Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3250 (since 2010-02-17 01:44:49)


Radical dissident. Retired.


Showing comments 3250 - 3201

  • 'Foreign Policy' says 'Israel lobby' donors are making 'pro-Israel the new circumcision'
    • PHIL- "Its argument is that rich donors have transformed Hillel into a strenuously pro-Israel organization...."

      Zionism. Money. Power. They all seem to go together, don't they? But which came first? Do wealthy Jews become more "strenuously" Zionist because they are more wealthy? Or do staunch Zionists become wealthy, in part, due to Jewish-Zionist kinship and solidarity? Are there substantial material benefits from adhering to Jewish Zionism? How many Jewish fat-cats are anything other than staunch Zionists? Is there gold to be mined from perceived anti-Semitism?

  • Zionism is blocking the path to peace
    • YONIFALIC- "The list of cultural Zionists is just wrong."

      Well that settles that! If you simply say that I am wrong, who am I to argue? The problem is, what little argument you present concerning Arendt, Einstein and Chomsky contradicts your conclusion. You admit that Hannah Arendt was a Zionist of a sort, don't deny that she opposed a Jewish state, yet deny that she could be described as a cultural Zionist. You dismiss Einstein because he was claimed by both sides. Illogical. The Zionists claim Einstein because of his work and advocacy for the Hebrew University in Palestine. The anti-Zionists claim Einstein because of his stated opposition to a Jewish state. Sounds like a cultural Zionist to me! And denying that Chomsky was/is a cultural Zionist referencing a Mondoweiss article where Norman Finkelstein describes Chomsky as a cultural Zionist is an interesting argument to say the least.

      Yoni, I am not interested in arguing who is included in all of the sub-classifications of Zionism. Generally speaking, all of those who advocate for a Jewish state are considered political Zionists. All of those who advocate for a Jewish presence in Palestine without a Jewish state are generally referred to as cultural Zionists. Arendt, Einstein and Chomsky all opposed the creation of a Jewish state. All of them experienced some degree of anti-Semitism and were aware of the Holocaust and to some degree it influenced their attitudes towards the creation of a Jewish cultural sanctuary. Your conclusion that "All forms of Zionism are evil and just represent an attempt to legitimize one of the most vile and disgusting forms of white racist genocidal colonialism...." is both factually incorrect and, frankly, repugnant. I have no idea where you come off libeling these three who I have correctly labeled as cultural Zionists.

      It seems to me that you have an agenda and a lot of bias. As for the cultural aspect of Zionism, that could have been easily achieved without political Zionism, without a Jewish state, with far fewer Jews in Palestine, and without the unholy alliance between the Jewish state and imperialism. Speaking of imperialism, you seem to suffer from myopia in regards to the empire. It is one thing to condemn Israel's atrocious behavior, quite another to ignore the role of empire in enabling that behavior, and in engaging in other reprehensible behavior at least as bad as Israel. And while you act like an anti-Zionist on steroids, I have yet to detect a whiff of anti-imperialism. If you are living in the US now, then perhaps you should share some of that righteous indignation.

      I am going to end this with a couple of quotes pertaining to cultural Zionism. The first is from your link to Finkelstein, the second a website I Googled. I might add that at least some of the strands of cultural Zionism seem somewhat similar to the attempt by Native Americans to salvage what remains of their culture from the Western homogenization juggernaut through the creation of museums, etc., something which I generally approve of.

      "The accurate term is a CULTURAL Zionist, meaning he (like his father) was (and remains) committed to the revival of Hebrew culture in Palestine." (Norman Finkelstein) link to

      "Ahad HaAm's solution was cultural Zionism: the establishment in Palestine of small settlements aimed at reviving the Jewish spirit and culture in the modern world. In the cultural Zionist vision, a small number of Jewish cadres well versed in Jewish culture and speaking Hebrew would settle in Palestine. Ahad HaAm believed that by settling in that ancient land, religious Jews would replace their metaphysical attachment to the Holy Land with a new Hebrew cultural renaissance. Palestine and the Hebrew language were important not because of their religious significance but because they had been an integral part of the Jewish people's history and cultural heritage." link to

    • YONIFALIC- "The differences between cultural Zionism and political Zionism were minor."

      Since cultural Zionists such as Arendt, Einstein and Chomsky opposed the creation of a Jewish state, I would hardly consider that a minor difference.

  • Israel isn't worried about ISIS
    • INBOUND39- "I do not think I am wildly exagerrating Russia’s capabilities at all."

      Sure you are. I am not talking about the quality of Russia's weapons, I am talking about force projection, the amount of military force which can be brought to bear. If you take into account all of the military capabilities of US allies in the area, including NATO member Turkey and potentially Israel, the number of troops, aircraft, etc. is absolutely enormous, and that is not even counting US forces which are located in Middle East bases too numerous to mention. Russia, on the other hand, has a relatively small contingent of surprisingly effective airpower designed to achieve limited objectives. Russia is incapable of sustaining a major military effort, Putin would commit political suicide to attempt it. I am not the only one who feels this way. A couple of quotes from The Saker, a big Putin fan.

      "Why do I say partially? Because while the current air-defense capabilities of the Russian forces in Syria are adequate to defend the Syrian airspace against a limited attack, they are far from being sufficient to prevent the US from a determined large scale attack. All the Russian did is raise the costs of intervention for the USA, but they did not make it impossible."


      "But I also think that it is crucial for all of us, who are sympathetic to Russia and the anti-imperial Resistance worldwide, to stop presenting this intervention like some kind of “game changing” “done deal” in which the Russian Bear will crush all the terrorists and restore peace to Syria. Alas, we are still very very far from that." (The Saker) link to

    • INBOUND39- "It cannot do anything about that because Russia will squash Israel like a gnat."

      You are wildly exaggerating Russia's capability for force projection in the Middle East, which is rather limited. The Russian airpower in Syria has done amazingly well considering its limited capabilities. I would be astonished if there was a Syrian military victory in view of the forces supporting ISIS. The empire is on the attack globally to secure hegemony and is spurning any negotiated settlement.

  • Hillary Clinton equates ISIS and Hamas
    • SIBIRIAK- "But U.S. imperialism continues unabated."

      I would suggest that the empire has significantly metamorphosed such that it can no longer be considered the nationalistic US empire, but rather the global empire of the corporate/financial elites, your "Empire of Capital" a more accurate description. This is a significant development not fully appreciated. Many analysts describe the American empire as declining, which is partially true. However, the global empire of the global elites seems to me growing stronger. This altered empire transcends the various nation states such that some of the elites of Russia, China and Iran are, in reality, imperial elites more loyal to the global system underpinning their own power than to the nation state in which they reside. And while the balance of power remains in the US, the new trade agreements indicate where elite loyalty lies. A couple of quotes and a link regarding the TPP, the latest disaster in the making.

      "The TPP is not simply an economic document, about trade in goods, services and, investor money capital flows. TPP is first and foremost a political document. TPP is the latest salvo fired by global corporations against national and popular sovereignty, against Democracy itself. The key to understanding how TPP is about global corporations setting up their own global government is contained in its Chapters 27 and 28.

      In chapter 27, TPP provides for a new executive-legislative body whose decisions will usurp national and state-local legislative functions and representative democracy — already under serious attack everywhere by corporate money and other initiatives. And in chapter 28, TPP provides for a new kind of global corporate court system, run by corporate-friendly lawyers and hirelings who will make decisions which cannot be reviewed, appealed or challenged in existing court systems of any TPP member country. TPP ‘courts’ will take precedence over US and other national court systems, already under heavy attack by corporate forces vigorously promoting arbitration as a means by which to bypass the formal judicial system in the US." (Jack Rasmus) link to

    • THEO- "First of all, that was not a defensive war...."

      Yes, I know. I'm not sure of the relevance of that in regard to Israel's military capabilities to wage conventional warfare. Nor was the Arab defeat the consequence of poor quality Soviet equipment. They were foolishly unprepared under the circumstances. Furthermore, the US was not Israel's primary weapons supplier until after the 1967 war. At the time, the Israeli air force was flying primarily French built Mirage jets, the acquisition of F-16s years in the future. It is never wise to underestimate your opponent just because you don't like them. Hezbollah's success is primarily due to the fact that they wisely adopted tactics suited to the asymmetrical situation.

    • THEO- "The IDF did not face a modern, well trained military force until they faced the Hezbollah and even they are not what I would call a modern army."

      Are you including the 1967 Six Day War?

    • ROHA- "At the moment it looks as though, with Russian support, the Syrian Army and Hezbollah are going to succeed in taking Syria back."

      Fantasies may be fun, but reality eventually prevails. Things will get worse before they get better, and I doubt that they will get better. Syria has effectively been destroyed, its economy in tatters. The empire has nearly unlimited funding to hire replacement mercenary jihadists and to arm and supply them. Russia's involvement is temporary, merely designed to encourage negotiations. Russia lacks the means for significant force projection in the Middle East. Russia cannot get involved in a direct conflict with NATO, nor get bogged down in a war of attrition. The scenario you wish for would cause the collapse of the current imperial order and is not even being contemplated. Hillary and the Republicans are making it quite clear that the current long war for imperial hegemony will not be slowed down, rather, they all call for escalation including increased special operations forces. Their views reflect the consensus of the dominant elites as represented by The Council on Foreign Relations. In 2016, a huge pile of you-know-what is going to hit an enormous fan.

  • 'NYT' only counts Jews when it pronounces Thursday 'deadliest day of violence'
    • SIBIRIAK- "That seeming contradiction can be resolved...."

      Yes, and it is not just BDS. It also pertains to the Judeo-Zionist ideology of Gentile anti-Semitism and eternal Jewish victimhood. The empirical data, particularly in the US, leads to the conclusion that this fear of anti-Semitism (strongly promoted after the 1967 war) is more-or-less irrational. However, it is also completely logical given the ideology of Zionism. I refer to this as the logic of irrationality where fealty to group ideology necessitates the denial of empirical reality. Actually, it is a rather common phenomenon, self-deception the rule not the exception, the majority spending their entire lives lying to themselves, BS the currency of economics, religion and empire.

    • STEPHEN SHENFIELD- "The Zionists are not and have never been against anti-Semitism. They regard and have always regarded anti-Semitism as an important positive factor in stimulating the growth of Jewish “national” consciousness and uniting Jews around their banner."

      Indeed, anti-Semitism is the mother's milk of Zionism. How else to explain the cozy relationship between Zionists and the Ukrainian neo-Nazis or with the ISIS terrorists?

  • How rightwing settlers and a wealthy Aussie Zionist used Facebook to control Netanyahu gov't
    • Here we go again! Yet another Jewish fat-cat Zionist pushing the Zionist agenda. Talk all you want about the young Jews abandoning Israel and Zionism, what I want to know is what is the correlation between Jewish wealth and power and Zionism? What percentage of Jewish fat-cats are Zionists versus non-Zionists versus anti-Zionists? Of course, even by asking the question I will be labeled an anti-Semite. Keep the power hidden, trot out the Protocols, shriek about tropes.

  • ISIS as a fascist movement
    • ANTIDOTE- "unlike the US, Israel did not in any way support the fundamentalist Islamic state of Saudi Arabia."

      Israel and Saudi Arabia have been de facto allies for at least several years, probably longer. This alliance gained visibility due to their mutual efforts to get the US to attack Iran, and their current efforts to destroy Syria.

    • JLEWISDICKERSON- "England/Britain and the U.S. greatly encouraged fundamentalist Islam to undermine secular Arab states!"

      Include Israel as well. US/Israel have consistently worked to promote fundamentalist Islam at the expense of secular regimes, then to "lament" the rise of religious fundamentalism and lack of secular democracy, a consequence of their policies. The Middle East is a mess because of us. However, I seriously doubt that this is some sort of mistake, the current internal conflicts seem to me much too beneficial to imperial hegemonic stratagems.

  • Running for top UN job, UNESCO chief to appear at Zionist celebration on Capitol Hill
    • MOOSER- “Keith” you better face the fact that “Hophmi” is right. If you insist on talking about “the Judaization of imperial power” the Emperor is going to get pissed and come down on us like a load of bricks."

      That is why I have to sneak in these comments quickly before there are any more of these anti-Semitism laws and I may face prosecution for disagreeing with Hophmi or failing to laugh at your jokes. Lord Bilgewater? Now that was funny!

    • HOPHMI- "...anti-Semitic comments...."

      You wear your anti-Gentile animus and intellectual dishonesty on your sleeve. Fortunately, you are not the commissar in charge.

    • YONIFALIC- "The Rabbinic system provided for decentralization, entrepreneurship, and innovation that were impossible in the Western Roman Empire or in Byzantium. Without the development of the Rabbinic commercial code, it is quite possible that Europe would still be in the Middle Ages."

      Interesting observation. Also, it seems to me, consistent with Yuri Slezkine's description of medieval and early modern Jews as "service nomads" performing functions for the Gentile elites which the peasantry was unable to perform ("The Jewish Century"). Have you read the book? If so, are you describing a similar situation?

      I think it is good to get some feel for actual Jewish history as opposed to the "Fiddler on the Roof" myth-history which Zionists regurgitate ad nauseam.

    • In the long run, the Judaization of imperial power is more significant than the Judaization of Palestine.

  • West's war against terrorism is Israel's war, Chuck Schumer says
  • The American colonization of Palestine
    • YONIFALIC- "Decent people should have no tolerance for Nazi ideas, whether they come from German Nazis or Zionists, to wit, Jewish Nazis."

      You are surely aware that these "Nazi ideas" concerning racial supremacy and the genocide of "inferior races" have a long history in the European conquest of the Third World? Uncle Sam was Hitler's role model for how to deal with the natives. The Nazis didn't invent racism or mass murder, they merely industrialized the process. The Europeans as a whole have spilled oceans of innocent blood, and are hardly a role model. In fact, the Zionists always identified with Europe, not the Middle East. And what about the good old USA? From the end of World War II to the present, who has spilled more blood than Uncle Sam?

      YONIFALIC- "Would anyone consider it legitimate for them to invade Italy and start destroying or driving out all the Italians, who were not Roman like the Irish secular Romans?"

      Are you engaged in self-parody? The colonization of Palestine by (primarily) atheist Zionist Jews in no way invalidates the perceived Jewishness of American secular Jews. I have no idea why you persist in this travesty of logic. Zionism is a power-seeking, supremacist ideology, the colonization of Palestine was wrong and immoral, however, all of this is unrelated to the question of whether there is such a thing as a secular Jew. The empirical data unequivocally says there are what is known as secular Jews. My guess is that this is a consequence of the exploitation of the Holocaust by the Zionists who capitalized on the fact that the Nazis imposed their definition of "Jew" upon even those who didn't identify as Jews. I, however, am perfectly happy to let various groups set the parameters for group membership. These parameters do nothing more than define membership in the group, and certainly don't entitle the group to engage in illegal and immoral activities.

      Final comment. Marc Ellis, Phil and Mooser consider themselves to be Jewish. Do you have a problem with that? I don't.

    • ECHINOCOCCUS- "Hard to follow your logic."

      My logic is rather simple and straightforward. If secular Jews self-identify as Jews, and other Jews agree that they are, then they are part of that group which identifies as Jews, your insistence that this particular group cannot define the parameters of group membership notwithstanding. You may wish to re-evaluate your position that you are more capable of defining who a Jew is than the Jews themselves. As for me, I tend to go along with the general usage of such terms mindful of the fact that significant deviation from accepted usage tends to cause confusion. Also, keep in mind that social groupings are defined by group ideology which is usually irrational.

    • YONIFALIC- "While “Jew” should never be applied non-religiously...."

      Israel's right of return laws do. Whether you like it or not, Jewish self-identification has undergone revision since the demise of Classical Judaism.

      YONIFALIC- "...the USA (at least in terms of its national politicians) is an intimidated client of rich wealthy mobilized E. European genocide-supporters like Saban and Adelson."

      Yoni, I hate to disappoint you, but Saban and Adelson are US citizens, not East Europeans. Therefore, they are American genocide supporters. Trying to absolve Uncle Sam from all responsibility is a misrepresentation of reality. The harsh reality is the extent to which neoliberalism and pro-Zionism have become thoroughly entrenched within the global elites who more-or-less call the shots.

      YONIFALIC- "In other words, even though Judaism-associated groups were able to mobilize enough capital to influence European politics on a major scale since the 16th century...."

      The power and influence of Jews such as the Rothchilds do not contradict Elmor's contention that Israel is dependent upon and synergistically enmeshed with the US global empire, therefore, the US should be held jointly accountable for Israeli actions.

  • Theocratic Israel
    • PHIL- "But the ruling of this so-called court illustrates how foreign Israel should be to American Jews."

      True enough, and something which I have brought up in the past. However, with Israel being over there and American Jews being over here, Israel has taken on a certain metaphysical aura not subject to empirical scrutiny.

  • The way for Americans to take on the Islamic state is to end support for Jewish nationalism
    • HOPHMI- "...and a working relationship with most of the states in the Gulf."

      Yes, Israel and these other states you mention are the ones providing massive support to ISIS and the rest of the radical Islamists who are committing massive atrocities against regimes targeted for destabilization. No doubt these fundamentalists contribute to anti-Semitism in the Middle East and Europe.

    • HOPHMI- "And why should you be accorded credibility when you speak “as a Jew?”

      Does Phil not qualify for the right of return? You blaspheme against Ysrael? Besides, it's his website so show some respect!

  • Academics both 'pleased and concerned' with Salaita settlement with University of Illinois
    • HOPHMI- "My people are facing serious antisemitism in almost every country in Europe right now."

      Perhaps if neocons such as Victoria Nuland and that Jewish Ukrainian oligarch hadn't made such good use of the Ukrainian neo-Nazis (there and elsewhere, I might add), perhaps there would be less anti-Semitism. Also, the deplorable economic conditions created by neoliberal globalization pave the way for groups such as Golden Dawn to flourish. Perhaps all of those Zionist Jews in the Council on Foreign Relations and elsewhere might stop pushing for imperial global hegemony, and utilizing Islamic terrorists to destabilize targeted states. As yea sow, so shall yea reap. None of this, I might add, is unanticipated.

  • Netanyahu's fancy watch
  • Seachange in public opinion: 'I am tired of Israel using US-made rockets to bomb Palestinians so that ultra-conservatives can steal their land'
    • SIBIRIAK- "On what evidentiary basis can you say there has been a coercive relationship between “Jewish power” and European political elites, as opposed to a symbiotic one?"

      I am making a logical inference based upon intuitive pattern recognition that this recent appearance of Holocaust education and laws criminalizing anti-Semitism is the result of pressure not symbiosis. It has come to my attention that Zionist groups such as AIPAC, ADL, The Council of Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations, Jewish Fat-Cats (Saban and Adelson, et al), etc., achieve their objectives through pressure. How many laws and educational changes don't have advocates? Coercive? Steven Salaita didn't get fired because of symbiosis. Netanyahu didn't get all those standing ovations due to symbiosis. Politicians don't fear the wrath of AIPAC because of symbiosis. I certainly hope that you don't seriously believe that this increasing emphasis on the Holocaust in the US and Europe is anything other than the manifestation of increased Zionist power.

      If you have the time, please feel free to investigate the details of this sudden spate of deference to Jews and the Holocaust to demonstrate that it was other than the rather obvious consequence of Zionist power-seeking. As for me, I am surrounded by too many examples of this sort of thing not to draw the obvious conclusion. Two quotes for you:

      "Just as organized Jewry remembered the Holocaust when Israeli power peaked, so it remembered the Holocaust when American Jewish power peaked." (p37, "The Holocaust Industry," Norman Finkelstein.

      "It takes an unusual mind to undertake an analysis of the obvious" (Unknown)

    • MAXIMUS- "I agree that things aren’t as bad as in the US, but unfortunately I can’t agree that the influence of Zionist groups is ‘miniscule’ in Europe.

      I agree that the influence of European Zionist groups is not miniscule, however, I am not so sure that their influence is not as great as in the US. I base this on the fact that Europe has yielded to pressure for both Holocaust education in the public schools and for laws criminalizing anti-Semitism specifically (not part of broader anti-discrimination laws), always a subjective interpretation. All of these laws are more recent and reflect the rise of Jewish power as opposed to any anti-Semitic threat. A couple of quotes and links to make the point.

      "... there are at least seven countries which have entered specific legislation into the law books dealing with the subject of antisemitism. They are: Romania, Spain, Mexico, Switzerland, France, Sweden and Austria." (CFCA) link to

      "As of November 2013, laws of this kind (Holocaust education) were on the books of Austria, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the American states of California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York." (Wikipedia) link to

  • An Open Letter to Dan Rabinowitz: Let’s get our facts straight about BDS
    • HOPHMI- "They receive plenty of grants from the US Government, which, of course, caused the deaths of anywhere from 100,000 to a million people in wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan."

      Wars which US Zionists and Israel supported. Exactly how many imperial wars and interventions have AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations opposed? Both American and Israeli Zionism is imperialist to the core.

  • Netanyahu flips the bird to Obama -- 2200 more settlement units!
    • KRAUSS- "Finally, I want to underline that Obama has an eye on the post-presidency. He understands that he can’t have a successful and lucrative post-WH career without being in the good graces of the “liberal” Zionist power structure."

      I agree completely. Like Bill Clinton, Obama is basically a high-class hustler on the perpetual make.

  • 'Netanyahu destroyed hope' -- Erekat
    • WALID- "Very hard to buy a rep in Canada with the low limits."

      Then what accounts for the extreme right wing nature of the Harper government?

      As an aside, Canada is now prosecuting some guy based upon their hate crime law because of pressure from Canadian Jewish groups. I believe that it is considered anti-Semitic to criticize Israel in a lot of countries.

      "Section 319 of Canada’s criminal code is an extraordinary law by most western standards. It reads, in relevant part: “(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

      (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
      (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

      The statute does not define hatred, but does provide 4 statutory defenses.

      (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
      (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
      (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
      (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

      It is important to understand that the prosecution (the Crown), with all of its resources, need only prove ‘hate,’ and then the only available defenses are affirmative, meaning that the burden of proof switches to the defense." (Eve Mykytyn) link to

      The same thing is occurring in Argentina where a journalist is being prosecuted for anti-Semitism based upon his support for the Palestinians. These anti-Semitism laws are serious business, a tactic by the powerful to penalize criticism.

      "How did everything start? A few days ago, I received in my e-mailbox, a message from Google Inc, written in English, in which they informed me that “in the next 10 days” Google would have to give access to the Justice system to all my e-mail accounts, because of an intimation formulated by the Court of First Instance for the Criminal, Contraventions and Offences No. 28, where the cause Number 7271/15 is radicated.

      In this singular way, I found out about this incredible abuse of my privacy as a journalist, as my e-mail is primarily a medium of exchange of information with colleagues or media outlet, apart from the personal information that anyone has in their box. Such meddling is based on a criminal complaint made by the Delegation of Argentine Jewish Associations (in Spanish acronym, DAIA) accusing me for “being in solidarity” with the Palestinian people.

      DAIA and its lawyers presented themselves before the Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 25 to accuse me of “discriminatory organization and propaganda”, brandishing the argument of “anti-Semitism”. The reasons given for that procedure are illogical and offend me as a citizen and as a journalist.

      DAIA points to my participation in an activity of solidarity with the Palestine People in August 2014, when tons of Israeli Bombs were thrown in Gaza, causing thousands of innocent deaths —many of them children—, just as what is happening nowadays in West Bank. They consider my presence there to be criminal." (Carlos Aznarez) link to

  • 'New York Times' to Palestinians: Drop dead
    • KRAUSS- "...the toxic racism of the NYT will be a cancerous standout."

      Surely you jest. The imperial bias of the NYT blends right in with the rest of the imperial doctrinal system, even more moderate than some. We are, after all, a militarized warfare state leading a globalized empire, Israel/Palestine but one of many areas for criticism. Perhaps you have examples of the NYT (which I loath and do not read) being more biased than the rest?

  • The idea that people living under violent military occupation must be instructed in nonviolence is problematic
    • MOOSER- "Oy Gevalt, Max, if only we had more Jews like you in the Warsaw Ghetto, things may not have turned out so tragically!"

      An excellent riposte to our Zionist provocateur. To claim that violent resistance is morally wrong is, in effect, to claim that violent self-defense against violent assault is morally wrong, a ludicrous assertion. A recent quote on this very topic from the great Arundhati Roy.

      " My question is, if, let’s say, there are people who live in villages deep in the forest, four days walk from anywhere, and a thousand soldiers arrive and burn their villages and kill and rape people to scare them off their land because mining companies want it—what brand of non-violence would the stalwarts of the establishment recommend? Non-violence is radical political theatre.... Non-violence should be a tactic—not an ideology preached from the sidelines to victims of massive violence." (Arundhati Roy) link to

    • ROSROSS- "We fought in the Second World War to free people from German and Japanese occupation...."

      You can't be serious. Power, it's all about power. Uncle Sam never has nor never will give two shits about freedom and democracy except, perhaps, to oppose them. The empire is all about hegemony. Period. Deal with it.

  • The Case for Parallel States: Excerpt from 'One Land, Two States: Israel and Palestine as Parallel States'
    • MARK LEVINE- "It is not the tail that wags the dog..."

      No, of course not. The dog and tail are one. Israel is an integral part of empire.

  • Beinart says 'Israeli government is reaping what it has sowed' with Palestinian violence
    • SIBIRIAK- "Do you think they could be true, i.e., that it could be true that an a single American ethno-cultural community is to blame for the Iraq war, or that a American ethno-cultural community has “too much power”?"

      Interesting questions. As for the "too much power" question, I personally feel that the wildly disproportionate success of American Jews indicates significant societal problems involving the distribution of power among the various social groups of the citizenry and of the potential for social mobility. Power seeking clannishness and exclusivity inherently discriminates against those not part of the clan. I don't consider de facto birthright royalty to be wholesome. It could also lead to a form of de facto sectarianism whereby society devolves into competing tribal-like groups fighting for power and safety. The enlightenment involved breaking down sub-group loyalties in favor of a more universal perspective. Jewish Zionist kinship involves utilizing the organized power of group solidarity within an inclusive setting to seek advantage. Why else would Jewish Zionist elites engage in such knee-jerk solidarity? Furthermore, the current top group tends to evaluate social dynamics from a tribal perspective, not from the perspective of the citizenry as a whole. "Thus, ADL head Nathan Pearlmutter maintained that the "real anti-Semitism" in America consisted of policy initiatives "corrosive of Jewish interests," such as affirmative action, cuts in the defense budget,...." (p37, "The Holocaust Industry," Norman Finkelstein) I have come to believe that among most organized Jewish groups (particularly Zionist groups), the operational definition of anti-Semitism is anything "corrosive of Jewish interests." Perhaps, that helps to explain all of the recent laws criminalizing perceived anti-Semitism, including criticism of Israel?

      I should clarify my position by noting that I consider the relatively high ratio of Jews in the oligarchic elite to be much less significant than the reality of an oligarchic elite. Our current system of concentrated economic power is inherently unjust and unstable.

      As for the Iraq war, I continue to believe that the war was initiated to achieve imperial objectives, including the control of the Iraq oil fields and the strategic leverage which that provided. The neocons were a primary driving force behind the invasion, including selling the idea to Israel which was skeptical initially but latter fully supportive. It should be noted that the majority of neocons which pushed for this were members of the Council on Foreign Relations and that their views were, in fact, consistent with the consensus of the imperial elite. I might add that in previous Mondoweiss discussions, my view was in the minority, the strategic importance of oil pooh- poohed in view of the ability to buy oil on the open market. I am not anxious to reopen that discussion, opinions likely to have remained unchanged.

  • Hillary Clinton promises to invite Netanyahu to White House in her first month
  • Glen Weyl's agonizing journey to boycott the country he loves
    • MOOSER- "Why don’t we search Phil’s archive for “Jewish white knight” and/or “Ashkenazi white knight” or variations?"

      Because I am not quoting Phil, I am characterizing these people as fitting the accepted definition of "white knight" as a person or thing that comes to someone's aid. Since Phil is specifically highlighting liberal Jews who he thinks are being won over, Jewish white knight seems to me to be an appropriate description. You disagree? Fine, but that wasn't the question concerning my alleged rudeness or, in your words, "a little worse than unnecessary." And your comment at 11:29 that "I wish somebody could tell me what “Ashkenazi” means," is disingenuous. If you Google it you will discover that it refers to Eastern European Jews, as I'm sure you are aware since the word is in common usage, hardly controversial. When your two comments are combined, it becomes obvious that you are evading the question of why you (and Annie) took umbrage. I simply can't believe that your comment that "Ashkenazi knight" was "a little worse than unnecessary" simply revolved around the definition of Ashkenazi. But if you don't want to get into it, why bring it up?

    • ANNIE- "keith, the way to indicate a break in text is to place “…..” gap between paragraphs."

      Thanks, I will hereafter do so.

      As for the mass migrations, these are a direct consequence of neoliberal globalization. All of the more radical folks I read, including Chomsky, Pilger, Michael Hudson, David Korten, et al, agree on this. And the notion that we have to remain on the neoliberal path is nonsense. This is the Thatcherite (There is no alternative) school of thought. Unless we can stop neoliberal globalization, we will spiral downward into a neofeudal economy. Don't forget that Glen Weyl teaches economics at the rabidly right-wing University of Chicago, the home of the "Chicago Boys" who destroyed the Chilean economy under Pinochet, making it "business friendly" (corporate dominated), while claiming, of course, that this was beneficial development. Of course they say that. They always say that. And some of them can be persuasive. Whether or not they believe their own BS is another matter. I may not be credible to you,but when you seek advice from the "Chicago Boys" such as Glen Weyl because he argues persuasively, while simultaneously ignoring the writings of Chomsky, et al, you are making a big mistake. I'm done.

    • ANNIE- "we need answers and solutions. his imagination is expansive and his wife is really smart. that counts a lot on my book."

      Don't get too enamored with his Harvard educated wife. After she got her B.S., she went to work for Human Rights Watch, a totally co-opted NGO with ties to the Clinton administration and the Council on Foreign Relations. At this stage of the game, HRW is effectively an imperial NGO. While in South America, she either wrote or co-wrote a report for HRW trashing Hugo Chavez, essentially repeating the State Department line. She has since obtained a PhD at Harvard, an Ivy League institution of imperial indoctrination. She and her Princeton PhD husband can best be described as an upwardly mobile power couple employed within the imperial doctrinal system. Except for the names and a few other changes, Cass Sunstein and Samantha Power come to mind. Now if you choose to embrace Glen Weyl's assertion that our descent into a rentier economy is a good thing, that's your business. I would have hoped that you had a little more common sense than to believe that we have been moving in the right direction for the last 30 years, simply not fast enough. Personally, I think this guy's ideology is an absolute disaster for the 99%. Virtually everything he says is wrong, wrong, wrong, however, he and his highly compatible wife will likely earn a very good living doing what they are doing.

      ANNIE- "i thought the last 2 paragraphs –the way you presented them, were a tad disingenuous because you did not indicate there were any (7) paragraphs between them."

      I am not a professional writer and am not sure how to indicate a jump in the text. However, the way I presented the information, along with the link, did not at all misrepresent his ideas and I think your highlighting this issue is tad disingenuous in attempting to inflate its importance in order to minimize your admitted lack of knowledge on the subject and, therefore, taking Weyl's BS on faith. And, yes, I encourage everyone to follow the links and see for themselves. All one really needs is a little common sense to understand that we are heading in the wrong direction and need to reverse course, not speed up.

    • MOOSER- "Keith, all that notwithstanding, “Ashkenazi knight” was still, well, a little worse than unnecessary."

      Really? How so? I was making reference to Phil's ongoing search for a Jewish white knight to ride to his aid in slaying the Zionist dragon. I don't see how using Ashkenazi to replace Jewish and white (after all, what is Ashkenazi?) should be offensive insofar as Phil seems to be highlighting Ashkenazi Jews. I am more than a little surprised that you and Annie have taken such umbrage. Apparently, I have inadvertently crossed some unspoken rule of protocol. Speaking as if I was inside the Mondoweiss tent rather than outside the ethnic tent within the tent. Interesting.

    • ANNIE- "hmm, he was chosen as one of america’s top innovative thinkers under 30. neoliberalism is old school and has been around a long time. my hunch is he’s very smart and plays by his own rules."

      Neoliberalism is old school? Are you joking? Neoliberalism is the current ideology of empire which is driving the planet to ruin. It is embraced by the Council on foreign Relations, the IMF, the World Bank, Wall Street and Microsoft where Weyl works. This guy comes from an Ivy League/ University of Chicago background where neoliberalism reigns supreme. If Weyl opposed neoliberalism, he wouldn't be lauded by the neoliberal establishment as a top innovative thinker. And he sure as hell wouldn't be working for Microsoft, a key supporter of these neoliberal trade agreements. But, just to be sure, I did a quick Google search. Read on.

      The first quote and link concerns an article he co-wrote with Eric Posner concerning Thomas Picketty's study and recommendations. They feel Picketty's recommendations for a wealth taxation is all wrong. What is need is to stimulate innovation by increasing the rewards to our innovative elites. This is actually beyond neoliberal and reeks of Ayn Rand. Some "innovation."

      "Piketty’s conjecture that we will reach the same or worse levels of wealth inequality than in the nineteenth century is implausible. Moreover, his focus on inequality misses that something great is also going on—that more and more people can live off society’s accumulated wealth and so don’t have to work. The real danger is not inequality per se but bad policy that suppresses growth and thus the accumulation of wealth, delaying this utopia for the masses longer than necessary. So while progressive taxes may serve as a short-term palliative, we should focus on giving the most capable part of the population better incentives to innovate, while allowing everyone else to benefit from their brilliance as rentiers." (Eric Posner and Glen Weyl) link to

      Another article by our two right-wing authors involves their recommendation that we essentially import low wage workers to raise their income even as it reduces US worker's income. Jeez, you can't get much more corporate friendly and neoliberal than that! Needless to say, neither Bill Gates nor Glen Weyl would be negatively effected.

      "But the most powerful force to reduce inequality worldwide has gone largely unrecognized by the West, even though their value has been proven in the Gulf nations: open migration laws that are coupled, paradoxically, with caste systems."

      "Intellectuals and leaders in OECD countries need to think carefully, and in a politically realistic way, about how to reconcile their commitments to rights and the agenda of reducing inequality. The GCC model of accepting migrants on economically and politically subordinate terms, though not humanitarian on its face, has proven so in practice. If this model were adopted in rich countries, then inequality—both political and economic—would dramatically increase within our own societies. This could undermine some of the liberal character we all prize, and it would certainly make all of us even more uncomfortable about inequality than we already are. But the benefits for the world’s poorest people would be vast." (Eric Posner and Glen Weyl) link to

    • MAXIMUS- "Maybe I’m being harsh...."

      Not at all. Weyl comes across to me as a kind of Jewish Brahman who prefers that his peace and tranquility not be disturbed by the loud and obnoxious type of Zionist such as Netanyahu, preferring instead the more refined, liberal version. This highly privileged member of the US elite appears to savor his gilded victimhood. Perhaps I am being too harsh, however, I detect more than a whiff of narcissism emanating from the good Dr. Weyl. An economic prodigy? Why do I suspect that he probably loves neoliberalism as much as "his" people? This is Phil's Ashkenazi knight riding to save the day? Good luck on that.

Showing comments 3250 - 3201