the other one to work. This should be viewed as widely as possible.

      link to

      How can any rational human being pretend that there was a "terrorist" with a rocket launcher hiding under every one of these destroyed homes and buildings? What a perversion of reason and logic. More proof that Zionism has demented the intellect of its supporters. It is a form of mental illness.

      I was somewhat surprised that whoever put this amazing slide presentation together (I didn't see any credits) repeatedly used the word "conflict" to describe this devastation. Clearly this was a maniacal killing spree by a people bent on revenge.

  • Elizabeth Warren says killing Palestinian civilians is 'the last thing Israel wants'
    • And yet, just watch as so-called Progressives flock to the polls to support her no matter what office she runs for. This woman makes my spine crawl. Her "benign Granny" persona masks the true warmonger she is. But following the Obama model, she will lure Progressives into her lair with false rhetoric and outright lies. This is a very scary person. I think I fear her more than Hillary. At least Hillary makes no bones about her thirst for blood.

  • Hillary Clinton just lost the White House in Gaza -- same way she lost it in Iraq the last time
    • Phil expects too much intelligence from voters. The patterns are always the same. Fear wins, rationality loses. That's Hillary's ticket to the White House.

      IMHO the creation of the Islamic State is an intentional strategic machination of U.S. foreign policy in order to maintain the maximum level of instability in the Middle East in order to maintain U.S. public support for Israel regardless of how bloodthirsty the Zionists become. The more violent and threatening the Islamic State becomes, the less import will be the more "liberal" voices of what Phil considers to be the Democratic base. Fear mongering the American Sheeple is a tried and true election-year tradition. This coming Presidential cycle will be no different. The hotter the situation in the middle east, the more irrationally frightened the Sheeple will be. They will be chomping at the bit to vote for Hillary. The more of a battle ax she is, the better her chances. And those who cant' bring themselves to be the warmonger type will vote for her because she is a woman.

  • Jodi Rudoren loves a winner
    • I'm keeping this article so I can refer to it the next time someone writes a piece here at Mondoweiss and suggests Rudoren "deserves credit" (or some such nonsense) when she accidentally lets some small item of truth about Israel slip through. This woman is a brazen propagandist, not to mention a disgusting human being. She should be put on trial for incitement against Palestinians.

  • Conflict Resolution 101: Talk to Hamas
    • As is so often the case with well-intentioned and heroic activists such as Benjamin, she is having a conversation with herself based on nonsensical, magical thinking.

      "For the past month, Secretary Kerry has been traveling around the Middle East trying to negotiate an end to the violence."

      As Glenn Greenwald points out in his recent article, the notion that the U.S. has even the slightest interest in trying to negotiate an end to the violence is absurd.

      link to

      In fact, the U.S. is part and parcel of the problem, which would not exist without U.S. support and funding of Israel, and is part and parcel of the current rampage in Gaza which would not be happening if the U.S. had not given Israel a green light to proceed.

      "You can’t presume to be a mediator and then exclude one key party because you don’t like them."

      More importantly, you can't presume, as Benjamin does, that the U.S. is interested in being a mediator. That's just crazy talk.

      It's not about whether U.S. strategy in excluding Hamas makes sense, or whether the U.S. is or is not effectively attempting to be a mediator. That suggestion is Orwellian, at best. The U.S. is not interested in mediating anything. The U.S. is interested in promoting and defending Israel, period. Any suggestion to the contrary, which is what Benjamin's article is about, it pure fantasy.

      Include Hamas? Include Hamas in what, Israel's and the US's collusion to dispossess and oppress the Palestinian people? Of course the counterproposals Hamas has put forward are reasonable. Of course including Hamas in any supposed negation or peace process is logical. But reason and logic have no bearing on what is being done in Palestine. Israel and the U.S. have no interest in "getting at the underlying systemic problem." So there is no use in making suggestions about how they might accomplish that. It's the wrong conversation.

      Much as I admire many of Media Benjamin's direct actions and her courage and willingness to put herself on the line physically, she should quit with this sort of "here's how we can all just get along" thinking. We can only all get along when we all want to get along. Neither Israel nor the U.S. has or ever has had any such intention. That is the issue which should be addressed.

  • The selected writings of Samantha Power
    • Powers is just one more example of the type of sociopath who rises to positions of influence and power in our society. She has no social conscience, lacks the ability to empathize, and will say and do whatever it takes to advance and support her own interests and belief structure no matter what the cost to others. The way she crafts her statements for the greatest pro-Zionist (and pro-Samantha) impact while attempting to give the appearance of compassion and objectivity is chilling. Yet she probably considers herself a normal, dedicated functionary of the system. She personifies the banality of evil.

  • The killing fields
    • So, hophmi, are you suggesting that the killing of civilians in Gaza is okay because civilians are also killed elsewhere? Or is it the fact that so many more civilians have been killed elsewhere compared to the massacre in Gaza which makes it okay? Pretty gruesome logic.

      This kind of moral-equivalency argument used by defenders of Israel is one of the more disgusting hasbara tactics. The "Yea, but look what they do" justification. Or the "why don't you criticize them as much as you do Israel" rejoinder. All loss of innocent life is abhorrent. It's not our job when addressing the situation in Palestine to also mention every other injustice on the planet.

      You can try to defend Israel's conduct if you want to, but please don't try to suggest that what they are doing isn't immoral just because everyone else is doing it. If you are willing to set your moral benchmark so low, then what has defending Israel cost you?

      And Kay24 makes an excellent point. I second his/her "Get real" remark.

  • Breaking: Israel shelling hospital in Beit Hanoun, injured Palestinians and internationals trapped inside
    • I agree with your suggestion that we are being occupied by Israel. But Obama's hands aren't tied by anything more than his own lack of empathy. He has no other election to win, no social agenda to try to pass through Congress since his agenda is wholly corporate and wholly supported by our corporate Congress no matter what he does. He has no heart and he requires no spine because clearly he is a sociopath, just like every other US President. You don't get to hold the office if you have a conscience. He has no problem untying his hands to unilaterally order drone strikes around the globe, killing innocent men women and children on a whim.

    • Not ever, Just? I guess you must be excluding the actions of the US over the last 60 years or so. We are responsible for what some estimates say is more than a million deaths in Iraq alone. Not to mention the complete destruction of their infrastructure and political and social structure. In Vietnam, over 3 million were slaughtered. Israel will have to try much harder to even come close to the level of indiscriminate carnage and destruction old Uncle Sam is responsible for. But I guess Israel gets some extra points for the utter cruelty and sheer bloodlust of their "work" in Gaza. But than again, what about the Phoenix project in Vietnam?

      Once our empire (as MLK said, "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world…") collapses, Israel will cease to exist. Let's hope both events occur sooner rather than later. We have tens of generations of healing ahead of us yet before the horrors of these two monstrous nations are forgotten.

  • Gaza massacre is generating ideological crisis in American Zionists
    • "Jews of conscience must organize with one foot inside the Jewish community and one foot outside it."

      When Jews, and all other racial, ethnic, nationalistic, genderistic, ageistic and divisive "ism" and "istic" oriented groups, put both feet inside the earthling community and leave the tribalism and otherism behind, that's when the world will finally begin to heal. This "us and them" stuff is the core of the problem with the human condition. Okay. I know. Dream on. And now I have to go attend my local Celtic separatist gathering. Because as everybody knows, it's we Irish who are really better than everybody else. Go Leprechauns!

  • Sawyer blunder indicative of noxious bias against Palestinians in American journalism
    • :...even if the images to accompany the story were switched after the copy had been written,…"

      What? The copy itself is a bald faced lie and an intentional misrepresentation of the situation. There are no images of "an Israeli family trying to salvage what they can" or “one woman standing speechless among the ruins,” because there are no "ruins." The pitiful rockets the are "raining down" on Israel rarely cause even minimal amounts of damage. There has been no loss of life in Israel in recent days.

      Here's what qualifies for a headline at Ynet. "Rocket explodes in Sdot Negev Regional Council causing damage to a structure." Ooh, damage to a structure. Meanwhile hundreds of tons of sophisticated and massively destructive bombs have been dropped on the people of Gaza.

      Neither ABC News, Diane Sawyer, nor any of the other disgustingly biased and slanted corporate media deserve "the benefit of a doubt" this author is willing to give them. They run propaganda like this knowing that even if someone catches them in the lie and the are forced to present a retraction, the damage is done. Very few of the 7 million viewers who saw this blatant piece of misinformation will remember any apology. What they will carry in their minds is the false image of bombed out Israel homes. That was the obvious intention of the "error" on the part of ABC. Oh to be a fly on the wall of some corporate office at ABC. It wouldn't surprise me if someone is getting a bonus and a promotion for this clever "mistake."

      Funny isn't it, how there are never seem to be any "blunders" which benefit Palestinians in any way, or anyone poor and downtrodden. They always seem to benefit the power elite. What a coinkydink.

      These so-called news outlets are nothing more than pro-Zionist propaganda mouthpieces, just as they are pro-corporate propaganda mouthpieces. What they air has no bearing on reality and in no way represents actual human actions or interests. Their function is to blatantly misinform people and obscure anything even remotely resembling the truth. Treating them as anything but Orwellian spin machines is not only a strategic error, it is a moral error.

  • 'Jewish' or 'Israeli' -- NYT, BBC, and CNN make different word choice
    • Of course I am opposed to home demolitions. The point of my comment was that Israel uses this barbaric tactic only against Palestinians, not against Jews. I assume the point of your question to me, hophmi, was to deflect from that reality.

    • Yes.

      And by the way, hophmi, do you expect the homes of those alleged Jewish perpetrators will be demolished (especially now that several of them have apparently confessed) as were the homes of the Palestinian "suspects" in the abduction of the three Israeli teens? Gee, I'll bet not, despite Netanyahu's claim that they will face "the full weight of the law,” insisting, “We do not differentiate between the terrorists."

      Once again, apartheid law enforcement by an apartheid state.

  • In 'NYT' tale of two mothers, the occupation is a human-relations problem
    • Every time I see it, I will have to comment on it. "...and all to Rudoren’s credit."

      Nonsense. None of the blatant propaganda Rudoren spews out is to her credit. Saying so is a mistake, strategically, morally, and just plain common sense wise. Her misuse of the press to indoctrinate simple minds and poison rational discussion borders on the criminal. Unless we say so at every turn, and unless we quit giving her "credit" as if she has made some positive contribution to the dialogue, we are working against our own best interests in the struggle for Palestinian rights and social justice.

      It's a simple concept which seems lost on many otherwise brilliant and heroic writers and journalists.

  • Can a neocon change his spots (and come back as a liberal interventionist for Hillary Clinton)?
    • "Eric Alterman has a column at Salon blasting Bill Kristol for banging the war drum again."

      Even though we know Eric Alterman is a wack-job pro-Zionist zealot, as revealed on this site repeatedly, people continue to site his opinions about other issues as if they mean something. It's this kind of inconsistency that hurts our strategy. Either we acknowledge and reject lunacy or we embrace it and enable it. You can't have it both ways. Any use of the New York Times as a "journalistic" outlet falls into the same category. On and on and on we go. And so the truth becomes relative rather than relevant.

  • The cost of fear: a night on the West Bank
    • Just,

      You have made such an excellent point. In my travels in the West Bank, it was rare for me to receive anything but gracious smiles and overwhelming generosity. At worst, I might be ignored at times, as anyone on a busy street might be by passersby intent on their own errands and thoughts. From the taxi drivers to the merchants to even strangers passing by I always felt welcome and safe. At times, it was difficult to imagine these were people who have been crushed by a brutal and unrelenting occupation for generations. Friends of mine who are Jewish (and in most cases very Jewish looking) and have traveled in the West Bank have reported the same experience as mine.

      In Israel, where admittedly I spent very little time, I was lucky to get even an occasional glance or a smile from strangers. In stores and on buses, I always felt unwelcome as if I was being excluded. . When people did bother to interact with me, it was usually with a brusqueness bordering on rude dislike. The overall atmosphere struck me as one of anger and arrogance. I generally felt like I was the "other," and a lesser other at that. At first I was taken aback. Then it dawned on me that I am clearly not Jewish looking (Irish looking as a clover leaf) and though obviously I can't know for sure, I assume this was the reason for the hostility. I was experiencing racism first hand, being disliked because of my ethnicity, or lack there of in this case.

      Very sad.

  • 'Washington Post' conflates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism
    • "Perhaps some of what is reported is very real (I assume much of it is; the New York Times ran a similar piece the same day)"

      Sorry, but using the New York Times as some sort of bench mark for the truth is getting to be a real nonstarter, especially as concerns anything to do with Israel or anti-semitism. Since the Times has proven itself to be nothing more than a propaganda rag for Zionism, it would seem more appropriate to assume that the information is exaggerated or slanted to be pro-Zionist than to assume that "much of it is" real. And how "coincidental" is it that similar articles would run in the Washington Post and the Times on the same day? Can you say Zionist lobby manipulation of these very willing propaganda outlets?

  • Human rights activists are 'out front' of others and 'thank goodness they are' --Hillary Clinton
    • Seafoid, thanks for pointing out that Clinton is responsible for unconscionable amounts of carnage. Unfortunately, the vast majority of so-called progressives will forget all about her war crimes (not to mention her unflagging support of corporatism as well as Zionism) when it comes election time, just like they did for Obama in his second run. After all, she's a Democrat and a Woman! Disgusting. She belongs on trial in the Hague. IMHO, any commentary on her (including this article) which does not mention her crimes is specious at best.

      And compliments for Terry Gross? That's gross indeed. She is brilliant alright; a brilliant propagandist. If we aren't telling it like it is about people like this then what we are doing is enabling their chicanery.

Showing comments 148 - 101