Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2029 (since 2011-01-07 20:19:21)

Showing comments 2029 - 2001

  • Surprise-- 'NYT' publishes straightforward report on Israeli human rights violations in Gaza
    • One of the benefits of seeing an increasingly diverse America is an aversion to neocon(which is really just "liberal" interventionism by another name) ideology.

      That's because a lot of these people have either relatives or friends whose relatives are being bombed by white-dominated countries.

      As for the NYT. I'm not that surprised that this report came into light of the NYT. It's an organization of liberal Jews. And most people have forgotten about the Gaza slaughter except for the activist core(on either side). When the issue was hot and the general public was engaged, Judi Rudoren went into the tunnels on IDF-sponsored propaganda tours. We shouldn't forget that.

      Finally, when will the NYT have a non-Jewish (or even Palestinian) reporter in Israel? And when will they start making reports based on numerous Palestinian organisations' work? Which is work that is often much deeper and more comprehensive?

      This follows the old pattern: recognize the war crimes once the issue has been forgotten as a half-assed concession to the liberal readership, but only do so quoting Jewish sources, so as to strengthen the narrative of "change from within"(i.e. the liberal Zionism must go on!).

      Despite the rhetoric of massive change, this is more of the same.

  • Tell your congressperson: Don't attend Netanyahu's speech
  • 'NYT' and Matthews warn that Netanyahu speech to Congress could lead US to war
    • In what was he right?

      BTW, Phil, in what way can Obama harm Netanyahu? There are no elections left, Hillary's waiting in the wings. Netanyahu is many things but not politically stupid. He wouldn't have done this unless he left safe enough to do it. It's also a power demonstration, in a sense, of who is boss.

      He is showing Obama to be weak in a very public and humiliating way. All these threats from "senior administration officials" amount to nothing. What can Obama actually do? There's nothing. He can't apply any diplomatic and economic pressure, because the lobby would go nuts. His own Secretary of State has lobbied hard on behalf of him, even after being humiliated in 2013/2014 by the same guy.

      People can get all "outraged" as they want, but you get the sense that it is a lot of kabuki theater. If anything, the lobby is becomming more brazen and bold. Just look at how Saban and Adelson are openly joking with each other of taking over the NYT, of how they dominate each political party in America.

      In such a climate, Netanyahu's moves are not exactly coming out of the blue, so excuse me for being cynical and acidic about these so-called "outraged" columnists who are in every bit on the current climate but never fail not to speak out otherwise.

  • Netanyahu speech could turn Israel lobby into a political football
    • Giles, I don't think he is a Zionist.

      Anyway, Phil is daydreaming. I viewed Matthew's clip. He and his guests didn't even get close. The Politico reporter was amazingly stand-offish, trying to blame the immigration tussles for this in a bizarre way.

      The NYT covers up for Israel as usual. This time will be a lot like last time.

      Obama has no more elections. There's no price to pay to defy him. This is why Menendez, one of the premier whores in Congress(with Mark Kirk) for the lobby, is going all-out. He is already looking at fundraisers for 2016 and he knows that Hillary is much more hawkish than Obama so thrashing Obama will if anything raise his standing in her eyes.

      At any rate, I was surprised that Matthews didn't bring up numerous reports that the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, was behind this. Boehner is too dumb to do this on his own. Of course, if Matthews touched that topic(and he breezily did, questioning out loud if Boehner was indeed smart enough to do this on his own), then that would invite a bunch of attacks along the lines of "see, he is talking about a Jewish conspiracy!!!".

      Also, if you think Rand Paul or Elizabeth Warren are going to touch Israel after both have gone out of their way to pander to the lobby(Paul's pandering have been especially terrible, precisely because he knows the baggage of his father and Warren basically adopts AIPAC talking-points), then you are delusional, Phil.

      This will take time. You better understand you're going to do this for at least 20 years. This will not be Algeria or Apartheid South Africa for reasons we've already covered in the past. It'll take longer.

  • Obama won't meet Netanyahu during 'bizarre,' 'historic,' 'unprecedented' visit (Updated)
    • Obama can veto new sanctions if he wants to. But he wants to avoid that because vetoing a piece of legislation that is supported by his own party would be incredibly undermining for the rest of his agenda.

      The Israel Lobby has basically said: Obama, remember your progressive stuff in your recent SOTU? You can stuff it. It's all about wars now.

      And Kristol is right: donors do mean Jews in this case. Pat Hagee and the Christian Evangelicals are nowhere to be seen.

  • Living in Israel isn't the solution to antisemitism
    • Oh yeah, Levy, that guy who is a neocon. Always wants intervention in the Middle East. He lives in France but his heart is in Israel(and in Likud Israel to be precise).

      If Le Pen came to power in 2017 and didn't touch the Jews but threw out the muslims, he'd be officially pained but privately pleased.

    • The problem with Valls approach is that he essentially views it through monetary terms. Throw money on it and it will solve itself. I think that is very naive. This is a much deeper issue. A lot of white liberals think the whole world wants to be like them.

      Well, a lot of the rest of the world keep telling these white liberals: not really. But if you're convinced that you lead the most moral lifestyle of all, there's no real need to listen to anyone else.

      Folks in these gettoes are not always like those in America. Often these people live in these places out of religious reasons. They want to be surrounded by what they see as a properly Islamic lifestyle. Forcing them out, such a French solution. Everything can be solved by a government decree! And what if they refuse? And does lowering the VAT, will that really help?

      The problem on Valls' hands is that he has a large population which is really not identifying with the French society for a variety of reasons, and lowering taxes won't change that.

      And just moving the poor muslim population around; that'll be really popular with the white middle class. Watch Le Pen win in 2017.

    • Nicely written.

      I'd just cynically add that I've kept hearing how Europe is somehow this place of no return, yet I note that I don't see Europeans(whether they are in Europe or of European ancestry in NA, ANZ) jumping to live with Jews. Most Europeans are fine with Jews these days, but it's Jews who keep moving to European-majority countries.

      And even if we take France as an example, most of the French Jews that have left haven't even gone to Israel. Only about a few thousand have. The vast majority go to other Western countries, and often in Europe itself.

      Even if we take Anshel himself as an example, he had amazing coverage of Ukraine when the conflict was around. He was there physically for months. He tweets obsessively about the debate in the House of Lords on Israel.

      Considering that the Middle East is blowing up, doesn't he have to do more in his own neighbourhood than hawking over a debate in the British parliament?

      My point is that Anshel's own rhetoric fails to match his deeds. It's a fact that the Islamic world was more tolerant to Jews than Christian Europe yet how much of Islamic heritage has Israel embraced? You're more likely to find a lot of knowledgable Jews on matters of Western philosophy than you are on Arab or even Islamic philosophy in general, which is crazy, considering that Israel is in the Middle East and not in Europe.

      I read his kind of commentary and I never fail to be amused by the amazing psychological dissonance. As for free speech, to be brutually frank, most of the stringest laws have usually been pushed by Jewish lobby groups under the umbrella of "hate speech", which is a vague and ever-expanding definition. They've tried the same in the US but in America, they have something called the 1st amendment(something Europe desperately needs).

      It's more than a little funny to read Ashel writing, unironically, about the slipping of free speech in Europe.

  • Diaspora Jews are not in 'exile,' they are at home
    • Exactly, I feel like Brownfeld is missing this. For many, Zionism is just a way to hold onto their heritage, at any price. But it still requires you to have de facto dual loyalty. Moving to Israel is many things, but at least it is consequential and consistent with your beliefs.

      Lots of people in the diaspora haven't assimilated and just live this in-between existance, not as rosy as Mr. Brownfeld paints it.

  • Can we just retire the phrase 'relative calm'?
    • For the NYT, there is only calm when Jewish lives are safe.

      When Palestinians are massacred, calm also exists.

      The NYT claims to be a "liberal" newspaper but on I/P it's more like a pro-Apartheid paper in 1980s South Africa.

  • The ‘hasbara’ tweeps who brought down Jim Clancy, and their ties to Israel and the Israel lobby
    • I agree. To be a Jewish anti-Zionist is the most dangerous thing these people know, because the whole "anti-Semitism" attack simply doesn't work and the whole "self-hating Jew" is laughable and a pathetic attack.

      As for the whole Clancy affair, basically what it shows is that the lobby isn't just AIPAC but that there is a Zionist blood oath that you need to take to partake in the higher levels in the media.
      It's okay to be a non-Zionist, but you can't be an anti-Zionist.

      This reminds me of the Charles W. Freeman, Jr affair. Basically it was also a campaign by the Israel lobby to attack someone who isn't toeing the party line.

      It's funny, they keep claiming that their influence are "conspiracies" but they keep proving us right.

  • French terror attacks contribute to Israeli's isolation
    • I read an interview with Abe Foxman in Haaretz, who's a racial ethno-nationalist, perhaps even a supremacist.

      The most interesting freudian slip in that interview - and there were many - was that he talked about the problem of "muslim growth". And he then contrasted Le Pen as an enemy of our enemy (the muslims).

      I think this position is probably pretty mainstream within the Jewish establishment. They are filled with rage and hatred against both groups. Foxman did mostly talk about "radical islamists" etc, but he did slip in the unqualified "muslim" comment as the interview wore on and the guard was lowered.

  • #JeSuisUnJuifBritannique
    • Mhughes, Zionism arose because Jews are a seperate people. That doesn't mean that Jews are untrustworthy per se. You can be a Zionist and be either pro- or anti-Jewish(and anyway, who decides the boundaries? It's very vague to the point of useless). It's not inherent in Zionism either way.

    • Replying to Shenfield below(the reply button didn't appear below his name for some reason).

      Stephen, I didn't see much harm in Cohen's article. But I don't really get the overtly hostile rant from Keith. Sure, there's hypocrisy on intermarriage, but what exactly are "mild opinions on Jews"? Doesn't sound too tolerant.

      As for the survey itself; it's useless when it comes to the Jewish sample. It's a self-selected group who replied on the internet. The Jewish Chronicle had another poll up where almost 90% of all British Jews stated that they have never even thought about leaving the UK.

  • ICC opens war crimes inquiry into Israel over Gaza war as Palestinians prepare another UN resolution
    • That was a funny analogue, not just because the way you put it, but also because its true :D

    • And civility is the language of the powerful.

      Those without it, must learn to be "civil", which is really just another way of submitting before rules that the aggressors have set before them.

  • Obama cites donor pressure re Iran, but 'NYT' won't tell you what he means
    • Giles you speak so much truth.

      But the main problem here is and remains the media. The NYT is shilling for the lobby in a way it wouldn't ever do for any other organization. I would in fact go as far as to call the NYT as part of the lobby itself, even if it views itself as a "liberal" Zionist institution, it still nevertheless supports the ideology.

      It's okay to criticize Zionism, so long as you do it in a shoot-and-cry way. If you do it out of liberal principles, like Salaita, you're out of a job or like Shipman at Yale.

      We've made progress in this last decade, but let's not kid ourselves: the Zionist camp is far more entrenched than we are and will remain so for years to come. 2016 will not see a debate on Israel, Hillary and Warren are the two main candidates and both are shills for the lobby.

      Mid-2020s is the earliest time we'll see a real political debate on it. Until then we have to win the university campus and the progressive media. No time to slack off.

  • On CNN, Boteach lectures two prominent Muslims about freedom they 'enjoy' in US and Israel
    • MRW, the irony here is that if a white Christian lectured Boteach that he must "take back Judaism from Zionism", he would have protested not just because he is a far-right Jewish supremacist(a.k.a. Zionist) but also because he would have taken issue that Jews are somehow collectively responsible.

      Yet that's exactly what he is doing here, trying to push for Islamic collective responsibility.
      I never hear Muslims talk about Jewish collective responsibility for Zionism, at least not in the West. It's sad that we have to witness bigots like him making them look even better.

  • Netanyahu's Parisian follies
    • It says a lot that the worst thing you could be called in Israel is a freier, Hebrew for "sucker" rather than being called a liar or untrustworthy, which is typically much more problematic in most Western democracies.

      That's the Israeli mentality and their PM reflects that. No wonder Israel is ranking just above North Korea and Iran in global polls of countries. Is this what Herzl had in mind when he talked - delusionally - about being a "light onto the nations"?

      The reality is that Israel has become a fiasco on the world stage and nobody knows how to end it without blowing things up, which is why it's allowed to go on, for now.

  • Why do Muslims object to depictions of their prophet?
    • Just so that we're clear, in 2014, Charlie Hebdo had 10 covers on Front Nationale but only 1 on Mohammed.

      Yet it wasn't the far-right which attacked their offices.

      I never cease to amaze at the level of which people who would never defend Christian fundamentalists crawl before Islam. Islam shouldn't be treated worse than all other religions, but when the reality is that everyone knows that you can face death for mocking muslims while not for mocking buddhists, christians etc, that is something we can't close our eyes on because it makes us uncomfortable. That's weakness and a lack of belief in your own principles.

      As for Fuller, I do think everything has to be satirized, yes, including the Jewish belief of the "Chosen people" which I don't think should be spared any scrutiny, like any other religious doctrine.

  • Israeli education minister calls refuseniks 'radical element of reality,' but they're in the 'NYT'
    • The politics of the NYT is interesting. These folks belong around the Park Slope, Brooklyn crowd.

      The Op-Ed from the refusenik wasn't really that spectacular. It still tried to paint being a refusenik as an "Israeli patriot". In other words, the "I'll change the system from the inside" liberal Zionism that we all know is a joke.

      However, no matter how pathetic that kind of propaganda is, it's still notable that the NYT seems to be shifting again to the left. We see this whenever there's a lull in BDS activism(like in the past 6 months), the NYT shifts left. As soon as BDS heats up, it starts to shift right.

      Of course, I'm only talking about the Op-Ed pages. The news coverage continues to be atrocious. As usual.

  • Don't let's go to the war of civilizations again
    • There are some issues to be identified:

      1. Cairo safe for people? North is a man. Ask a woman if she can get through Cairo. We're not just talking catcalling here, but outright sexual physical harrassment and/or rape. This was evident even among the so-called "liberals" who protested at Tahrir.

      2. Yes, the membership of ISIS/AQ are small. But that's missing the point. The Pew study on muslims that came out a few years ago showed massive percentages who supported Islamist ideology. They might not be violent, but they still supported the death penalty for people who left the religion. In "liberal" countries like in Lebanon, it was upwards 70%. In Egypt over 90%.

      How many Christians or Jews would support the death penalty for those who leave the religion?

      The bottom line is that there is a problem within Islam that is much bigger than in Christianity and Judaism. Does the non-stop bombing and invasion of Middle Eastern countries help? No, they're fanning the flames, so I'm not saying the West is innocent, not even by a longshot. But anyone who only tries to pin the blame on U.S. military inventervention essentially sees muslims in the Middle East as without their own agency, as mere puppets for Western design. I think that is naive.

  • The Israel lobby rallies inside the Republican Party
    • The PA will not be allowed to collapse. It's an institution that was created and managed by US/EU.

      They fear what's coming if it goes down. As for Paul, yeah, Rand Paul is more interested in power than his father was, who was crazy but at least had principles. His son doesn't, he's desperate to get elected at whatever price.

      But honestly, the amount of cash you get from pro-Israel groups compared to the benefits on the other side of taking a stand is just so extreme as of now. Only a grassroots pressure campaign can change that but it has to be within the Democratic party.

  • Against self-determination
    • I largely disagreed with it yet still thought it was and remains a brilliant essay, which speaks volumes to how well-written it was.

      As for Jewish identity, assimilating Jews are not new. Most of the 10 million strong Jews in the Roman empire assimilated. Most of the Jews of babylon stayed put and assimilated instead of going back to Judea.
      And most Jews in America are assimilating.

      Phil is not moving away from Jewish history as much as he confirms it.
      There is always a core group. As I write this, the next chapters of Jewish history is being written by the Orthodox who are growing by the hour, by the day and by the year.

      Finally, ethnocentrism is often brought up as a great evil, and it can be. But communism was far more deadlier force in the 20th century than Nazism, by a massive margin, and communism is supposed to cover the entire world, not one race.

      But even more importantly, if everyone was non-ethnocentric there wouldn't be much if anything other than our looks to distinguish ourselves. Now wouldn't that be extremely boring?

  • Couldn't there be just one 'NYT' columnist who was critical of Israel? (No)
    • Munayyer has been given a platform both in the NYT and the New Yorker but there's an anxiousness to it, which you alluded to. He isn't really mincing his words and telling the audience straight about Israeli Apartheid.

      I think they wanted what you describe first - a "freak show" - but probably understood that Munayyer can't really be portrayed as a freak but rather as a truthteller, and thus the engagements started to dwindle.

      The preferred method is the "shoot-and-cry" Zionist which we've seen countless examples of.
      The religious right will just keep winning. It's soon 15 years ago since the left had any real power. And even then, Barak went around to settlers bragging about Labor's massive settlement increases(and rightly so, because they were huge compared to what Likud did).

      Circus Liberalus Zionistus will keep spinning even after the election. Nothing will really move these people until they are forced to move.

    • Because, despite your diatribe, they have excellent journalism in a lot of fields. If you disagree, then you're not really well-read. Take their coverage of genetics, which is mostly excellent for a mainstream publication. There are many other examples. On issues like Zionism, which are inherently political, everyone has a bias. The Times' competitors are no different.

    • Krugman is brilliant, and he isn't afraid to tout it. He isn't bloated with self-importance but he completely disregards the formality of not saying "I told you so" and loves pointing out the idiocy of conservative economists, and they hate him for that.

      The problem is that he keeps being right and they keep being wrong. There are many examples(the efficiency of the stimulus, interest rates, inflation, or lack thereof, etc).

      As for the Times', they're not really "crashing". You're misinformed. They are on a profit and their subscribers are growing.

    • Media ownership matters. Don't care if Sulzberg is a nominal Christian, he's still brought up in a liberal Zionist household and that hasn't really washed off.

      I think a lot of gentiles basically think like Krugman: I have other fights to fight. Many of them are intermarried with Jews anyway, there are really countless couples. Just take the CEO of the Times', a British Christian with a Jewish wife. Sure, the CEO looks on the more business side of things but you have many other elite gentiles with Jewish spouses.

      And even for those who don't, they often work with Jewish editors, publishers and journalists and the vast majority of them are Zionists.

      How many Palestinians are there in the elite media? It's really a social thing, to a large extent, who are you working - or for that matter, sleeping - with? And who is outside of that realm?

  • Dershowitz named in lawsuit alleging abuse of underage sex slave
    • Most men do not act like paedophiles, so your rant is weird and irrelevant to this situation.
      Here we have a man who systematically engaged in sexual abuse of many, many underage girls. What was sick was that he got help from prominent women, some of whom who joined in on the abuse.

      Epstein seems to be a careful gradualist. He began with low-intensive physical contact and then escalated over a long period of time. That Swedish girl didn't want sex, apparently, but it didn't stop her from allowing men to touch her tits, even commenting that it was "a great joke".

      But as Annie said, some girls are likely going to resent the behaviour that they suffered as they got older and more mature - and who's to say that there were no rapes involved in that time period?

      The whole story seems a bit complicated, but there's no question that Epstein's paedophilic mindset is and remains the problem. And I'm not surprised to see Dershowitz involved either.

    • Page: 20
  • Our top ten viewed posts in 2014 -- and five most prolific commenters, too!
  • Campus movement against Israel is largest since anti-Vietnam war movement, Cary Nelson says
    • What's interesting to me is when Salaita got banned, Nelson tried to portray himself as an innocent bystander interested only in public order and "civility".

      I think that is important because that is how power functions once it isn't threatened(or in Nelson's case, when he thought he was safe). He now concedes that the opposition was not only far stronger than he had anticipated but perhaps even the dominant party right now.

      Notice how he speaks to the crowd as "we". "We hadn't anticipated" etc. Now that he is no longer in a position of power, he can be honest about his political aims. Power unmasked - and defanged.

      I must say that I think that activism after the Gaza war has been muted to a large extent because of the issue of police brutality. And that makes eminent sense; American matters will dominante in America.

      Today there are only really two movements in America that can inspire acticism: race in America and I/P. On foreign policy, Israeli Apartheid completely dominates.

      Nelson is right to be frightened. And he can be as dismissive as he wants to be; it doesn't matter. An old and stone-hearted man like him are never going to touched, what matters are students who can empathise with humanity and oppression from a racist army and a racist Apartheid state.

  • 'Desperate' Senator Graham promises 'violent backlash' by Congress if Palestinians go to UN
    • Orrin Hatch has made a hebrew hiphop song(badly). In normal times, I'd think that was cool if slightly weird, if he did it because he actually cared about Jewish culture. But he doesn't. He cares about Jewish donations.

      I remember I viewed a tweet by some reactionary congressmen who someone in leftist Twitter had linked. It wasn't about I/P but the person had a menorah in his office. And the same thought came to me: does that congressman have it there because he thinks highly of Jews or because he thinks highly of their donations? And the kind of Jewish money he and Orrin Hatch receive are from the kind of Jews who support Bibi fullstop. Adelson isn't as isolated as he is portrayed, look at how close he is to Haim Saban.

      We are dealing with a situation where the organized Jewish community has completely disengaged from the wider America and become a silo within a silo; a subset of the white power structure of America. No wonder minorities view us as one and the same. No wonder no tears were shed for the Jewish neocons at TNR.

      This is what happens when you gain power. It's a sad story.

  • 'Peace Now' plays the Borscht Belt
    • There's something endearing to Peace Now's total irrelevance.
      The 1SS is the new 2SS, but like the 2SS, it also has two versions. The democratic version and the Apartheid version.

      I'm guessing a lot of liberal Zionists will end up as Mrs. Ehrman, simply blocking out reality when it gets too painful and keep doing events and dinners where they are praising a ghost, a phantom which has never existed but it does exist, they tell themselves, so long as it is alive in their minds.

      I pity these people. They are truly lost and scared.

  • Chris Hedges is blackballed by Penn after likening ISIS to Israel
    • Good comment. And as for Mr. Blumenthal and Penn, it would be ironic, for two reasons.

      First, he is an alumni of the institution. And second, Amy Gutman(A Zionist and a fervent one) is a classic PEP liberal. She laid down in a recent die-in over protests on the Gardner case. But she still defends Jewish supremacists do the same every single day so long as it is done over across the ocean, in a place where Jews rule.

      The whole PEP syndrome is really fascinating on so many levels.

    • Nobody seems to have read his original article anymore, people just get a few-sentences summary which is wildly distorted and cartoonish. I didn't agree with his thesis when I read it quite some years ago but it was a much more reasoned and nuanced take than the cartoon we've shown these days.

      And in any event, as misguided as it was, it was still better than Huntington's supposed reply which went nowhere. The Middle East is the only place that is more religious today than 20 years ago, and even then most of the energy is directed inwards against other muslims and Arabs write large, a far cry from Huntington's grand civilisational treatise.

  • Next U.S. elections threaten Israel's 'total isolation' -- and the Israeli public is worried
    • Pfaff's analysis is not original. It rests upon reading critical liberal Zionist accounts. I doubt that he knows much of Israel without first vetting with the established narrative, i.e. heavy on "shoot-and-cry" Zionists and light on Palestinians. That is typical of white liberals.

      What I am saying is this: the world knew what Israel did to the Palestinians in the years before the '67 war. Even before the founding of the state. That is why Roosevelt and Marshall were so against establishing it. That is why the British forbade Jewish immigration because they saw what the previous migrants had done.

      Israeli law was in many ways more repressive towards Palestinians before '67 - when the country was under military laws - than it was after.

      What changed in 67 has nothing to do with the occupation but more to do with how Jews themselves were viewed. Jews became integrated into the white establishment in a very rapid way in the 60s and especially the 70s and 80s. By the time the Clinton administration rolled around, assimilation was essentially a done deal.

      As such, white liberal elites, those who control the key institutions of the West, viewed Jews as one of them and as such started to hold Jews to a much higher standard. That is the price of assimilation. The Jewish establishment tried to hold that off by always invoking the Holocaust, the Nazis etc, and for a long time - too long time - that worked.

      But as we all now know, that line of defence just doesn't work.
      What has changed perceptions is not some fundamental policy shift. Israel in the 80s was much less brutal than it was in the 50s, under Labor. Pfaff is ignorant about these matters and it shows.

      What changed was perceptions of Jews and our role in the West, no longer trampled victims but the masters of our own destiny.

      Israel was crated in the Western world, it has always draw financial and political support from the Western world and its fate will decided in the Western world, too. That is what the Israeli public understands on an intrinsic level and what people like Bennett does not. He tells them what they want to hear but at the same time, they understand he is wrong, which is why they worry to such an overwhelming degree.

  • 'TNR' pivots to racial diversity, away from 'privileged demographic of political elites'
    • I've read about the so-called Twilight of the WASPs all the time I was growing up, how Vietnam was supposed to have done them in. Well, I look at all the SV companies, the major media companies, Wall St and so on and I ask myself: where is this supposed decline?

      Sure, the difference today is that it isn't 100% WASPy, but it is still overwhelmingly so. Most non-WASPs in positions of power are (Ashkenazi) Jews. Jews of Color don't exist, apparently.

      I'm personally pleased that Batya was hired, someone who can shed light on the Haredim from a perspective that isn't A) hysterical all the time and B) totally secular.

      That being said, I've come to view how the rest of America views Zionism as a tandem to how Jews have become integrated into white America. America has long had a tolerance for non-white nationalism(even when one type of non-white nationalism has become violent and intolerant), for the sole reason that as white liberals, they can't critique those choices.

      Well, I think this applied to Jews for a long time, too. I don't buy the "liberal" Zionist hasbara of "everything went bad after 1967". People knew what the Zionists had done before then. People were aware, but back in those days, there was a sharp dividing line between Jew and white. That line no longer exists for people under the age of 40, certainly in America.

      I think that is something that probably annoyed the Jewish neocons who were fired in the TNR purge. Many of them wanted a Jewish front against the evil WASP Chris Hughes. What they found is that America had moved on, and saw them as a bunch of overprivileged white men who think they have a right to a national position in the commanding heights of the media. A lot of Jewish journalists also treated them as white, rather than Jewish.

      And all of that is because America is a lot more diverse than its elites are, and a lot of non-white writers pointed out the TNR's racism and those white writers simply couldn't defend themselves that well.

  • 'Israel is becoming an isolated ghetto,' says Amos Oz
    • Cohen is the worst kind of liberal Zionists, don't know why he gets the kid-glove treatment from Phil. I've read a thoroughly racist (even cartoonishly racist) Op-Ed piece from him about "Italians" last year and said nah, fuck him.

      He did nothing more than do one giant racial stereotyping column about the people that are Italians. I kept thinking: would the NYT sponsor this kind of racist dogma about Jews from an Italian?

      As for Cohen, he is no liberal. He supports a Jews-only nation-state. This is ironic, considering that he attacks the right for being "Jews-first". Well, he is Jews-only. Is that better?

      And as for Amos Oz, should we forget that he went to bat for Israel during the Gaza war on German radio? Has Phil forgotten this? Nary a word about that militant Zionist, masquerading as liberal.

      The whole piece is just one giant fraud. The NYT has been going overtime trying to revive liberal Zionism. It'd be hilarious to watch the idiots in march as the right-religious coalition wins again. The left don't have enough seats, even with Kahlon and the Arabs according to every single poll.

      It'll be Bibi and Bennett. And next election, Bennett will be PM.

  • Ari Roth is fired by DC Jewish center -- after staging Nakba play
    • You have to understand that for a large section of Jewry, Zionism is the only game in town. This is particularly true for older Jews. Bret Stephens said that if it wasn't for Zionism, he would be completely assimilated. Ditto for Adelson. I imagine it's the same for Dersh, Saban etc and other supposed liberals.

      I'm no fan of Beinart, but I think part of the reason why he can debate the BDS crowd without going nuts is precisely because although Zionism is an important part of his identity, it isn't the overwhelming part. He himself has essentially said that, mocking his opponents by saying they are sending their kids to AIPAC instead to shul and then expect them to grow up Jewish.

      This has always been the case and it is often underreported; namely that for a large section of America's ruling class, of which Jews are now part and parcel, the death of the 2SS would be a personal tragedy, because it would expose many of them as not liberals at all and that would create a personal crisis in many cases, because that's how they view themselves, even if they're not.

  • Obama hired Clinton as sec'y of state by reaching out to Israel supporter Hoenlein -- NYT
    • Do love how Horowitz portrays those who are not unwilling to accept deviance of support from a right-wing government as "moderates".

      I do believe Jason himself believes this. He is delusional. These people are neither liberal nor moderate.

  • Israel will lose all American Jews but the crazies
    • I like to read Phil for no other reason than even when I agree with him, as in this case, I still disagree with the origins.

      Livni, Oren and these people are still active, so is Olmert.
      Phil talks about unhinged people, but people like Abba Eban was the one who introduced the "Auschwitz lines" talking point.

      The truth is that Israeli politics has always been like this. The main difference is how the world has reacted to it. In this sense, I don't agree with Phil's framing of personell. Bibi is a pretty impressive guy, high IQ, very educated, former commando, etc.

      The reality is that non-Jews in particular ae turning against these people on substance. Time has simply done its part. The Holocaust, like Ron Prosor tried, can't be exploited that much more. People just sigh and move on.

      Another factor is that it is now mainstream to talk about the 1SS. People just sigh whenever they hear the words "peace process", because they know it's just continued colonization under pretext.

  • We're all anti-American now
    • Every empire has its own mythology. America for a long time even resisted calling itself an empire, claiming it was morally different.

      In reality, America's dominant ethos has always been liberal hegemony, which it shares with its progenitor, the British Empire.

      Liberal hegemony means that liberal democracy must rule, but it also means that "universal values"(which we define) must also rule. If anyone says no, they are reactionary barbarians and all methods are justified to bring them asunder into submission or even extermination.

      That's part of the reason why people are so "shocked" at this report. It sweeps the rug under their feet. Still, a kind-of/sort-of defence of America runs along the lines of power and that power corrupts.

      Is China a better state? Would India be? Neither are nearly as powerful as the U.S. military. And remember that America was pretty cautious (abroad) once it became the largest power in 1870. China just passed that moment. In 20-30 years from now, we'll see if China is as peaceful as it is now.

      And yes, America committed colonization and worse on the Native Americans, but so has China on the Tibetans.

      Nothing of this excuses America's deeds, but does this mean that America is worse than other nations, that there is an inherent moral failing? Or does this mean that these are the natural consequences of unparallelled power?

      Maybe a bit of a realist take. One of the benefits of the (relative) decline of American power is that people aren't going to start all these wars as easily. Another thing is that non-whites tend to be less militaristic than whites in their support for militant foreign policy.

  • As US media awake to a 'nightmare' Israel, NYT brings Blumenthal in from the cold
    • Unrelated: I've listened to Bennett's performance during my commute(download video at home, convert to mp3 and the into the phone it goes).

      I gotta say, maybe it's stuff you miss while listening but I'm not sure if the audience was so much against him as you imply, Phil. When Bennett talked about demography; the importance of outbreeding the Arabs, he got a lot of cheerful and encouraging laughs. There were similar moments throughout his talk.

      I've always thought Bennett is the future of Israeli politics, not Lieberman. He has the youth, he has the fluency in English, he has the brains and he has the unabashed fanaticism. He is also good at being a politician. His party could well succeed Likud in one of the next two elections, maybe even this one.

      And Bennett as PM would also be a nightmare for Israel to defend in front of Western audiences(not the mostly Zionist one at Saban). But here's the thing: maybe it doesn't matter. The Israeli Jews don't need the Arab labor and the feckless EU is unlikely to really boycott the state. Further, Israel can, with time, diversify away from Europe.

      Bennett's performance at Saban showed that he doesn't care about the rest of the world, unlike the white junta in South Africa. Maybe he isn't alone in that sentiment, in Israel.

    • That's not surprising. Him being published in the NYT has been splashed all over the Zionist blogosphere. A lot of readers reading that well-written argument are fuming Zionists who have been re-directed from their hate sites.

      If you read most Op-Eds on Israel, either for or against, you'd have noticed that the vast majority of comments in the NYT are deeply skeptical, if not hostile, to the state.

    • That is a fair rundown, but don't forget that the people who forced these Zionists to come to their conclusions were us, people in Palestinian solidarity but even more than us, it was the Palestinians themselves.

      My point in bringing this up is to remind you not to overinvest in the notion of these people's morality. "Shoot and cry" exists for a reason.

      In the end, these people will be a lagging indicator of where the true progressives are going. These folks are those who can sense where the wind is blowing and as a result, re-adjust their sails. Michaelson in particular goes from hard-left to hard-right in a matter of months.

      If there ever was a significant intifada, you'd know that all these shoot and cry Zionists would drum up support behind the Apartheid state. Remember Jane Eisner's and J Street's support for Sodastream.

      These people are fundamentally frauds. Progress, yes, but not of their doing at all. And progress henceforth won't be due to them, either.

  • Israel has no answer to BDS, Barghouti tells packed hall at Columbia
    • It's crazy how fast everything has gone. I have been at this website for a few years now. I remember how we all huddled together in massive celebrations over a non-statement by some local bureaucrat.

      I remember when the SJP chapters were non-entities, now they are the most important group of activism on American campuses, perhaps in addition to black groups(and both are increasingly working together).

      I still think that even if Israel loses America, there are serious questions over how viable that will affect the situation on the ground. Barghouti is overoptimistic on this and he doesn't even want to adress it.

      I mean, for "liberal" Zionists, it will be a disaster, since Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity and many want to live their comfortable lives in the West. But Israel doesn't rise or fall with them, even if many seem to think so. I've always said: Israel cannot be broken economically, but only culturally. Will it be able to withstand the cultural pressure? It doesn't identify with the rest of the Middle East. It only has the West.

      And if it loses the West, it has nobody else. Will Israel be able to live in that crushing cultural isolation, forever? The term "Masada state" is very apt.

  • Chris Hughes brings down the curtain on neoconservative New Republic
    • I'm not surprised at this uproar, but yes, the TNR was a gathering for Jewish "liberal" neocons and hardline racial nationalists like Chait. So of course he is outraged.

      It's notable that nobody has accused him of anti-Semitism, which I think is less because of the decency of the people involved and more because they realize that nobody's going to believe that BS(which in of itself is a victory of sorts).

      You're right, this marks the end of the tight-knit Jewish establishment which sought to control discussions on Israel on the left.

      This is a landmark in the era of the Jewish establishment. It’s petering out in an elite generation of far greater diversity.

      It's also notable that most of these crying Jewish racial nationalists(just about all of them men) don't get much support from the rest of the liberal base, which is a direct proof of your point.

      Most of the reaction on the left has been from people like Coates, who pointed out that TNR was a bastion of bigotry against blacks for many years and literally employed not a single black person. A lot of these people are stuck in a pre-modern mindset, where "diversity" means Jewish and everyone is white(regardless of religion). This is why their pathetic crusade has failed. They haven't adapted to the times.

      I still think TNR is finished. And frankly I don't care. It hasn't been relevant for many years. A lot of these neocons will find their own home in places like Bloomberg(like Eli Lake and Josh Rogin). But their hayday is over.

  • Israel's proposed Jewish nationality law is a flop on Broadway
    • triumph of Zionism over democracy

      Hey, I remember Bernard Avishai. He is a liberal Zionist like most of the people on Haaretz payroll. He endlessly agonizes over Israel but he refuses to abandon the ethnocentric and settler-colonial project. By the way, people should listen to his irritation when he was on the same show as you, Phil, a few months back, with Beinart. He was like most Zionists: he only wants Zionist Jews to criticize Israel. As soon as a non-Zionist(Jewish or not) starts talking, his true colors show up. I don't see why you should seek to quote him. He's a fraud, like every "liberal" Zionist.

      What’s interesting and something we have to think about, and I don’t have an easy answer, I’m just putting it out is: why it is that it’s not seen as equivalent as saying, This is a Christian state which is also democratic, or this is a white state which is also democratic. It is not seen as an equivalent statement.

      I think that conviction that there’s something different here — about claiming Israel is a Jewish state and yet democratic, its nonequivalence with either a racial state that is white or a religious state that is Christian– is very deep. I don’t see this law suddenly jolting people out of their cognitive dissonance. A lot of the coverage has been quite clear on this.. Reproters are struggling with this. well, In some ways it’s not new, but it enshrines it in a certain way.

      That's because it is only really white nationalism that is demonized in America. Non-white nationalism isn't really demonized, and some forms are actively encouraged(like black nationalism).

      In addition, Chinese nationalism may not be popular but it isn't seen as fascism. Ditto Hindu nationalism and so on. Nadia is correct that this isn't a "final blow" in a way many may think, although it certainly strips away the patina of liberal democracy(that never was). American liberal elites have not yet brought their thinking on nationalism into a non-schizophrenic space. Either you are for or against it. Instead what we have is a patchwork where some are approved and some are not. And Jewish nationalism sits on the fence here. Jews are a minority, but are still seen as part of the white establishment of America.

      Older Jews still may try to pretend that they are vulnerable in America, but most people under the age of 40 knows that is total BS. This mismatch is also part of the reason for this ambivalence. Fundamentally, however, it is a small part, the much bigger part is the overall view on nationalism which is incoherent and hypocritical.

  • A defensive Netanyahu announces elections hours after firing opposition members Lapid and Livni
    • Blah chick, the best analysis I've read in the Israeli press is this one:

      link to

      A lot of "analysis" is just wishful thinking, especially from places like Haaretz "15 reasons why Netanyahu might lose" or "it's everyone vs Netanyahu now".

      These are self-deluding Zionists who wish to have another PM. But as the guy in the link explains, there is no alternative. Livni is finished. Lapid has been cut down by half. Labor is stuck in nowhereland.

      Bennett is rising. The new guy, Kahlon, he is a former Likudnik. He may be to the left of Bibi on economic issues but on issues of race and nationalism, he is right in the square of the camp. Of course, so is Lapid/Livni, but Kahlon is unapolegitic.

      The reason why Bibi went to election is because he knows that his former rivals are very weak. He can form a majority-government without any so-called "centrists" according to just about every poll.
      This means Bibi+Bennett+Lieberman and the ultra-Orthodox parties put together.

      This is what Bibi wants, because he needs that to get through the Jewish Nationality Bill, among others. Bibi could end up as Israel's Erdogan or Putin. He is well on his way already.

  • Thanksgiving: The perfect holiday to ruin with politics
    • Horizontal, Inhofe is a simpleton, Cruz isn't a simpleton; he is an extremist. Although an intelligent one. Which makes him much more dangerous than Inhofe.

  • #JusticeForMikeBrown: NFL star Reggie Bush connects Ferguson to Palestine
    • ADL did serious and important work in its early decades of existance.

      Today it isn't just an organization that isn't about civil rights, it's an organization that actively promotes Jewish supremacism abroad and maintains White supremacism at home. "This isn't about racism". Seriously.

      Blumenthal is correct when saying that many of these Zionist groups act as conduits of White supremacist ideas in our culture. This is a great example.

  • When Hagee vilifies Obama as 'anti-Semitic,' Cruz and Dershowitz don't walk out
    • Horizontal said:

      People like Cruz just make me shake my head. That people actually voted this clown into office is the really scary part.

      Uhm, I actually think of Cruz as a more principled person than most conservatives and for that I have a respect for him, even if I disagree with his positions. But it is telling that the person closest to the grassroots, Warren in the Democratic party and Cruz in the GOP, are both very craven to Israel.

      Both are typically anti-Establishment in their other positions, in their own way, but on this issue they both converge. That shows you the power of the lobby. Warren dares taking on Wall St, she does not dare taking on the Israel lobby. So, yes, it is the most powerful lobby out there.

    • Horizontal, you may or may not remember Ted Cruz' storming out of a gala for Christian victims of the Middle East.

      He made a dramatic rant about Israel, even if the dinner was about persecution of (Arab) Christians, and for that he was booed, which he then turned into a calculated hissy fit. It was all there for the cameras.

      I think Phil covered that before on this site. It was just a few months ago. I said then and say again that his performance was solely aimed at donors. Wouldn't be surprised if his press people sent the clip to the staff of these megadonors before the meeting to soften the pitch.

  • Efforts to suppress Palestinian activism on US campuses won't work
    • I don't believe in territorial pissing. I don't agree with Ron Paul on basically everything except on foreign policy and when there are issues where two strands of each base can come together; we should come together on that basis.

      On some issues, foreign policy, wall street banksterism, the two party establishments have a much more solidified world view in common than they do with the respective base of their own party.

      You should keep up with the times, man.

  • George Lopez turns into a Christian Zionist hack
    • I just skimmed that clip but it seems pretty obvious he has a racial fetish for white blonde women.
      It's also true that Hollywood has long presented the white blond woman as this shiksa for conquest for non-WASP men(back in those days it was Jews).

      Hollywood has a long history of racism, although it is noteworthy that this kind of racism only affects white women. Same with the "dumb blonde" stereotype. Doesn't touch white men. So it is a gendered racism.

      BTW; I do think Lopez's conversion to Zionism is just a desperate way for him to become relevant again. He knows that there's a lot of Zionist Jews in Hollywood, like Haim Saban and others, who are organizing IDF fundraiser dinners. Nobody cares about him these days. That's why he goes there.

  • David Remnick undermines Israel's one-state president
    • Thanks for the exhaustive report, Ronald.

      And yes, Remnick's creeping nationalism has been obvious for a long time now. His hosting of Shavit should have warned the alarm bells. In the end, he is another posturer like Beinart - who says he is fine with Palestinians with less than equal rights if that's the price to be paid for a Jewish state.

      The problem Remnick and Beinart both have is that they have no solution. Their pet cause, the 2SS, was a fraud from the getgo.

      So they are both reduced to demonizing the 1SS, because it's obvious to both of them that's where we are already, by trying to link it to settler groups.

      Out of ideas, out of time.

  • 'My friends, with us tonight is the face of the Holocaust': Boteach talks Israel, Palestine, and genocide with Wiesel and Power
    • I'm seriously starting to wonder about Samantha Power. What is the source of her craven submission to these Jewish nationalists? Has she secretly converted to Judaism after marrying a Jew in '08? Lenin once said of the Polish communists that they are more Russian than the Russians(in a communist context).

      Whatever the reason, this is no longer about mere opportunism but instead something far more deeply pathological.

  • Netanyahu's 'battle for Jerusalem' can't end well for any of us
    • Basically, I think that the only real way to stop the conflict is domestic politics in America. Only when America turns will Israel turn, and even then it's doubtful if it will, but that's the only realistic chance there is. As Phil noted, the power imbalance - militarily, economically - between the two is massive and probably unbridgable in many generations.

    • Broadly speaking, yes, but this little bit...

      The words “battle for Jerusalem” recall the Battle of Algiers in the late 1950s, a similar contest between overwhelming military force and terrorist attacks. And we know how that turned out, in a zero sum game, in which the colonizers felt they had to leave Algeria in 1962, even colonizers who’d been there several generations.

      Algeria/South Africa is different because the power structure is different. The French needed the Algerians; the Jews don't really need the Palestinians(and don't want them). If the French did massive ethnic cleansing, then the state would collapse. If the Israeli government did so, the economy would shrink to some extent, but a lot of people would be jubilant and Israel would go on. It survived hyperinflation in the 80s; it would survive this, too.

      With Clinton coming in by '16 and probably sitting out eight years, that means we got at least 10 more years until we can have a president which would be more balanced. But even then it's doubtful. The Arabs and muslims in general are too poor to challenge Zionist cash. Only WASPs can crush any opposition but these WASPs are too rich for their own good, think a guy like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. They're apolitical, because they can be. They prefer cold fusion or atomic clocks.

  • Caltech prof says Israeli scientist passed NASA rocket secrets to his government
    • Why did Troian hire an Israeli to begin with?
      Her whining over this now rings a bit hollow to me…..everyone on the frigging earth knows a Israeli is going to steal info if he can.

      Because everyone is not aware of this. Troian was simply naïve from what I've read in the stories, although the guy who did the spying seems just as naïve and clueless as her. He didn't come across as a very good spy, which is why I think she eventually caught him, because she seems terrible at sniffing out danger, too. My guess is that this Amit guy was basically just doing what he was being told by his superiors and doing it badly and clumsily. I guess he probably feels used and doesn't like being under investigation. Can he now visit America without being arrested? They should arrest his superiors instead, as well as the trojan horse inside Caltech, Gharib.

      And that's really what is more troubling about this, the fact that Gharib felt it more important to protect his friendships even if it was someone who was actively spying on America, than to protect the country. If Gharib has that kind of moral compass, or lack thereof, who knows how many secerets he has peddled to various countries?

      I hope Troian gets her lawsuit through and I commend her for fightning and not just letting this go. She seems like a strong woman and even if she won't win, the case is bringing a lot more light to both the notorious Israeli spying on America as well as the corruption at Caltech, by the likes of Gharib. Hopefully we can smash two flies in one go.

  • Sea change down under: Ex-Australian Foreign Minister announces himself a 'Friend of Palestine'
  • Pressure on 'The Lancet' for Gaza letter another example of pro-Israel assault on freedom of expression
  • Chickenshitgate: A dissenting view
    • The key words are clear and concise, for Eamon's primarily fault is assuming rationality on the part of the actors, as exemplified here:

      Netanyahu’s failure to bomb Iran is evidence not of gutlessness but of sanity

      For Bibi's critics, this point is utterly lost, which is why their perception of him is baseless, but it wouldn't be the first time that the Obama administration has soaked the Israeli-Zionist narrative. Notice that the supposed unnamed source uses Sharon as some kind of peacenik model to aspire to, just like the caricature in the Zionist press even if anyone with rudimentary knowledge should know that Sharon was never ever serious.

      It's in essence the same phenomenon that explains the Beltway mentality. Very Serious People keep saying the same thing, it becomes established fact, whether or not it is grounded in reality.

  • 'Exalted anti-Zionists' are now driving the conversation
    • Chomsky has moved steadily in the direction of (reluctantly) conceding that BDS is working. He was dead wrong from the getgo and continues to be wrong, which his shifting position reveals.

      As for Friedman, Phil, I just don't see what you see. All I see is mumbling. We often ask ourselves what lib Zionists will do once the 2SS collapses not just in practice but also in terms of respectability. Friedman's column may be an answer.

      He drones talks on a great deal about "talking to each other". So basically the same kind of stuff that you criticized when you attacked "dialogue groups" that act as a valve for lib Zionists to salve their conscience. That's what we will have. That, or outright migration to neocon principles(i.e. Goldberg, Dershowitz and the others).

      Friedman's column was a good example of how to write a deal but not having said anything.

  • BDS Victories: Online retailer drops Ahava; Kuwait boycotts companies with settlement ties
  • Normalizing occupation, NYT runs whimsical story on time zones
  • Jebreal debunks Netanyahu's 'American values' claim in NYT piece on 'hate policies'
    • Good for her to focus on non-WB/Gaza Palestinians, but these people are often the fig leafs that "liberal" Zionists wish to uphold.

  • Another New York Times' reporter's son is in the Israeli army
    • I mean, can anybody really pretend that the NYT isn't totally biased for Israel anymore?

      It's a serious question. Do they even try? Even their public editors agree.
      Despite all the hype about "anti-Israel bias", by Matti Friedman and others, the reality is the opposite and these stories merely confirm this - time and time again.

    • The notion that because the Times has a Jewish owner, it covers Israel in a certain way, is antisemitic on its face.

      No, it's common sense.

      The same would be true if the NYT had Irish Catholic owners during the Irish conflict before the Good Friday agreement. Sorry hophmi, nobody buys that BS you're putting out there anymore.

      That ship has sailed.

  • Kerry just snubbed a gov't minister who calls for segregated bus lines. And that's a bad thing?
    • I think that they are drinking Ziocaine.

      Good one :D

      On Chomsky:

      It's impossible to escape the fact that Chomsky, a non-Palestinian and a latent Zionist(in the cultural sense, yiddishkeit, not in the blood and soil sense) is lecturing an oppressed people in a way I doubt he would if it wasn't Jews oppressing.

      He has a good point about power relations, but Chomsky's "advice" is to lay down on the ground and do nothing, because we have to appreciate how it will sound to Zionist ears when it comes to RoR. This is a bizarre and shocking statement: we should adapt to the Zionists? This is why I call Chomsky a latent Zionist. He gives far more space to the oppressor than he would if they weren't Jewish.

      And at any rate: who is he to judge Palestinians on the RoR? It sounds an awfully lot like Zionists who complain about Palestinians "not being able to let go" about the Nakba.

      Sorry to say(not really) but Chomsky's an idiot on BDS, just like Finkelstein. They should just stop talking about it.

      P.S. Notice that Chomsky has shifted, too. He used to be against all BDS. Now he is qualifying his resistance to RoR. Piece by piece he is moving towards acknowleding that BDS is working, but we should never forget his intial zealotry in his fanatical opposition to BDS. This is why people don't listen to him on BDS. He was wrong from the start and he will continue to be wrong.

  • Recognizing Palestine—and political reality
    • You're wrong on count after count, horizontal. First, Fatah is a Western-backed outfit, funded by the US, EU and Israel. Abbas' popular support is non-existant. You sound like a Zionist, by the way.

      And so does Stern-Weiner, who blames the BDS movement for not accepting the pre-made agreement that is the 2SS, which would, as Abuminah points out, amount to a bantustan where Israel would control everything.

      The only people pushing for a 2SS now are either people paid to do so (Abbas) or Western Zionists who understand that if the 2SS dies (officially) then "the State of Israel", as per Ehud Olmert, "is finished".

      By the way Stern-Weiner, I'd look a lot more seriously at people like Abuminah who is actually Palestinians than would-be "allies" like yourself who dictate to Palestinians that they should accept a corrupted agreement.

  • Israeli president's diagnosis -- 'Israel is a sick society' -- doesn't go viral in the U.S.
    • Listened through the radio show. Bernard Avishai is probably even more hilarious. A total Likudnik masquerading as a peacenik. God, I'm pleased that these bigots aren't able to get away like they used to back in the day.

    • Listening to your radio interview now, Phil. Beinart is a pathological liar. Tries to compare European democracies to Israel. There is not a single European country that has a "special responsibility to one ethnic group".

      Israel has a Jews-only immigration policy. There is no European equivalent, not even countries like Finland or Poland.

  • The rabbi's fridge

      Honestly, Mr. Kahn, she and everyone else does not need your services.
      It's shocking how retrograde American campuses are on this issue even today.

      Or how the fraudulent Klinghoffer hysteria spun out of control. America's ain't alright when it comes to Zionism.

  • The ice floe
    • Heh, that was a pretty brutal comment from Phil, but maybe he's right? I see a lot more diversity of opinion in my circles(mostly 20s, secular).

      I guess Phil is unfortunate to have been stuck in a generation that is politically reactionary.
      I would also add, Phil, that for some older folks that I've met, who deep down don't really like this idea of intermarriage, but who are secular/atheist through and through, Israel is really a bulwark against assimilation. They get that they are not threatened in any serious way in the West, but they feel that a state is the only way to make sure secular Jewry survives. Maybe they're right, maybe not.

      P.S. I also think you're a bit too cynical on dialogue groups. Sure, the way they are employed, as a band-aid for people to sooth their conscience, is pretty disgusting. But dialogue groups can be very helpful, it can serve as a bridge for someone who got a hardline Zionist upbringing. Not everyone is ready it jump from Kahane was right* to One State for All in one go.

      * "Officially he was terrible but unofficially, maybe he was right after all"

  • Judt on Brooks and Friedman's role in pushing the criminal invasion of Iraq
    • Thanks for reminding me about Judt. I'll probably read that book when studies permit.

      One minor observation though: I was disappointed to see Judt brandish all and everyone who wasn't a neocon an "isolationist". That's the kind mentality that has led to precisely the sheepishness that he laments in your quote.

      Because if anyone who opposed Iraq was an "isolationist" - and we all know that WWII is always brought up in context of that smear - what good can you do to prevent it from happening, either in the moment or in the future?

      It's also interesting to see that Judt preferred to skip the Jewish question. Maybe he gets to it later in the book. Everyone but Ignatieff was Jewish on his list of people. Judt didn't strike me as milquetoast on these issues. But maybe he didn't feel the need to point it out, rather just picking a heavily-Jewish list for his readers to understand his own disappointment with how his group behaved.

  • The Missing Context: 'Islamic State' sectarianism is not coincidental 
    • Attacking the shocking mismanagement of America's post-Iraq activities is easy.

      What is also easy is to portray Iraq's current sectarianism as somehow a biproduct of the American invasion. Why did Saddam gas the kurds in the early 90s? When secterianism was supposedly gone?

      The Arab world has to reckon with the fact that ISIS is a homegrown phenomenom and blaming America feels good but does not solve anything long-term.

      Yes, America has partly given rise to ISIS due to its actions, but the ideology behind ISIS has been fermenting in the Arab world for decades, the Islamists begun their ascension to power already back in the 60s and 70s and the ideological groundwork was sown many decades before even that.

      But self-criticism is far harder than blaming outside forces. Not that those forces are free of guilt, but I've grown tired of reading the same self-excusing apologism from people who should know better.

  • Shlomo Sand resigns from being Jewish. Totally. Mostly. Almost
    • It was a bizarre article. I guess it's a part of what happens to Zionism. Shlomo is a sabra. He is native to the land(as in, he was born there).

      For him, Judaism is obviously Zionism on some level, even if he tries to deny it on the surface. Maybe it's a side effect of living in a country where basically no Jew is an anti-Zionist and everyone who says no goes to jail or worse.

      Nevertheless, the logic of his argument has little to no bearing on the reality of the diaspora, and it will continue with or without Zionism.

  • Tablet types Rev. Shipman as elite, anti-semitic WASP
    • By the way, I forgot to add when Oppenheimer tries to equate white, rich and privileged Jews like himself and most of us to blacks under stop and frisk, I laughed out loud. Honestly, Oppenheimer is wedded to the concept of Jewish outsiderdom. In his world, we are somehow oppressed.

      Yet we are the most powerful, the richest ethnic group in America. He is clearly uncomfortable with this, but his examples with blacks and stop-and-frisk surely takes the cake.

      He is unable to deal with his own privilege and prefers a world of 1960, forever, where WASPs control everything and Jews have barely entered into the mainstream.

      Oppenheimer lives in the past, and his racism should be relegated to the past, too.

      P.S. His "leftie friend" sounds like a made-up person. Either way, anti-muslim racism is far more common in the Jewish community than anti-WASP racism. Oppenheimer thinks he is showing his sophistication by being a bigot against WASPs, but the reality is that the kind of things you can say against muslims in general and Palestinians in particular is really beyond anything you can say about WASPs.

      I doubt his "leftie friend" is unaware of this, but I also doubt his leftie friend even exists, because how can you be so blind to the everyday racism emanating, recently from a senior Atlanta rabbi likening Palestinians to Nazis? Or the "Palestinians are an invented people" meme which are not nearly as isolated as liberal Zionists want to try to suggest.

    • There are not a lot of people Jews can be racist to and get away with it, but Palestinians and WASPs are both groups which you can do it.

      Furthermore, anti-WASP racism has a cultural pedigree to it which Oppenheimer is not late to exploit, as we have seen.

      Oppenheimer is a bigot.

  • Wiesel lauds settlers for 'strengthening the Jewish presence in Jerusalem' -- and expelling Palestinians
    • Wiesel has long been a Jewish supremacist, just like Abe Foxman.

      That people haven't caught them on that for so long is probably something that someone should write a book about, because this issue transcends the Jewish community. How people who pose as anti-racists in the U.S. can be ethnic supremacists abroad.

      The American race discussion hasn't really understood that issue really well, which both Wiesel and Foxman show.

  • NY rabbi implores those in her congregation who are joining Israel's enemies to love the country
    • Lenin used to say that the fiercest ideologues are typically converts - who have most to prove.

      Buchdahl intermarried, has no Jewish lineage and is non-white. Everyone who has spent any time at all within the Jewish community knows how monolithically white it is. Pew's study last year pegged the Jewish community as 95% white. It's likely that the religious camp within that group is even more white. Mormons are 80% white or so, and they are typically criticized for their lack of diversity.

      How does a woman who is in the 5% minority, who has ascended to become one of the most powerful rabbis in America, cope with Zionism? She assimiliates the attitudes of the majority to such an extent precisely because she is fearful if she didn't, would she be as welcome?

      Afterall, even Jews like Blumenthal, who is Jewish on both sides, gets called self-hating and gets their Judaism questioned. How would Angela Buchdahl fare?

      Her commentary is not just a sad statement on the debate on Zionism within American Jewry, it is also a commentary on the racial exclusiveness that permeates the same community, i.e., if you don't have ancestry in Eastern Europe or Germany going back 100-150 years, somehow "you're not quite Jewish". Never said, but often silently understood.

  • David Brooks's son joining Israel army is an 'extreme case' -- NYT public editor
    • Sullivan isn't correct to suggest that this is an "extreme case". It is actually a very, very common case inside the NYT.

      We've uncovered three so far, how many more?

      And by the way, for Rosenthal to say that it's the same thing as if being in the U.S. Air Force as in an occupying apartheid army is really indicative of his own mindset. This is why you can't have a serious discussion about Israel. And as long as Rosenthal remains the Op-Ed editor, that won't change.

    • I also found that defensive comment and justification by Rosenthal odd, if not disingenuous.

      Rosenthal is a Zionist, he protects his own.

      By the way, nobody should be surprised if his own children or the children of Rosenthal's own family has served in the IDF.

  • U.S. life insurance company underwrites Israeli colonel's talk on his army's 'moral high ground' in Gaza
    • This story is brilliant, though.

      Sixth and I hosted Coates on his "case for reparations", taking a very deferential approach with Jeffrey Goldberg as moderator. Coates veered into the extreme by saying "we may have to eliminate white people" - and got applause.

      And yet here is the same synagogue, hosting these kind of people. Really, in one synagogue, the current reality of establishment Jewry in one place.

  • White House is now in open spat with Netanyahu over his 'American values' lecture
    • Well, if the "spat" consists of Earnest bending over backwards to try to show how supportive the administration has been of Israel, count me as bored.

      By the way, I'm surprised that people haven't pointed out the obvious: midterm elections. Obama can't go hard on Bibi because he needs the donors. The democrats could easily lose the senate, which Netanyahu is aware of, and Obama needs every last dollar to his candidates. If Obama spends the next two years with BOTH the house and the senate in GOP hands, he is in effect a lame duck president extraordinaire.

      It'll be interesting to see how Obama acts after the midterms, and if the dems keep the senate(which is certainly possible, perhaps even probable, right now). He's scott-free of elections ahead of him and that would theoretically be the time to turn the screws on Bibi.

      I doubt he'll go so hard, though, Obama surely keeps an eye on his post-presidential career. He can't alienate the establishment if he wants to earn the big bucks on the speaker circuit, like Clinton has done.

  • Sweden's recognition of Palestine will license activists
    • All good points.

      Although it should also be added that the latest news is that the new government has somewhat backtracked its position, which could explain why Lieberman's statement was so muted, as he could have had advance knowledge of the matter.

      Nevertheless, it's a sign of the times. And a good sign of the times.

  • If you stand up for Palestine in America, 'you're the devil,' Junot Diaz says
    • I always laugh when I see non-white immigrants pretending to give a shit about Native Americans, claiming they should "get their land back", because I know and everyone know that these people are not serious. Because they would then have to move out of the country where they came from - and so would most white Americans.

      Native Americans have become a political tool by people who don't really care about them but who use them to bludgeon people who care even less.

      Would Junot give up his privileges and top 5% salary? Laughable.

  • Where is the antiwar movement?
    • The elephant in the room:

      I asked Benjamin, who like Swanson voted for Obama in 2008 before turning Green, why so few on the left oppose Obama. “He’s totally defanged us,” she said, citing his party, his affability — and his race. “The black community is traditionally the most antiwar community in this country. He’s defanged that sentiment within the black community, or certainly voicing that sentiment.”

      That quote is sensitive, and I'm not at liberty to judge whether it is accurate since Benjamin is one of the most seasoned activists in the country with a lot of experience. But if we give Benjamin the benefit of the doubt, then Obama's race and the black community's racial loyalty to him is indeed a factor. But it could also be that white liberals in general have a harder time attacking a black liberal than they did a white republican.

    • Dan, some of the things you said are accurate. Like this:

      Also, I’ll say this: the anti war lefts snobbery toward the right libertarian anti war movement is as big a problem as anything else.


      Others, like trying to blame America for ISIS, is mind-numbingly stupid. Sorry, it just is. What's been going in the Islamic World for the past 100 years is a slow, crawling counter-attack against modernity. It's a favorite past time of white people to pretend that they are omnipotent, in large part because that fuels the White Savour Complex many of them carry around. It also makes them more relevant in the discussion than they actually are.

      ISIS and other groups are indigenous. It's time to bury the mythology that if it wasn't for the U.S., the Middle East would just get along fine. The Islamist movement is not new, and they have been building up for over a century by now. They're also very well-funded financially by the oil kingdoms. If America would leave the region, none of that would change.

  • Maher lumps Islam with ISIS, and CNN's Cuomo says Aslan's 'primitive' tone proves Maher's point
    • Okay, okay, let's begin from the start:

      1. Islam/muslim is not a race. There are plenty of white folks who are muslim, whether in Europe(former Yugoslavia) or in Russia.


      i bet if you controlled for all the factors of violence most of the worlds populations would be pretty even.

      It's an interesting question, but all the anecdotal evidence supports the "Islam = violent" hypothesis. NOW, you might be saying "but that's because the media blows muslim violence up a lot more!", and you'd be right. But the media goes where the blood is ("if it bleeds, it leads"), and the reality is that if you want to see blood, you go into muslim countries.

      3. This is a point less to you and more to Phil. I do appreciate that Phil isn't backing this discussion down completely by backing Aslan, but rather shifting it towards the fact that we are more responsible for the violence that we ourselves are responsible for. I agree with that. But that isn't really the discussion, Phil, the discussion is whether Islam is more violent or not.

      I don't think there's any evidence to say that Islam is "inherently" more violent. Christianity has been more violent, historically, but today the vast bulk of religious (violent) extremism is coming from Islam. I'm talking about people who talk about justifying their violence through Islam, not people who happen to be Christian but never cloak their violence in religious terms.

      Say what you will, but I doubt Obama is thinking about himself as a crusader as he approves drone strikes. It's about the intention as much as about the act.

  • Netanyahu lectures Americans on open housing and 'ethnic purification'
    • Yes, but also this part:

      What is this affront to peace. Why can’t Jews and Arabs live together?

      This should have been Bob's opening to a counter-question: if that is the case, then why do Palestinians have such a hard time getting a permit of the west side of the green line but Jews don't?

      Phil said Bibi's performance was "amazing". I disagree. It's more like Bob's performance was disastrous. He's a passive poodle. I had the same feeling when reading through Amos Oz's interview with Deutsche Welle. The interviewer was amazingly passive, and Amos "the peacemaker" was essentially a Likudnik activist throughout the interview, defending the latest mass slaughter to a 100%.

      The issue isn't hasbara. The issue is the passivity of the older generation who are either Jewish themselves like Bob or have an in-grained mentality that you cannot criticize Jews, like the old sclerotic "journalists" at DW who act like a doormat.

  • Food writer Melissa Clark on being Jewish
    • I didn't listen to the show, so maybe I missed a great length of her talking about her Jewish identity, but from her quote, I can't really see what you are projecting, Phil.

      It seems to me that her mention of the Settlement Cookbook(what a name, btw) triggered some kind of nostalgia in you and that nostalgia basically wrote this article.

      Although I should say that Ms. Clark seems like a very nice woman generally.

    • That should be obvious, Helena.

  • AIPAC rabbis stand up for racial justice in Michael Brown case
    • People should be judged by how they act in a scenario where they are the majority, not the minority. It's easy to make an argument as a racial minority that protecting other racial minorities' rights is protecting your own.

      In other words: is Susan's stand less principle and more crass racial self-interest? Because of her stance on Israel, the burden of proof is on her. Actually, it isn't. The case is already settled, she sides with right-wing settlers in Israel. That's what really counts because she is in the majority in Israel.

  • Ilan Pappé on Israel’s 'post-Zionist moment' and the triumph of 'neo-Zionism'
    • Mr. Shenfield has written a very concise and interesting review. I had hoped that the text would be longer, so he could go further into depth in each of his points.

      Allow me to quibble on just one:

      In today’s world no one can hope successfully to defend ethnic cleansing and ethnic supremacy.

      This is not necessarily true. Ethnic supremacy is the de-facto policy of much of East Asia. I use supremacy in the sense of holding the priorities of your own race above all others.

      But it is true that it is impossible to defend in the West, or at least for now. A lot of Zionists consider "the world" to be the West, because that's where 90% of all diaspora Jews live. And it is also the cultural sphere where most Jews feel most at home.

      Israel can go on economically without the West, although most of its trade is with Western countries as of now, that can change within a few decades. The more interesting question is the cultural one: can it go on without the West in the cultural sense? Israel doesn't consider itself as part of the Middle East, but rather a "bulwark of the West" in a "sea of barbarity", or a "villa in the jungle" as Ehud Barak once quipped.

    • There are so many inaccuracies and fallacies in what you write I can hardly begin. I doubt you're Jewish, and I don't mean to say that non-Jews can't weigh in on these matters, but your shockingly poor grasp of American Jewry's politics suggests you aren't.

  • 'Ethnic cleansing for a better world' -- Richard Cohen says Palestinians brought the Nakba on themselves
    • It is, but it is useful to ponder if a white Christian mainstream WaPo/NYT journalist would have defended Jim Crow as "necessary but brutal" to "prevent blacks and whites from killing each other".

      In other words, the George Wallace argument. But in Cohen's case, he goes much further than that, he goes not just into racial segregation but into outright ethnic cleansing.

      Still, in a bizarre way, I'm thankful to him for being upfront with what a lot of Zionists feel but are too afraid to express. He is many things, but at least he has the bravery to admit what he believes, instead of hiding behind a smokescreen of liberalism(that always falls apart when the going gets tough, see Goldberg, Ben-Ami, David Aaron Miller, the forward's Eisner etc).

      I also agree with him on the Jewish question. But I'd go further. There's no way the green line will ever be resurrected at this stage, so he has to count the Arabs in the WB, too, and then the demographics become much darker for Israel's Zionist demographers. I'd also add Gaza, because the reality is, they are not going anywhere(even if Israel can't believe it).

      Where are the smart, cosmopolitan Jews going to go? We already know the answer, the well-off are going to London, Berlin, Sydney, LA, New York, Toronto etc. The Zionist dream, as in all Jews in place, has been a spectacular failure. Israel could well become a place where only the poorest Jews live, in perpetual conflict and agony.

      In some ways, it's already fast becomming that.

  • NYT's opening to a 'fringe voice' excites rage from Israeli army, journalism, business leaders
    • Mairav's piece was okay, but nothing relevatory. The fact that there is even a firestorm here is a problem in of itself. This just shows how shockingly coddled Zionists have been in the American media mainstream.

      Furthermore: would the NYT allow a Palestinian do this kind of Op-Ed or is it still the old rule of "only Jews can criticize Zionism"? I'm saying Zionism here and not Israel, but Mairav's piece was also about the underlying ideology of Zionism, which was perhaps part of the reason why it was an effective Op-Ed. Didn't get mired in the "liberal" Zionist mirage of "everything was fine before '67".

  • ISIS wants us to come in and bomb Arabs (Rouhani and Matthews agree)
    • I listened to an interesting interview with Bob Gates recently. He basically said the same thing as Krauthammer, although he was (of course) more nuanced, being the realist he is.

      He said that what we're seeing now is going to go on for decades, but that the U.S. should be careful not to get involved. He revealed he advised against intervention in Libya precisely because he feared that what would happen... is what has happened.

      Really, the U.S. has an excellent strategic position. But when more and more of Asia is pushing the U.S. out, it's easier and more convenient to intervene in the Middle East, where the U.S. has no real counter-weight. In 10-15 years, as both China and India start to get flex their muscles, we will see the U.S. capacity to intervene being severely curtailed.

    • Krauthammer takes money but he does not have to.

      He's like Schumer: a true believer.

  • Modi and Netanyahu's NY bromance
    • Here is the most authorative poll on the subject, by Australia's Lowy's institute in 2013.
      See page six, it ranks how the Indian public ranks countries.

      link to

      Israel doesn't do that well, it's third bottom from last. Only Afghanistan and Pakistan do worse. Even Iran(!) does a smidgen better than Israel.

      America is #1 and by a considerable margin, and then Singapore, Japan, Australia and France clustered together. India's 15% muslim population can't have that much of an effect. It bleeds into other groups.

    • A Chinese-Israeli alliance isn't on the cards, China needs too much oil for that. Plus the closest non-East Asian ally of China is Pakistan.

      An Indian-Israeli alliance is much more logical in many ways. But India's oil thirst is growing by 10% per annum. This by itself is going to limit how much the relationship will flourish.

      Also, India does not have an AIPAC. India needs Israeli weaponry(it's the largest arms importer in the world), but since there is no Israel lobby in India and since India's economy is just barely ahead of Canada's on a nominal GDP basis, we're looking at more moral support than any differentiating factor here.

      Still, I was interested in viewing how the Indian public views Israel. According to the Israeli consulate, the Indian public is the "most pro-Israel public in the world".

      Well not according to this:

  • When Rouhani says blaming ISIS on Islam is Islamophobic, is anyone listening?
    • P.S. Chomsky is at least consistent in this, who also prefers this kind of narrow-minded approach to I/P where Jewish agency is entirely removed and it's all about "U.S. imperialism" and "capitalism".

      It's the same fundamental flaw, whether it is ISIS in the Middle East or Likud in Israel that is being discussed.

    • Nope.

      Terrorism germinates in poverty, unemployment, discrimination, humiliation and injustice.

      A few points.

      1. Terrorism isn't an ideology, it is a tactic. And being poor is no excuse for being extreme. There are lots of poor countries in the world, yet the basic reality is that al-Qaida/ISIS and other organizations all congregate in the Middle East.

      Rouhani's self-patting on the back, i.e. blame it all on the West, does indeed mirror Chomsky, who too refuses to see the cultural foundation of the natives as a crucial element and instead prefers to pass the buck onto the U.S. entirely, just like Rouhani.

      2. In addition, I'd take any moral preachings from Rouhani just a tad more seriously once gay people stop being publicly hanged in Tehran. We can debate how much actual power over that he does have, but Rouhani has come out against internet censorship, so if he can do that, why is it so hard to publicly attack the practice of hanging gays?

      (I'm making the assumption here that he is actually against it, but maybe he actually isn't, considering his deafening silence on the topic).

  • Ohio treasurer fights divestment from the 'beacon of American values' in the Middle East
    • The only thing that surprised me was that he chose to do his army service in the U.S., and not in Israel, otherwise he would have fit the profile perfectly.

      But don't worry, aliyah is probably just around the corner. Of course, what holds him back is likely money. I think his current job gets him good money, can he get that kind of cash if he moves? I doubt it.

  • Ads Against Apartheid comes to Chicago's south side
    • Even though I like the message of the anti-Apartheid ad more, the reality is that it was an ineffective ad. You have 4 seperate windows and 2 different websites. It is a giant kludge of a mess. The Zionist ad is more effective, it is a single-window, single-theme ad.

      I'm guessing it is influenced by the infamous ad where you see Palestinian land disappear in successive steps.

  • Obama says Muslims bear responsibility to counter radical Islam (so are Jews responsible for Israeli violence?)
    • Obama is right, however.

      The reality is that the current chaos in the Middle East cannot be blamed on Western policies, which people like Juan Cole and others are pushing. It is an indigenous problem.

      It is true, as Chomsky and others have pointed out, that the U.S. has often supported Islamists in the past to get at secular Arab dictators who were supported by the Soviets back in the day, but Chomsky and others ignore the fact that the U.S. did this simply because the secular opposition was often a total joke, like the one we have in Syria today or the one which exists in Egypt.

      Just look at a graduation photo from Cairo University from the 1950s and today and see the massive difference. Back then almost no woman had a hijab, today it isn't uncommon to see a niqab or a burka. These are just proxies for a much more religious (and often intolerant) society, just like the ongoing Haredization of Israeli society.

      I also think that while the I/P is a problem for the U.S. and contributes negatively to U.S. national security, I actually agree with Obama that it is dumb to see it as a major cause of conflict in the region. Israel isn't causing ISIS to wreak havoc on religious minorities in Syria or in Iraq.

      Nor is it responsible for Turkey's increasingly intolerant and regressive turn backwards in time(violence against women has increased by over 1000% since Erdogan took power, women's rights are increasingly curtailed, they are told they have to stay home, some even say they shouldn't smile in public etc).

      The Middle East has moved steadily backwards in time in the post-war era on most social issues, while most if not all of the rest of the world has moved forward. That's in part why you see so much conflict there. And the only rich states have a lot of oil. The non-oil economy is really in the toilet, because how can a society be successful if it is culturally backwards?

      A society can be successful but politically dictatorial, like China, but Chinese culture is far more secular and open-minded than its political system.

    • That's easy for a Jew to say. The victims of Jewish fanaticism are not Jews, so how would you know? If you lived in the West Bank, your opinion would differ.

  • US elites are vulnerable to donor pressure on Israel question
    • Honestly, at this stage, anyone who denies or even tries to (desperately) downplay the massive importance of money is just going to be laughed off stage(or more accurately, Twitter, in this day and age).

      Should we call it Jewish money? I disagree, because I don't like lumping all Jews, even if it's all rich Jews, into one group. Should we call it Zionist money? No, because the funders who do this are not Pastor Hagee's crowd, to put it mildly. It is Jewish Zionist money. You need both. And it is old money, too. As in old age, not inherited cash.

      These are geezer Jews, folks who grew up with the so-called "miracle of Israel", the "good old Israel" that never was, if you weren't a whitewesterner with a fetish for colonization of other people's lands, that is(which all of them are).

      And I'm really fucking happy that we're seeing strong shifts in the younger generation. It's happening more slowly than most of us would acknowledge, but it is happening and it is picking up.

  • No Surprise Dep't: David Brooks's son is in Israeli army
    • Oh and BTW, inevitable comparison perhaps, but still important:

      How many journalists have the NYT had during the 60s, 70s and 80s who had their kids in the South African army?

      Again, we can't just focus on AIPAC when discussing the way the American media discusses Israel.

    • I know this upsets some people(looking at you ol' uncle Abe Foxman & Cpl. Goldberg), but the reality is that Mearsheimer/Walt were correct in casting a looser and wider net on their definition on the "Israel lobby".

      You could probably soon have a club of sorts of NYT employees who have their kids in the Israeli army.

      Why do I bring up Walt/Mearsheimer? Because their definition of the Israel lobby must include people in the media, which brought on a firestorm of accusations of "conspiracy-mongering" etc, but reality has outdone fiction/theory in this case.
      Just focusing on AIPAC/ADL/AJC etc is misguided. What about journalists and editors who act like Israel's guardians on full-time, and not just Cpl. Goldberg?
      What about Comcast's VP Dave Cohen or his boss Brian Roberts? What about all those Hollywood fundraising dinners for IDF?

      Chomsky gets nervous and uncomfortable in this discussion - and that's natural given his age and his memories - but the reality is that when the IDF massacres over 2000 Palestinians, and most of them civilians, we cannot just sit and be quiet in a misguided effort to be "civil". Civility, after all, is the language of power by the powerful. When blood flows, we cannot stay silent.

    • So is Brooks saying he’s Israeli?

      No, he actually has a dual loyalty, but of course that term is verboten, even if we see case after case of it recurring.

      Brooks in this sense is in the same boat as Adelson and his wife, who wouldn't let their children fight for America but would do it for Israel.

      Naturally, his son made his own decision, but who did his son get that Zionist upbringing from? Brooks isn't exactly a bystander here.

    • The interview could've been conducted in English and then just translated into Hebrew for Haaretz's readers.

  • Goldberg tries to police view that Israel's actions fuel anti-Semitism
    • But that's a ridicolous comparison on multiple levels. First, Zionism isn't Nazism. Even if you do not outright state it, the fact that you go all Godwin's Law on us denigrates your argument.

      Second, Germany's actions in WWII was as a total state. Those who disagreed were jailed or executed.

      But back to Phil's post:

      While it’s true that many Europeans are prejudiced against Muslims, to conflate all critical attitudes of Islam is to act as if Islam itself and the behavior of Muslims play no part in generating negative views.

      This quote by Kirchick can be used by anyone against Jews. And it has been used by Jews.
      I actually agree with Kirchick in this scenario. I've visited Jewish communities in Europe where 99% of the anti-Semitism comes from muslim immigrants. That's just a basic fact in most European major cities today(I'm talking about Western/Northern Europe, where the native population is typically pretty philo-Semitic on a personal level even if many dislike Israel. Eastern Europe is another ballgame).

      Was it okay to be prejudiced against Southern whites, even those who were moderate, during Jim Crow? Because that's really what we are talking about in Israel at this stage. Jim Crow or worse. Goldberg is not a liberal, he supports that ideology.

      To what extent does the Jewish community or the white Southern community or the muslim community in some parts of Europe have to take collective responsibility for a general attitude? My answer is that it depends on the monolithic nature of said attitude.

      The basic reality is that Zionism is, still, the absolute default position for most Jews. And Zionism is doing really ugly things to people. Is it surprising that people react that way towards Jews when most Jews are Zionists and said Zionists do everything they can to conflate Jewishness with Zionism?

      Goldberg wants it both ways: he wants every Jew to be judged individually when it suits him, but when Israel must be protected, all of a sudden Zionism=Judaism, because then you can use the anti-Semitism card to protect Israel, which is his real job description.

  • Homegrown jihadis and the limits of the Israel lobby
    • Some of it, actually most of it, was good. Other stuff was weak, like this:

      Consequently, this fact undermines the thesis of an all-powerful Israel Lobby

      Nobody has advanced the Israel Lobby as "all-powerful". That's a canard that's typically employed by Israel lobbyists or hasbara activists.


      In the 1930s, thousands of Brits went to Spain to volunteer with the leftist republicans fighting General Francisco Franco’s fascists.

      This isn't the author's argument but she quoted it approvingly. Fightning for ISIS is not the same as fightning for leftist secular forces against Franco. That's a blindingly dumb comparison.

  • The rabbi at the shitshow
    • her twitter pin says that her home is “Ohio * Israel.”

      The good rabbi should just make aliyah and be done with it. Her heart lies in Israel, not in America, and she shouldn't be hypocritical about it. She does enough damage here and we don't want her here anyway. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Danielle!

  • Did Snowden blow the whistle because of the US special relationship with Israel?
  • Ted Cruz praises Israel and gets booed off stage at D.C. Christian conference
    • By the way, here is the full video.

      link to

    • Arab Christians has sometimes been seen as a safety valve, or a dividing line used by Zionist groups to differentiate the opposition. We see the same tactic in Israel where they are trying to splinter the Arabs according to their religious beliefs.

      I'm pleased to see that such a tactic is failing in the U.S.

      However, I'm also certain that Cruz is probably feeling very giddy right now. He just got a massive boon to his fundraising efforts.

  • Defending Apartheid: Then in South Africa, now in Palestine
    • I agree, it would be awesome if this site could hire or at least get Nima to write for us on a more frequent basis. This was a brilliant article.


      They may occupy, persecute and discriminate Palestinians, but they act out of misguided patriotism and a hundred years of bloody conflict. Not out of racism.

      Seriously. I laughed out loud when I read this. I can't even get enraged. I honestly believe that Landau is not bullshitting on purpose here, I think he truly understands this to be the case, which makes it all the more hilarious.

      And it also underscores the futility of engaging with "liberal" Zionists when they more often than not act as covers for Likudniks.

  • Did LA pro-Israel group conceal right-wing identity from Hollywood celebs and media?
    • "We wonder if CCFP explained to the Hollywood luminaries who signed its statement, like Ziggy Marley and Sarah Silverman, that its apolitical message of ‘art building bridges for peace’ is actually a sanitizing front for the right-wing, pro-settler organization StandWithUs, that has deep ties to the Israeli government? We are also concerned that US media covering the statement did not report on who CCFP really is.”

      Would it make much difference? The so-called "peace camp" is not only dead: it has never existed. Rabin didn't want to give the Palestinians a full state and he was the "peacenik".

      Silverman came out in defence of the latest Gaza slaughter. Another self-described "progressive" like Emily Bazelon, but when it counts, she defends the slaughter of innocent children because the army doing it happens to be Jewish.

      These celebs know what they are doing. Most of them do it out of conviction and a few, especially the Gentiles, probably do it out of career reasons.

Showing comments 2029 - 2001