Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2328 (since 2011-01-07 20:19:21)

Showing comments 2328 - 2301
Page:

  • Young, Muslim and Zionist?
    • I'm pretty certain she will convert within time. The distance from Islam to Judaism is a closer than from Christianity to Judaism. She looks like a person who could come from the Middle East as well, so it wouldn't be as hard for her to fit in as it would for a black or an Asian convert. (We can all pretend that there isn't any racism in synagogues but let's get real folks).

      And for something entirely unrelated but hilarious:
      link to commentarymagazine.com

  • Ben and Jerry won't tell you who's trying to kill Iran Deal
    • Props to them for supporting the deal.

      Although it should be said that most people, including the opponents, now concede that Obama has the votes needed. So their support comes a lot later than when it was really needed.

      And as you said, they are the very definition of PEP.

  • Read the historic United Electrical Workers Union resolution endorsing BDS
    • I think that it is becomming clearer and clearer that while the US lagged behind the EU on the I/P issue for most of the postwar period, it is now not only making up for it, indeed, it is in some ways going beyond the EU and taking the pole position.

      The EU makes a lot of passive-aggressive statements but in the end does nothing. That goes not only for governments but for much of the civil society as well, and academia.

      The U.S. has seen a radical change in just the last 10 years and if this keeps up it will be leading the Western world on I/P. It's mainly been in the cultural/academic/civil sector but even on government issues, there has been a change. A clear break from the past. This is why the so-called "strain" grows larger by the day.

      It is also in many ways be much more impressive considering that the Israel lobby is by far the strongest in the U.S. compared to other Western countries.

      Germany will most likely be the major Western power that will be left behind the most. This is because the dominant strain within German culture today is self-hatred, which is bizarrely channeling itself into enforcement of Apartheid.
      Germany has, as Max Blumenthal has pointed out, a defective culture.

  • U.S. is even more implicated in Israeli settlement project than we thought
    • Perhaps the fact that Newsweek would mention it is as significant as the report itself

      Wasn't it the European version though? And by the way, nobody reads Newsweek these days anyway, so what difference does it make?

      From Phil's article:

      That reportedly says the Jewish American settlers are idealists who come out of a leftwing background typically but are ardent Zionists and are applying their idealism to that ideology.

      It is people like Hirschhorn who have allowed this situation to happen. Even now she is covering for them. Hirschhorn cannot believe that Jews are capable of that and sets out to paint them as 'misguided idealists'.

      They are idealists alright, for Apartheid.

      Why do "liberals" like she cover for them? Ethnocentrism.
      That's why I can't take people like that seriously. Because they are the ones who have been pacifying the Western left for decades, out of tribal loyalty. They may have liberal values in the diaspora but when it comes to Israel, they change. All of a sudden, all these excuses start to emerge. It's not that Hirschhorn supports settlements in the WB, it's that she makes so many excuses for them so the net effect is that she defends them. I believe it is because she deeply doesn't want to admit to herself that Jews are capable of this, purposefully.

      And her failure to come to terms to that is, in the end, a moral failure on her part.

      That's why they - the Hirschhorns of the world - don't have a right to complain about BDS when it goes beyond the WB. BDS exists because the Hirschhorn's of the world didn't just don't do their job. They actively covered up for Apartheid out of tribal loyalty/ethnocentrism. Why would we listen to you now?

  • God is on Israel's side, but not the United States, says Israel's new U.N. ambassador
    • Kay wrote:

      Really, do you think for one minute Israel can do without US involvement? Where would Israel be today without the billions of dollars, weapons, and the protection at the UN?

      I'm not saying he would go out of his way to attack the U.S. but it's obvious he is uncomfortable with the so-called special relationship.

      I read the right-wing Zionists from time to time. I have to: they are the ones who will rule Israel in the coming decades. If you're reading the liberal Zionists in America you don't get an accurate picture of where Israel is going, only a bunch of melodramatic psychodrama that has more to do with personal identity crises for individual Jews. Not very informative.

      And Danon is far from alone in his views.

      As for Israel, yes I think they'd make it without U.S. support. Obviously it wouldn't be done overnight but steadily and slowly they would diversify economically to Asia. Israel has de facto peace treaties with a lot of Sunni Arab states today. Most of those states care/fear more about ISIS than Israel.

      Given enough of a time horizon, Israel is absolutely capable of getting around without the U.S. As I said in the original comment, you're assuming they would act in the same way as they are now but without the lockstep support. I'm saying that is naïvé, they won't, they'd be more tactical about things.

      Israel probably can't be defeated militarily or economically. The only thing that can bring down Israel is cultural isolation. How badly do they want to be part of the West? Probably increasingly less so as the U.S in particular becomes more and more diverse and less Zionist in its young liberal class. Israel really never had Europe.

      In fact, I'd argue that we are seeing this playing out in slowmotion already. Danon is just ahead of the curve on this. In this sense he in the same boat, parodixically, as the BDS one-state left. Both realise that the current paradigm is finished, and that we're seeing the slow death of the Israeli/US special relationship.

      I personally think the U.S. wouldn't want to be put on antagonistic terms visavis Israel unless it is absolutely forced to because of populist/political constraints from the grassroots. Eventually we'll get there but the process will be very long, giving Israel plenty of time to adapt and re-orient itself strategically.

      It fundamentally boils down to how well the Israeli-Jewish population can maintain its cultural isolation. They - or at least the Ashkenazi ruling class - don't like the culture in the neighbourhood and while they may respect/admire China or India they know that they have little to nothing in common culturally with those two nations aside from bromides such as "value education"(who doesn't?).

      The history of the Jews have shown a remarkable capacity of cultural isolation and self-preservation. It's how Jews survived the ghettoes of Europe without assimiliation for centuries. Who says it can't happen again, but this time in our own little ghetto state in the Middle East?

    • Kay, I don't think you read the article closely enough.

      Danon doesn't want too much American involvement. He's fine without lockstep American support, in fact his very point is that that support has often had strings attached to it that has damaged Israeli interests(in his view).

      What you are talking about is mainstream Zionism. Rely on American largesse but being perpetually ungrateful. Danon isn't ungrateful, he is denounceful.

      I don't think that he would push very hard for endless military assistance. He'd probably move Israel more neutrally in the world stage, push it closer to China, which also has huge human rights problems, and Russia.

      In a sense, a Danonised Israel would be a more honest Israel, yes, but also a more independent Israel. Not as reliant on America, whether diplomatically or financially.

      And by the way, viewed from a right-wing Zionist lens, his points are logical and valid, even if the moral underpinnings(or lack thereof) are terrible. But at least he's consistent. You don't get the double speak and the rank hypocrisy so common among liberal Zionists. That's refreshing.

  • Calling Herzog and liberal Zionism ‘racist,’ Gideon Levy instigates a reckoning
    • Soon enough, it will be Peter Beinart or someone of his stature who’s arguing exactly what Levy has argued

      Thanks for the laugh on Beinart.

      An amusing end to an otherwise interesting article.

  • 'A better relationship with Iran' is the deal's secret promise, but supporters can't say so
    • What conspiracy, Dan?

      Who were behind the takeover of Iran in the mid-50s? Jews? Or WASPs? Or look at architects of the Imperialism in the Middle East, who divided up the nations and drew the national borders(English and the French). Who were the men in those governments? Jews or Christians?

      It's undeniable that Zionist Jews have a disproportinate influence over current U.S. policy visavi the Middle East, just as it is undeniable that this is a recent phenomenom when you look at the long arc in history.

      Further, the accusations against Jews in those eras were of an all-encompassing conspiracy. Jews controlled everything, or near-everything. Ask yourself, what's the "Jewish agenda" on the economy? Healthcare? Education? Most Jews are liberal voters so most of them will vote for left-wing policies, but there isn't any semblance of a Jewish lobby in domestic American politics.

      All Jewish political power has been focused on a single topic: U.S. Middle Eastern foreign policy. There's no Jewish lobby on East Asian policy or on Africa. None on climate change or on the NPT. And so on.

      We talk a lot about Jewish lobbies on this site because the whole focus of this site is on American policy in the Middle East, and it is 100% relevant to do so. But outside of this niche, tell me where the conspiracies and the influence-peddling is? Because that was the refrain in the fantasies that existed in Europe in previous centuries.

    • The people who are against "counting Jews" are in effect saying let's not talk about Jewish power.

      Like Rothkopf, who is rushing to declare the lobby dead at first moment he can.
      Or the liberal Zionists in Haaretz, including Bronfman, who keep urging unity and to suppress open debate.

      I don't see many people batting an eyelash when white men and Asien men are counted in silicon valley tech CEO positions. You have to do it, in order to point to cultural power in a sector.

      The same is true when it comes to U.S. policy towards the Middle East.
      The people who want to forbid that in effect want to protect the status quo.

  • A year after Shipman lost his Yale job for speaking out on Israel's actions, some Jews say the same thing
    • Mearshimer put Abe Foxman in the New Afrikaaner list in his now infamous 2010 speech at the Palestine Center on the "future of Israel". I don't see how Abe's last minute Op-Ed changes that.

      It's still all about Jewish optics for him, fuck the victims of Apartheid.

      Few people are as cancerous as he is. And I am still amazed he got away being such a pernicious bigot for so many decades! It's amazing how privileged he was and remains.

      And I don't think he is an isolated example in his generation. Massive power but no responsibility.

      That is going to change, and change massively.

  • Israeli nukes are finally newsworthy-- as US gov't both releases and gags info
    • No, but you have to remember that during the Cold War, Apartheid South Africa was staunchly anti-communist and the de facto closest ally to the U.S. on the African continent, even if the offical tone/rhetoric was more neutral.

      That's why I spoke about the national interest. During the Cold War, SA was not a rogue nation from that perspective and a de facto ally. Of course it was a rogue nation in moral terms, but so is Israel today, so is Egypy, Saudi Arabia and lots of other countries with close ties to America.

      Doesn't prevent them from getting preferential treatment from America as long as they play along. (Naturally Israel is a special case due to the lobby, but even without it, it'd be hard to see a situation where it and the U.S. were antagonistic. Israel would also be forced to be much more diplomatic to cover the loss of political capital so you wouldn't see the same behaviour as today).

      My point stands.

    • There will never be any pressure on Israel to join the NPT or give up its nukes. This goes beyond the lobby.

      This is arguably an issue where the national interest of the U.S. coincides with Israel's. Say what you will but they have been a responsible nuclear power for many decades. Nobody is concerned about nuclear proliferation from Israel to rogue groups or nations.

      Second, having the only nuclear power in the Middle East being a major U.S. ally is a slam dunk for America.

      One could make the argument that giving Israel an exception gives an incentive to other powers to develop their own nukes. That's true, but that has also been true for decades. And the reality is that Israel has often acted when the U.S. has not on the nuclear programs in other nations(Iraq, Syria).

      The only reason why they didn't bomb Iran yet is because they don't have the capability, despite all the propaganda and FUD contrary pushed in their media.

      Forcing Israel to give up its nukes would hardly make it easier to make other nations give up theirs. Look at the subterfuge from Turkey, attacking the PKK under the guise of going after ISIS.

      Turkey, a NATO ally, is de facto giving implicit support to ISIS and other Islamist groups in Syria and at the same time is dealing with China to buy weapons.

      Israel is doing similar stuff. Treating Islamist(non-ISIS) fighters in their hospitals and also pushing for Chinese arms deals.

      The U.S. probably shouldn't have any allies in that region, but it's better if it has the sole nuclear power under its umbrella than being non-aligned with a bunch of failed states all racing to get nukes.

  • US Israel lobby groups 'take orders' from Netanyahu -- says leading Israeli journalist
    • I think the analysis on Netanyahu's all-out war on Obama has a big flaw.

      Netanyahu is probably operating under the same assumption as the rest of us: Clinton will win the democratic primary. Clinton is seen as a loyal horse for the lobby, and not without reason.

      Why would he want to risk her wrath by openly lobbying for the GOP nominee in 2016? 2012 was special for many reasons, many of them found in Oren's latest book.

      I think the reasons for his lobbying in the final days of the Obama administration is quite a bit more straight-forward: he doesn't care about relations anymore with Obama or his staff. Which is why he is going for Danon as UN ambassador. Which is why Dermer, and not a democrat like Oren, is his US ambassador. We're only a few short weeks from a final result on the Congress vote and it is in the final stretch that it all counts.

      P.S. After the deal is sealed, Netanyahu would probably not bother trying to play nice at the UN. If Obama gives green light to a resolution on settlements or something similar, that is where Netanyahu would unleash Danon. It would allow Netanyahu a final chance to paint Obama as hostile to Israel/unreliable ally.

  • How my return to Zimbabwe redoubled my enthusiasm for BDS in Israel/Palestine
    • I do know that Israel has killed thousands upon thousands of Palestinians in the last few years alone. Palestinians have barely killed any Israelis. And most of those have been settlers/soldiers at any rate.

      But back to James North.

      I largely agree with his conclusions on Zimbabwe. But I also think that we should judge the post-colonial regimes on a seperate account.

      Put another way: knowing what we know now, should we have still supported the freedom struggle in Zimbabwe back in the 70s? The answer is an obvious yes.

      The only other answer would have been more colonial repression and Apartheid. Whatever faults there are in Zimbabwe, at least we can now criticise those in power who are from the natives. Corruption and political repression exists, but the sources are now homegrown and that means that the solution can only come from the people.

      So, too, must hold in Palestine. Palestinians are already 50% of the population from the river to see and it's only a matter of time, if we are not there already, when they form the majority.

      So while of course we all want them to continue in their, as you put it, superhuman restraint, it's not upon us to judge them if they take up violence to fight violent repression. We can never side with the colonial authorities.

      Just like we couldn't in Algeria or, indeed, Zimbabwe.
      (I know you're not advocating this, James, but I think a lot of people who are against violent uprisings against violent colonialism in effect end up as enforcers for the status quo. This is certainly the case for almost all Zionists).

  • Hockenberry skewers Menendez for double standard on Israeli nukes and killings of civilians
    • NPR has traditionally been hasbara central, together with the NYT.

      Let's see if this is a flash in the pan, like the NYT fake turn towards genuine liberalism in 2009-2011 before turning hard-right Zionist when the going got tough, or if it's start of a genuine trend.

      We've seen these false dawns before. Although even with those caveats, I don't think we'll see a purge in the way that was common in the 80s, 90s and even the early 00s.

  • Beinart's fear of 'Israstine'
    • Lysias, good point.

      Still, I think overall, people are starting to understand that The Zionists Are Right!.

      What do I mean? I mean when they - the Zionists - say that South Africa is a misleading example for Israel. Actually, it is a misleading example.
      Noam Chomsky correctly points out that is what happening in Israel is in many ways far worse than what ever happened in South Africa.

      The violent colonial repression in Israel is more akin to the conditions of slavery in the antebellum South. Something a number of writers in Haaretz have already pointed out.

      We all know how slavery was ended, not by quiet one man, one vote type of formalities.

      Beinart probably fears this. He understands that the crimes of Israel are so significant, so deep, so that a new system would inevitably need to purge the old authorities completetly, which in a sense could prove so bitter as to making a one state inworkable.

      At the same time, we've seen the Palestinians amazingly constrained in their opposition to colonial oppression so far. Far more than Jews were under the Warsaw ghetto. Who is to say that they couldn't bring it about?

      Either way, I think Beinart's plea for "realism" is exactly what it is viewed as by everyone: a play for time, an attempt to allow Israel to "reform itself" so as to avoid self-distruction.

      Ultimately Beinart is and remains a person committed to blocking any real progress on anti-colonial struggle. That has always been his hallmark. He is a much more efficient operator than the crude hasbaraist of yore, such as Dershowitz, who only helps in recruiting efforts whenever he opens his fat mouth.

    • Tree, hophmi is an unrelenting apologist for Apartheid, so long as it is Jewish Apartheid. He'll be like these bitter old pro-Apartheid Afrikaaner men who keep pining to old days gone, when the white hand ruled, only for hophmi a star of David excuses even the most vicious colonial oppression and systematic racism.

      I hope he is around this site, for I will look forward to watch his desperation devolve into insanity and his precious little Apartheid state gets more and more isolated until its finally destroyed.

  • Nadler says his vote against Iraq war caused some to question his 'commitment to Israel'
    • I feel somewhat sympathetic to him, though. I mean, he does have the most heavily Jewish district in the nation and Zionism is the dominant ideology for the overwhelming majority among Jews, even if it is less monolithic by the day.

      So he has to sprinkle his no with Israel/Zionism, he doens't really have a choice. But that is part of the issue, of course. I don't think anyone would expect Grace Meng to pontificate about what's good for China in her decisions on East Asian foreign policy votes. And she does have quite a few of Chinese-Americans in her district!

    • A good, if expected win.

      Nadler's no to Iraq in 2002 was a braver decision considering the totally united front from left to right on the question. Today, there's a strong backing for diplomacy over war in the grassroots. Not to mention the president himself is lobbying for peace.

      Nevertheless, I look forward to the day when we can have pols who will not try to put in the interests of Israel in any Middle Eastern foreign policy decision that they are making for the United States.

      It shouldn't even come into consideration.

      P.S. I saw that Amb. Shapiro was already raising the flag of defeat on behalf of Netanyahu in an interview today. He also pushed the notion of increased military aid. Is that the bribe Obama will use for peace in the remaining year and a half of his presidency?

      (I still remember the outrageous F-35 bribe back in 2010/2011).

  • 'New York Review of Books' offers Israel as a model to US on targeted killings and detention for terrorists
    • I consider the NYRB a part of the Israel lobby. Certainly not as militant as the NYT in recent years, but it's up there. Oh, and explain to me again how all of this is because of Christian Evangelicals.

      I'm sure the editors all have a direct phone line to Pastor Hagee on their desks.

  • Senator Booker and Rabbi Boteach's Iran Deal poetry slam
    • Bloomberg is now running with your story, which you've run months/years before them. The break-up of the monolithic lobby.

      link to bloomberg.com

      Key paragraph, however:

      “If the president prevails, which I believe he will, it means Aipac will not prevail, and that’s not a positive thing for the Jewish community,” said Wexler, now president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace in Washington. “Even though I support the deal, I want Aipac to be highly effective.”

      Think about this time next you become overly optimistic about the this particular issue's implications. The "we must stay united" crowd hasn't gone away, even if they are on Obama's side. Just like Rothkopf may be in Obama's corner, but at the same time works hard to maintain unity/work to shield & conceal the lobby for another day.

  • Jimmy Carter says Netanyahu has turned his back on peace
    • How did you think Clinton would be better? The guy ran to Bush's right in his first election on matters Israel. He exonerated Marc Rich because Mr. Rich has friends in high places and was important for financing. Clinton knew he'd have to rely on a lot of the people sympathetic to Rich in his post-presidency to collect cash(and that he did!).

      Clinton also blamed Russian immigrants(!) for the stalling of peace, ignoring the persistent pattern of Apartheid from the day Israel was founded.

      Frankly speaking, even Carter has been quite soft on Israel. He has continued to push for a discredited 2SS paradigm up until his final days. Now, that he is at his deathbed, he allows himself to doubt - just for a moment - whether Netanyahu's government wants peace or not.

      But he still isn't ready to indict the Labor party, which in effect is the same as Likud but with better PR.

  • Citing 'everlasting commitment' to Israel, 26 Jewish bigs come out for Iran deal
    • I wasn't surprised to see Rothkopf rush to declare the lobby "theory" dead.

      He was a staunch opponent, disguised under the same kind of denials, 10 years back when this discussion raged.

      So we're supposed to believe that it was a fiction back then, then we have an interlude of 10 years when he is quiet and now he feels he needs to go out and announce dead(again)?

      Sorry, but your anxiousness is showing, David. The lobby isn't dead.
      It's become visible in broad daylight, that's the only difference. And that is why he and others are uncomfortable, hence the rush to declare it dead. So they can make it invisible again. What is it that the former chief of AIPAC, Mr.Rosen, used to say again? The lobby is like a nightflower. When it is seen in sunlight, it perishes.

      Rothkopf is shilling for the lobby(understood here as larger than just AIPAC).

      I never bought his liberal Zionist shoot-and-cry claptrap, precisely because he is always covering up for the lobby when it counts. Like a Beinart-type, who profess to care about Palestinians but states he is fine without them having full rights when he is in Jewish spaces and talking to people he knows.

  • End of lockstep US Jewish support for Israel is a triumph not a tragedy
    • Whether it is a good thing for Israel or not shouldn't even come into consideration. The U.S. must look after its own national interest, just like any other nation.

    • The invisible 800 pound gorilla is losing its invisibility cloak.

      And it will still be a 800 pound gorilla, nothing to sneeze at! But it will finally become normal to attack the Israel lobby in the same way as you'd attack the NRA.

      That is about time.

    • From the article:

      Anyone who’s ever doubted the strength of that Lobby (rooted in the Christian Zionism of U.S. evangelicals, and in the political war chests of various diehard Israel support groups)

      It's time to end the Christian Zionism canard. Sure, they are numerous but they are totally insignificant. Who is influencing democrats on the hill? CUFI?

      This kind of cowardice needs to stop, it is dishonest and a disservice to the conversation.

  • Over 1,000 Black activists, scholars and artists sign statement supporting freedom and equality for Palestinian people
    • Yes, good catch. I've seen similar things from mainstream black celebs like Chris Rock. Always is careful to tiptoe around Zionism.

      Also, we'll see how many white liberal Zionists or just white liberals complicit in Zionism, will declare that brown lives matter if and when this issue starts to rise with the same vigor that they have embraced BLM. I'm looking at you, Lena Dunham.

  • Aftermath of Iran Deal: a divided lobby, but Biden's camp says he has 'Jews'
    • "Finally shows"?

      I thought we all understood who this slimebag was really for all along. The only thing I am surprised by is what took him so long. Probably optics. He wants to make it look as if he really considered the issue while everyone knew from the start that he would do whatever his Israel lobby paymasters wanted him to.

    • Page: 23
    • It's only a question of time until AIPAC becomes seen as something that is only a slightly more sophisticated of ZOA. J Street will probably continue to push to the right, growing with their new-found power and legitimacy within the communal fold.

      Ben-Ami has always stated that he doesn't want to debate Palestinians. He always wanted to exclude them, like a good Zionist. That will endear him to the so-called "moderates" who hung by AIPAC's coattails when there was no alternative in town.

      Still, the biggest victory of all of this is that you see open debate on the role of money and the Israel lobby. When I look at Marc Armbuster's Twitter feed I saw him retweeting John Hudson, a senior editor at Foreign Policy magazine, ironically talking about Menendez's quotes of him voting on Iran out of "principle". Hudson had highlighted an article about Menendez getting more cash from the Israel lobby than everyone else.

      That kind of casual stuff would be verboten just a few years ago.

      Even if the lobby reconstitutes itself, it has lost the power of Omertà among non-Jews, perhaps its greatest weapon thus far.

      P.S. I was never of the view that this was a winnable battle. Even if Obama's vetos would have been overrun, the rest of the world would have got on with it anyway. I think this, rather than Obama's lobbying, is what swayed people. The U.S. would have been made a laughing stock. AIPAC's reputation as an undefeatable machine plummets faster than ever.

  • Leading Israeli journalist says Israel is an Apartheid state
    • Burston is a fraud. He only came to to this conclusion because he understands what the rest of us already do: the right-wing has a permanent demographic majority in Israel, and it is increasing.

      If the "liberal" Zionists would have won the last election, let us dream the impossible, he would never have written this column.

      If by some miracle they regain power in a few years, he will make a journalistic equivalent of a Goldstone retraction.

      I understand why Norton gets excited by this - aha! proof from one of their own! - but honestly I wish we were past the phase of seeking validation from people who were never wedded to liberalism in the first place and whose "principles" hinge on which party is in power, not the underlying ideology.

  • Pittsburgh Jews say Obama will allow 'Second Holocaust' while Israel's ambassador openly lobbies Capitol Hill
    • It's kind of weird but I didn't really initially wince when I read that Dermer was going door to door in Congress. I actually had to force myself thinking of, say, the British ambassador creeping around the halls of Congress, pushing an agenda that the president is against.

      And only after that did I really become shocked, first of how Dermer even feels he has the political backing to do that, but second just how accustomed people have become to this. No other country would get away with this kind of in-your-face sabotage against the POTUS.

      P.S. Cathy Ho certainly knows about the ethnic politics but is a chickenshit on the issue and refuses to name them. This is part of the Omertà that many non-Jews have been trained to think(or not to think) and she has clearly assimilated those beliefs. Don't talk about Jews and money, even when it is in front of your eyes, even when your job is to report on lobbying(ironically enough).

  • Does Obama have Booker? Boteach desperately plays race card and Jewish donor card
    • It's not Jewish votes that is on the line, it's Jewish money. That is clear from the good ol' rabbi's ramblings.

      And anyway, all of this is irrelevant anyway because even if AIPAC and the rest of the Israel lobby got their way, the rest of the negotiating countries have already said that they are lifting the sanctions.

      This is to some extent just kabuki theater, although kabuki theater with consequences for the repuation of the Israel lobby. If they can't muster a veto-proof Congress, then their reputation as invincible will take a further hit. It will become progressively easier to repel them and to even run against them.

      And the prospect of that is probably what AIPAC is fightning against as much as the deal. This is what happens when you are a foreign lobby organisation. When the foreign country makes a really dumb strategic decision, you can't really say no.

  • Danny Danon 'would only make Israel look more extreme' -- former Israeli ambassador
    • It is amazing to me that a politician who advocates permanent and enlarged Apartheid is referred to as "right-wing" and "hawkish" in 2015.

      In the eyes of the NYT, Jewish Apartheid is not really Apartheid.

  • Saban says Iran Deal is a done deal, as Netanyahu and Bush play for 2016
    • This would explain Netanyahu's decision to appoint Danon. This is a continuation of appointing his "natural allies", starting with Dermer.

      Say what you will about Oren, but he came across as a Clinton democrat to me. He tried to reach out to minorities, he had friendly relations with the black community etc. Dermer is hated by the CBC, tries to emotionally blackmail them to betray Obama by mentioning MLK and how he was a Zionist, how Jews marched with MLK, oh and openly campaigns for Republicans, too.
      And now we get this right-wing buffoon?

      Yahoo doesn't even bother to put appearances anymore. Maybe he expects the Obama admin to let the French-sponsored milquetoast resolution go through, so Danon can thunder in broken English and with a poor vocabulary his objections?

      P.S. The 2012 election showed that demographics beat money every day of the week. Yahoo still hasn't understood that the future of America is California. Permanent democratic WH. In time, Congress will follow.

  • Front page 'NYT' story is rigged to suggest donors for and against Iran Deal cancel each other out
    • I think the NYT feels that it has to create a false equivalency in order to write a front-page piece about Jewish donors and American foreign policy, so as to escape the howls from communal organisations. How many NYT reporters and editors are going to schul with these people? This is how the Goldstone report got crushed; communal pressure. So the NYT is being selective with the truth to write (small parts) of the truth at all.

      As you say, even talking frankly about the Jewish donor class is in of itself a step forward. I'd be interested to know if there was lobbying from the WH, specifically the Jewish members of the admin, on the NYT to write about this.

      Obama and his team knows that his real domestic opposition is the right-wing Jewish donor class - which transcends party - and as such need a firewall of their own, the J Street money to escape the accusations.

      Obama surely felt stung after he got attacked on the NYT front-page no less for talking "dangerously" by invoking the lobby and the donor class. Seems the Times came around and I wouldn't bet against heavy WH involvement to push this story out.

      P.S. Note that it's all Jewish Zionism inside baseball here from the NYT in these recent weeks. You'd think the NYT would be interested in interviewing any Iranian-Americans, but nope! Their voices just don't count, just like Palestinians don't next to Zionist Jews.

  • 'Bernie, what about justice 4 Palestine?'
    • Bernie has long had a shot at winning Iowa and New Hampshire. That isn't strange. These are states which are overwhelmingly white and Bernie's base is white liberals.

      His support among non-white liberals is much, much smaller. Clinton polls far above him in when you look at those groups. That could change, of course, but we see no sign of that right now. So unless you believe in the "momentum theory", Sanders would, in the words of 538, "win Iowa and New Hampshire and then lose everything else".

      link to fivethirtyeight.com

  • President Obama wants us to argue about the special relationship
    • If Phil is right that the only thing that keeps the democrats united on Israel is Jewish pressure - and he probably is - then Obama is not really trying to break up the special relationship such as it is, but rather to break the Likudnik monopoly on pro-Israel activism.

      This is something he has lamented before. If J Street didn't have his back, would he have lunged for it? I doubt it.

      So what he's trying to push here is really a taming if you will of the lobby, which is why Smith/Abrams/Tablets(the neocons) are whining so much and while the lib zios are all-in.

      Phil overanalyzed this to suggest this would somehow lead to the introduction of anti-Zionists. That's far-fetched.

      Also:

      The very idea that there’s something wrong with dual loyalty is obsolete. It’s a fossilized relic of single-identity patriotism to the patria from centuries past. Nowadays, people migrate, have mixed heritage, multiple citizenships, meta-state communities and even multiple sexualities

      This strikes me as naive. What came before the nation-state? A great mixing of peoples. And a problem in all of these is that it was so hard to have any significant cohesion.

      Secondly, having two loyalties to, say, New Zealand and America isn't really a big deal. Or even to Saudi Arabia and America. Israel and countries like China or Russia are different. China/Russia because they are political adversaries to the U.S. Israel because it has such an influential lobby, which has been a decisive factor in the last few decades' push for wars in the Middle East(though far from the only one).

      The reason why America even functions is because of assimilation. It's because of the acids that drip on the chains from our past history, our past loyalties. It's why people say no to Zionism based on American ideals, rather than excusing it by Jewish tribal texts.

      America works, and it does so by accepting everyone but being demanding of them at the very same time.

  • Israeli Banks flipping out over looming European boycott
    • Meanwhile, based upon the past behavior of the Europeans, I remain highly skeptical.

      Europe is a poodle of America when it comes to the Middle East, that much we already know. It's a poodle in a lot of other areas, too, but Middle Eastern policy is the standout.

      The EU will do what it has always done: made ineffective and useless noises and wait for the mastah to say jump or stay.
      I think these stories are what the Obama admin will want to go out, so as to scare the Bibi government but its empty noises. They would never dare to actually take the step and risk the full-on wrath of the lobby, this time united.

      Even J Street would condemn them and they would be forced to crawl back under the cross.

  • The enemies list
  • Celebrating Hiroshima, WSJ columnist insinuates US should nuke Iran
    • Modern Japan is a testament to the benefits of total defeat, to stripping a culture prone to violence of its martial pretenses…

      A culture prone to violence!?
      That sounds a lot like the culture in the one and only Jewish state!

      The best way to spot a psychopath is to find stated "beliefs" which are not really principles but rhetorical devices employed to destroy other people and/or things because you have no empathy - or even a soul. And that passage can only be written by a psychopath who has never seen war.

      Bret Stephens, were he born in 1830, would have fought for slavery, viciously.

  • Obama tells Americans it is 'abrogation of my constitutional duty' to defer to Israel on Iran Deal
    • The reason why some GOP outcasts voted for Obama, like Scott McConnell, was in part because of Obama's independence from the lobby to a much, much greater extent than the drones from the Republican party, of which Gingrich was only the most vulgar and transparent(but Romney wouldn't be far behind).

      I'll miss this period, as a Clinton WH would inevitably try to move back into the pre-Obama era as much as possible. I'll miss this period of an American president proudly and boldly taking an independent approach, away from the lobby, without fear.

      Obama's speech will really be for the 2024 candidate, and the electorate who remembers a great president who actually had a backbone and wasn't a subservient and willing tool of the powerful in the way Hillary was and remains.

      Oh, and yes, of course Obama will win in the end. I'm doubting AIPAC has the votes, but even if it does, it doesn't matter. This isn't something the U.S. will do on its own and Obama will not try to convince the EU to keep the sanctions going.

      Either way, he wins. And either way, AIPAC/Bibi loses.

  • Sanders risks losing left over unprogressive views of Palestine -- Washington Post
    • I want Sanders to win. He's not good on Palestine but Clinton will be even worse.

      On every other issue, he is better. Then again, he has TERRIBLE poll numbers with minorities. Something like 9% of nonwhite democratic primary voters are rooting for him. Even Biden's doing better.

      I mean, he is a Vermont Senator, after all. I guess that comes through. (Let's not talk about race).
      Nate Silver said that he may win Iowa and New Hampshire but will lose everything else. White liberals dominate those caucuses. Then again, winning two states could shift the momentum. I'm not sure liberal minorities are so infatuated with Clinton that they're unwilling to consider the alternatives if the shifts change.

      But then again, I'm not black/asian/hispanic. I see Zaid Jilani is pushing for him, but Zaid was also an early Dean supporter(even if he now concedes that Dean was just an opportunist and never really a leftist).

  • Netanyahu will lobby American Jews on deal, calling on alleged loyalty to Jewish state
    • The key to the sanctions was and is European compliance. Most European nations are not going to play fiddle to AIPAC. I'm sure we'll get a bunch of Zionists in the American MSM trashtalking Europe(as usual) for not following Israel's interests slavishly, but that doesn't matter much in the end.

      Also, India and China are certainly not in the mood for breaking up the deal.

      AIPAC may win this fight but it will be a phyrric victory. Lots of cash and political capital spent but this is no longer a U.S. hegemonic world.

      Something which Obama has stated multiple times; the P5+1 members aside from America won't go along with killing the bill. That's why you are seeing so confident Iranian pols who are pushing for investment. They are aiming primarily for European, Indian and Chinese companies at this stage because those are bankable.

      AIPAC will only succeed in embarrassing the reputation of America further, at great political cost and expense. The deal stays, with or without America. Nobody is going to bomb Iran.

      This is the end game, whatever Congress votes for or not.

  • Why is Wasserman Schultz, Obama's surrogate, holding out on Iran deal?
    • Great, sweeping, overview of the situation.

      Just looking at the Atlantic article made me feel the same way as when I see articles or events with a bunch of Zionist Jews debating the merits of the 2SS - but no non/anti-Zionists allowed and certainly no Palestinians.

      Atlantic should have invited Iranians and others with a direct stake in this. But here, too, on Middle Eastern issues, there is a silent agreement that only Jewish voices count(or at the very least count a lot more).

      It's not just the political process, the same pattern of racism is in the media too.
      It's actually insane that we allow people who are rich and are calling for the total bombardment of a foreign nation with no reprisals or social punishment whatsoever.

      A Palestinian could use the same logic and call for the total bombardment of Israel, too, so long as it is confined to military installations. That would never get published, and even if it did, he or she would be hounded out of MSM.

      But it's cool for Podhoretz to do just this in the WSJ and for Saban to be calling for the mass bombing of a foreign nation, which would inevitably mean a lot of civilian casualties, and still get embraced by progressive elites, whether at Brookings or at Clinton's fundraiser.

      This whole issue has exposed a lot of latent racism in the U.S. discourse, whose voices counts, and whose don't.

  • Pelosi says Iran deal has the votes, and Podhoretz urges Israel to attack Iran
    • I actually agree 100% with Podhoretz when he writes:

      Given how very unlikely it is that President Obama, despite his all-options-on-the-table protestations to the contrary, would ever take military action, the only hope rests with Israel. If, then, Israel fails to strike now, Iran will get the bomb.

      If Israel doesn't attack, nobody will. And Iran will certainly get the bomb under the agreement, together with 100 billion dollars in unlocked money + higher growth in the next ten years. That will allow them to shrink their military distance to Israel drastically, something Podhoretz and the neocons fear.

      Where he goes off the rails is his "conventional war now vs nuclear war later" BS.
      It's hard to say if he says that for effect or if he believes his own BS. Don't underestimate the ability of liars of ending up beliving their own lies, though.

  • Cruz says Iran could set off Electro Magnetic Pulse over east coast, killing 10s of millions
  • Time Warner executive moonlights as speechwriter for Netanyahu
    • I've said from the moment Oren's book popped up in the news: this book is going to give us material for months. And it did deliver.

      I read the book. It's passable reading in prose, complete with stilted hasbara, but the real gems are found in the revealing accounts such as this Ginsberg guy.

      The Israel lobby isn't just AIPAC. It was and remains a loose coalition of pro-Israel activists, including at the highest levels of the media. Oren slams the theory as anti-Semitic but at the same time gives it more credibility by his book.

      Thanks, Oren!
      (And yes, I don't think high-level media execs would get away writing speeches for Apartheid SA in the 80s without any scrutiny, but as many of us have remarked for a long time now, Jewish apartheid is judged by different standards than white Apartheid and it has much more elite support than white Apartheid ever had, including in the media).

  • Focus on Jewish Democrats as key to Iran deal raises 'loyalty' issue
    • Yes, yes and yes. Great sweeping review. Jewish sociology matters, like it or not.

      I also think this reverberates beyond foreign policy. Think of how deeply interconnected major Jewish orgs are in things like police violence(receiving police officers from America to train in Tel Aviv) or surveillance on muslims. Something the ADL, the AJC and the conference of presidents have all staunchly supported.

      And now notice the upsurge against these old orgs from younger, more idealistic groups. Zionism is part of this story, but it is only a part.

      I read a very touching profile of the Rosenwald schools, a single Jewish self-made man built over 5000 schools for black children in the Jim Crow south. That is the kind of community that once existed and there is a feeling it is now lost, replaced by bigots like Abe Foxman.

      People are fighting to bring back true social justice values. Not just abroad, but at home, too.

  • Netanyahu bluffed an attack on Iran, and Jeffrey Goldberg helped out
    • Keep doing the Lord's work, Phil.

      It's amazing to me how there is literally zero accountability for slimes like Goldberg. And we know why; he will invoke the Jewish angle in everything and he's very well connected. After all, if he goes down, how many others in the MSM are on the hook?

      Well, quite a lot actually. But some of them, like Beinart, have gotten a lot wiser and are writing very sensible stuff on foreign policy. Others, like Goldberg, continue to be agents for Israel.

      Whichever country is next on the hitlist, you can count on Goldberg doing the dirty work with his marching orders in mind.

  • St. Louis Jews call on ADL to cancel honor to police
    • This is why JVP is rising faster than all the old organisations combined and why young Jews in particular are flocking to them.

      How can anyone take "communal leaders" seriously as they are for racial justice in the U.S. but make exceptions in Palestine?

      Oh, because in the U.S. we're in the minority, but in Israel, we're the majority. Let's be real people: that's all there is to it. Good for JVP for exposing this hypocrisy and leading the way to a more moral future.

  • Nine reasons Obama is going to win on Iran. The first: Netanyahu
    • After whining and nagging about unsubstantiated overoptimism from your side for some time now I duly submit to this hammering of well-argued points.

      The recent NYT story of pro-Israel billionaires trying to save the corrupt Menendez because he can be counted on to do their bidding in Congress on matters of war and peace(read: invade Israel's enemies no matter what the cost of American blood and treasure) is telling.

      Wouldn't have happened even a few years ago. When the lobby goes for Obama, it will discover it isn't the 90s anymore. No president is going to lose the domestic battle because of insufficient slavishness to an agressive and militarist Zionist state, like Bush the elder.

      And the NYT is surely taking sides here, Obama vs Netanyahu, just as Obama wants to, because he understands the exact same thing - the same thing that Hillary doesn't understand - namely that the rules on Israel have changed in American domestic politics. We're there.

  • Angela Merkel makes a 14-year old Palestinian girl cry by telling her she is not welcome in Germany
    • But Scott, instead of trying to regulate past crimes through asylym policy, why not go at it from the root and change the foreign policy?

      Deporting Reem is easy, there's no ethnic Arab lobby to speak of in Germany with any influence whatsoever.

      Steering Germany in a more independent direction visavi Israel/Palestine requires a lot more courage.

  • British gov't welcomes Iran back into the 'community of nations' -- why can't we?
    • Presidential historians often argue that most presidents can be placed in two camps: those who are historical and those who are caretakers. You can be successful president as a caretaker, like Clinton was, but it doesn't change the fact that you didn't really change anything in the country and chose to operate within the confines of the current political structure.

      I think this is what Obama alluded to - and what so many liberals misunderstood - when he praised Reagan in the HuffPo interview some years ago and called out Clinton in the process(who in turn got even more embittered at Obama, driven by jealousy).

      Obama's health care act is the biggest domestic achievement of any president for decades and if the Iran deal - which will inevitably fail at keeping Iran from getting nukes, but that's okay. These people aren't going to use them wildly in some kamikaze mission - goes through, it will be seen as another big feather in Obama's hat.

      But the true significance of the Iran deal is not visavi Iran. It's actually about the Israel lobby. If Obama could get a deal through the massive protests of the most consequentual foreign lobby in Washington which has had a near-strangehold on Middle Eastern policy since the mid-to-late 1980s up until now, the real legacy of this deal would mark the beginning of the end of the Israel lobby's monolithic influence over U.S. Middle Eastern policy.

      So even if the Iran's stated objectives will fail in the end, as I assume, the lasting legacy would be Obama's contributions to get a more independent and more moderate approach to a region which has seen so much destruction thanks to the dominance of the neocons and their lobby allies.

      And that is one of the many reasons his presidency will be seen as historic, even beyond mere symbolism.

  • Israel detains and deports American Jews because they are Black
    • Well, it's not that simple. Religion does matter. But read this long article from YNET on Ukrainian Jews:

      link to ynetnews.com

      Would Orthodox rabbis bend over backwards to help them immigrate if they were black? Notice that the work is being done not by the Israeli government but is bankrolled by a Jewish billionaire who lives in Australia. So this is pure Ashkenazi philantrophy helping other white folks to immigrate.

      Black Jews don't have those resources, but that's not supposed to matter, because they have the state. Well, if they can't count on the state either what can they count on?

  • Abe Foxman says goodbye to an America of secret Jew haters
    • I always found Tuvia amusing. He is a guy who went to Europe on his own volition and has basically dedicated his career to slandering it, yet he keeps staying there. It's like: This place is so horrible(which is why I can't move anywhere else!). It doesn't make sense, of course, unless you understand him as an Ashkenazi who doesn't want to be around too many brown people(Jewish brown people and non-Jewish brown people alike) in Israel.

      As for Foxman, I really laugh at his opinions. He reminds me of the people in the Bund who argued the same thing re: physical labour. And then Zionism happened and all of the sudden the Jews were farmers! Foxman isn't just an ordinary racist, his racism is so antiquated as to be hilarious, an added bonus.

      (Oh, and speaking of Jews and working the soil, isn't he glued in to the fact that Israel has the best cows in the world? Even Bibi brags about them. Onward, the Kosher Cow!)

  • 'If you challenge Israel’s security, you challenge America’s security. Plain and simple' -- Clinton
    • It was obvious from the start that Clinton was the Israel lobby's favourite. She's going to be "better"(read: worse) on Palestine than Obama, who was largely terrible himself(silent on Cast Lead, whined on election eve but did nothing but block UN resolutions in the aftermath, panders to bigots who hate Palestinians etc).

      This is why I always cautioned the whole "everything's going to change in 2016".
      No, we won't see real political change until the mid-2020s. A Republican won't be able to win the WH again due to demographics. We're going the route of California.

      On campuses and so on, the change has already really taken place. It's now mostly about consolidation and spreading it to the liberal media. Congress will be the final stronghold.
      Just along with the White House.

  • Jews have replaced WASPs in foreign policy establishment-- Heilbrunn in NYT
    • Jews have replaced WASP Arabists on Middle Eastern foreign policy a long time ago. Outside of that realm, I don't just see it. Sure, you have Tony Blinken but he is hated by everyone from the lobby and he mostly deals with issues like AfPak, SEA, LATAM and so on. And correct me if I am wrong but the two top positions are occupied by Christian Gentiles(Rice & Kerry).

      I think this is Heilbrunn's ethnic chauvinism showing. I think he knows the issue is more complicated but he shares the ethnic resentment he writes about, which is why exaggerates it to brag about it - and why he is such a good guide to the neocons and their liberal brethren(Goldberg, Oren et al) because of this psychological complex he shares with them.

      And then there's this sentence:

      On the one side are traditionally liberal Jews who continue to see Israel as an egalitarian version of America… On the other side are more conservative Jews and Christian evangelicals who believe that this is sentimental piffle.

      I don't know how Heilbrunn brands people who see a racist Apartheid state as an "egalitarian vision of America" as somehow "liberal Jews".
      If supporting Apartheid is being a liberal then how do you define racism?

      This continues to affirm the level of deep bigotry and xenophobia even among supposed "liberals" in the Jewish establishment - recall the pro-Kahane former heads of the synagogue in your piece yesterday, defending him to this day.

      Turns out Zionism didn't just make bigots out of people over there, there's plenty of work left on these shores to do as well.

  • '16 people were killed in Gaza'-- How the 'NYT' whites out Israeli violence
    • The types of book on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which we read are mostly, and understandably, about the situation on the ground.

      But it is nevertheless useful to once in a while read a book about the social dynamics in the oppressor countries - or in this case the enabler countries. For I am hoping for someone, maybe Phil + James, to write a definite account about the Times' I/P "coverage" (or service for Apartheid).

      I don't think it is just useful for this conflict. People will be going back decades from now and compare the coverage they read in such a book to the coverage they are reading about a conflict which is also lied about, and covered up by the powerful.

      The shocking fact here is that the NYT is supposed to be liberal; supposed to be standing for human rights. It's laughable.

    • Agreed, I love these takedowns of the NYT. They are humorous and brutal - and compounded by the fact that the target deserves the derision and the acid every step of the way.

  • Michael Oren misrepresents 1971 synagogue bombing that changed his life
    • The thing I don't get is that these rabbis praise Kahane. That to me is the amazing part of this article.

      It shows that Kahane's racist appeals were not confined to nutjobs. He was hosted by a lot of synagogues around the country and even today the past presidents will defend him to the hilt.

      That shows you that racist extremism isn't just present in Israeli society.

  • Carter says Israeli rejection of 2-states forced US to withdraw as mediator 'for first time in modern history'
    • It's too bad Carter is so milquetoast until the very end.

      He should have been more forceful on the Apartheid label from the start instead about whining about "misunderstandings". If Lehrer wanted to have a fight then Carter should have jumped in and demolished him with facts. Instead he laments about howhis "former supporters" now view him, as if these people are even worth having as supporters. Sure, Carter does firm his back toward the end of the interview, but the general feeling of squishyness is intact.

      Still, you gotta have guts to write a book with that title in 2006. In 2016 it won't be seen as controversial, but back then - as if this is ancient history - it was.
      So cred where cred is due.

  • Resume requirement for counter-terrorism job appears to include: Jewish
    • Heh.

      The more serious point which Phil raises a lot is that you can't understand Middle Eastern policy without understanding Jewish sociology. It's that simple.

      On healthcare, the economy, education and so on, go down the list, there isn't really a "Jewish lobby" to speak about. But on these issues, there is - and there's no point in trying to deny that(MSM) or being uncomfortable with it and somehow blaming "capitalism"(Chomsky).

  • Hillary Clinton promises megadonor she will work with Republicans-- to oppose BDS
    • No, but she is aware how you win domestic elections in America.

      I wonder if South Africa had such massive elite support as Israel has today in the American media/donor class, would Apartheid still be around? It's an interesting, if disturbing, thought to think. Would Mandela have remained a fringe figure for most people other than the politically active progressive class? Most people didn't know about him until the very last few years when all Western governments had even dropped the pretense of support.

      At any rate, this letter proves that which all of us knew already: Clinton will be 100% slavishly loyal to the AIPAC crowd. Much worse than Obama, whose racist abandonment of the Palestinians will be one of his biggest black marks on his presidency 10-15 years down the line. He'll be defensive about that until the end of his days, and he'll be hounded for good reason.

      Bernie Sanders won't be a huge improvement, but he'll certainly be better than Clinton. He just seems like he wants to wash his hands of the whole Zionism affair and be left alone to talk about the importance of breaking up the big banks instead.

      This is just another reason to marshal everyone to prevent Hillary from becomming president. It's not just her cozy relationship with Wall Street that is at stake here.
      Sanders is flawed, but at least a lot less flawed than this.

  • A racist country with too much influence over US -- Israel's new image among Democrats
    • It is, but not in the mind of most Americans. That's because people are not informed how Zionism is a driving force behind mideast wars - and how Zionism animates political donations.

      The reporting on this is slowly, but surely, starting to open up but the Fear Of Invoking Anti-Semitism is still a brake on a lot of these issues.

      That was my point: whatever the substance, what are the practical matters in terms of public opinion; is it shifting or not? Among the general population, there's nothing to suggest it. Among small progressive elites, we're seeing earthquakes. Inevitably, that will spread. My point was: don't count on it in a year or even a few years from now.

      Look at an issue like gay marriage. Even today, shockingly, 40% are against it. It takes decades for a concensus to turn.

    • Marnie, is your IQ not higher than to insult people with schoolyard terms? Really? Who is the lumpy of us if that's the case?

      Also, questioning the poll's implications for the larger society doesn't make me a sympathiser to Zionism, nor does it make me question the specific methodology of the poll. You don't seem to understand this.

      Actually, you don't come across as someone who understands a lot at all, but is more comfortable hurling epithets. I guess that's outer limit of your comfort zone for thinking. Each to their own.

    • And yet the Gallup polls show record support. So what's that about?

      From my reading, part of that is the incredible rise of Republican support which has shouldered and in some cases even extended over democratic losses.

      But even so, while Israel is losing the progressive base, the educated elites, they are not losing the country. Over the long haul, I do think educated elites matter a lot more on most issues, certainly on issues like foreign policy.

      But still, 2016 isn't the long haul and while Bernie Sanders may get flack for it in town halls, will people decide not to vote for him, especially when the alternative is worse(Clinton)? And not just on Israel/Palestine, either.

      That's not even counting the adage that people vote on domestic issues.

      I think the Luntz poll show what we've been witnessing for years already: the progressive elites are never coming back to Zionism. Will it matter? The progressive elites were against the attacks on Latin America in the 1980s as well, did that help?

      I'm ultimately optimistic about the outcome of this conflict, but I'd just caution any wild mood swings prior to 2016. Remember your post on the eve of the Israeli election, Phil? Re-read it for reference to this post.

  • 'We are you and you are us' -- Netanyahu has tons of American friends
    • The only thing this post proves is that Jewish Apartheid has a lot more supporters in America than white Apartheid ever had at the elite levels.

      Will it be enough to stave off BDS?
      Nah.

  • 'Patronizing Israeli crap' -- more American Jewish responses to Oren
    • I wouldn't classify Wieseltier as a liberal. He attacks Oren because he himself was attacked. He's a typical Zionist. It's only okay for Jews to criticize Zionism, but only if they are Zionists. When people say the truth, he goes off his leash like a rabid dog, like we saw against Sullivan/Walt/Mearsheimer.

      So why include his attacks as a sign of American Jews turning against Israel? More like a man with a big ego turning against another man with a big ego. Then there's Kampeas, who may be exposing Oren's history of fraud, but as you noted, that hasn't prevented him from buying an apartment in the Jim Crow state. Another sign of a "liberal" turning against Zionism? Ha.

      Oren's book is more useful in the sense of showing the total disconnect within American Jewry(the Zionist part, which is still the strong majority part).
      They have this Dreamcastle Israel view and whenever someone goes out and pops that bubble, like Oren, they go nuts.

      In a sense his book has shown the inability of the American Jewish establishment to fundamentally deal with Zionism in a way other than avoidance or shaming. The same people who bash Oren today will attack BDS tomorrow. Oren is a lot of things, but at least he has a coherent world view. The Zionist establishment doesn't. They have a schizophrenic world view, where their "liberal" principles is divided on geography and whenever this chasm is opened, you get this hysterical reaction.

      It has nothing to do with Oren.

  • Oren's criticism of US Jews earns his book five thumbs down: 'slinky,' 'self-aggrandizing,' 'twists reality'
    • I'm not sure if you use the term "diaspora Jews" ironically or not, but I nevertheless wonder how long it must take for people until they finally stop seeing themselves as a "diaspora". That is in of itself a product of Zionism; no place except Israel can truly be home, otherwise you are perpetually in the "diaspora".

      That is mindpoison.

  • Oren pushed Random House to hurry his book so American Jews will 'intercede' to stop Iran deal and save millions of Jews
    • No Marshall, Oren has (probably) just published the best book on the US/Israel relationship thus far from someone within the establishment(I don't think of Walt/Mearsheimer as part of the establishment, the political one, even if they are Ivy league professors. They're politically isolated).

      I've learnt more very interesting information from just the excerpts of the book than I have reading a ton of supposed "inside accounts". Here is a guy who had real access and basically has no limits on how far he is willing to go and I'm grateful for that. I mean, just read the quote Phil pulled out. He's driven by messianic fervor at this point and that's great for those of us who want the unrestrained account.

      Oren's position will be strengthened whoever wins the next election, even if you call him "madman". I think it's very important to understand his sheer animosity towards Obama, for I view Oren as a bellweather. Why does he and the lobby distrust Obama so much? I don't think they are mad or irrational, I think they are rational, highly rational in fact.

      I think people will look back at the Obama presidency and indeed draw the same conclusion as Oren: this was a milestone administration in terms of US/Israel ties. He's absolutely correct about that.

      He - and the lobby - both bank on the next president(either Clinton or Bush) and they're probably right to do so. Nevertheless, the major lasting impact of the Obama era will likely live on within the American campus and reflower in the mid-2020s and beyond.

      Oren's urgency is real. If Iran does get a deal, it's only a matter of time before they get the bomb. It would also undo decades of Israeli propaganda, saying Iran is delusional/irrational.

      And if Israel is wrong on that, what else could they be wrong on? And yes, Oren's entitlement, lecturing America how to act and behave etc is all vintage Israeli. The spoiled child makes itself heard.

  • Does Israel have a toxic personality? Ask Michael Oren
    • That's a lot of psychobabble, Phil. Instant arm-chair analysis from watching the pictures in the Twitter feed? Maybe we should google "smiling Netanyahu" for a counter-argument.

      But, no, seriously, Bibi is a guy who enjoys shows like the Borgias, the ultra-realistic and ultra-grim TV show that is all about backstabbing, betrayal and lies.
      He describes Palestinian men as "wild beasts of a man".

      But he also lives in the most violent and anarchic region of the world. America will and can withdraw itself from the Middle East and Israel has no plan B. They are scared because they should be.

      Re: Oren's book. Unlike a lot of political memoirs, his seems to be actually worthwhile to read. I'm not buying the WH spin that he's just lying through his teeth for PR. Give him credit for that at least, even if you attack his official portrait.

  • BDS could cost Israel $4.7 billion a year
    • BDS is having a giant impact alright, Saban/Adelson are now focusing on it single-mindedly, the attacks on the UC system and now the affair with Orange.

      I think 2015 will be the year when BDS truly hit the mainstream when the history of the movement is written.

  • The Peter Beinart Double Standard: Why is this boycott different from all other boycotts?
    • He isn’t burying his head in the sand and pretending Israeli violations of human rights don’t exist, in the StandWithUs etc mold. But he’s unwilling to take the next logical steps. And I’m honestly not sure why that is…

      So I'll guess I'll break on Beinart. I don't think he's merely trying to "do the right thing". I take him as the most sophisticated hasbara activist in the U.S.

      He's the stopping block against the left, and he does so by attacking the Jewish right constantly, in order to build credibility.

      But in his actions - and in his words - he has always supported discriminatory treatment for Palestinians inside 48-Israel(which is more a fiction than any actual place at this stage).

      Basically Beinart wants to go to a place where it becomes easier to sell Israel's atrocities. At this stage not even Obama is buying the BS coming out of the Israeli government, and Beinart fears this. He's much more effective than a clown like Dershowitz, but in the end the main goal remains the same.

  • Israel can handle any threat in the Middle East, but it will go down without young American Jews -- Shavit
    • The tone you have on Shavit throughout the article reminds me of Rudoren writing about a settler in the NYT. You quote him tons, call his efforts "energetic" and obviously approve of his analysis and words in large measure, even if you depart on the outcome.

      Not saying you're on his side, but we've seen this fawning before. Remember that interview you did with that mega-settler a few years back(who had like 7 kids and was worth many millions)? Same thing.

      Shavit doesn't come with anything new to the table. And rememeber, this is the same guy:

      link to youtube.com

      Please stop Rudoring him, thanks.

  • Building solidarity between Korea and Palestine
    • Thanks for this essay. I think the South Korean government looks to a large extent to what the U.S. does. So long as the U.S. is uncritically supporting Israel, countries like Korea will follow, as will much of the rest of the U.S.-aligned world.

      And when the U.S. policy eventually follows what is happening in the universities, a lot of other countries will follow, too. That's something the lobby understands very well and why they are so furiously working against Palestinian solidarity work on U.S. campuses and why they are scare-mongering about "blacks, latinos, asians" vs "us".

      I've seen more and more Asians joining this struggle. I like that, partly because so many are expected to be "nice" and not activists and/or "troublemakers". People get shocked, but it's cool to see.

  • Is BDS practicing a double standard with respect to Arab countries?
    • Beinart's argument is basically the same we've heard for ages.

      Yes, but our history. He's too sophisticated to pull the Shoah card right off the bat but he's basically doing a similar, but more complicated, argument here.

      Ultimately, we must bow to "sensitivities" because bad stuff happened in the past and as such we must "understand" the revulsion that Zionists like himself feel when Jewish apartheid is boycotted.

      No Peter, we are disgusted with your apologetics for an Apartheid system. You may be a much more sophisticated apologist than the troglodytes that the regime in Jerusalem trots out but there's only so much finesse and élan can accomplish papering over a brutishly racist ideology.

      This is a morally corrupt argument and it will age really fucking badly. Oh, and don't think we've forgotten the 2011 interview with Cpl. Goldberg. We know who you really are deep down.

    • hahahahaha

  • A Jewish reporter in Gaza responds to Jane Eisner
    • Dan shows why independent journalism is so critically important. He has Western/Jewish privilege in the sense that he can make himself heard in the Western media in a way that an Arab and/or Palestinian journalist probably can't.

      That's an issue which is tied to Eisner's bigotry, the fact that we discount Palestinian voices as extremist and less "worthy" than Western, and especially Jewish Western, voices on all matters Israel/Palestine.

      If there was no independent journalism, nobody would challenge the coccoon of racism that the Forward/NYT/NPR and the rest of them live in.

  • Netanyahu under siege, in 'the most embattled democracy on earth'
    • NPR/NYT, it's all Likudnik on Israel. It really is a question of needing to "go" outside the country to get real coverage, like the CBC.

      And as always: nobody ever writes stories about the countless times Israel breaks the ceasefire. That's the real hypocrisy and the true reason why Netanyahu is terrified: people are beginning to notice.

  • Once again, 'NYT' fails to tell its readers that many Jews support BDS
    • Well, the Times' approach to ignoring BDS has failed, so it is now in an all-out attack.

      It's kind of sad, but telling, that is goes to bat for Jewish apartheid. I continue to say that we'll fight this much longer than white Apartheid because white Apartheid didn't have these many friends in the "liberal" elite media.

      The major blight of the 20th century for the Times was how silent it was on the Shoah. When the paper's 21th century history will be written, it's hysterial defence of Jewish apartheid will be a prominent scar on its record. And people will understandly ask, why? The answer seems to me to be nothing else than sheer tribalism.

  • Obama says peace talks are pointless because Netanyahu won't see the 'best' in others
    • The French UNSC resolution is basically the American position in the late 90s. The fact that is seen as "radical" is just a testament to how far the goalposts have been shifted, probably permanently. (Of course even back then those conditions were impossible but it was at least possible to pretend otherwise. Today, nobody is fooled. The Apartheid state has grown so much as to swamp everything else).

      Also, Phil, yes Obama said all those things.

      He also defended the Apartheid alliance over and over again. He also used the demographic argument (can you imagine Obama doing so to a white-ruled country to a non-white population?).

      He obviously thinks Jewish apartheid is more acceptable than white Apartheid and he is keeping his eyes on the post-presidential speaking tour.

      What was this interview about? Washing his hands, not "going after Israel". So he can say in his memoirs that he did his best etc (horseshit). He'll sell the Palestinians down the river until the very end.

      Obama is a reactionary on this question. That he is dragging his feet is just an indication that the earth if moving beneath him. Just like he dragged on gay marriage. So his statements should be seen as a reflection of the broader sea change, not as any real liberalism on his part(hahaha!).

  • Goldberg predicts 'civil war' between American and Israeli Jews as Israel is 'defined as an apartheid state'
    • Speaking of changed climate:

      link to ynetnews.com

    • Obama is a whimp and a coward, but I don't think he cares about Israel. He does care, however, about his post-presidential speaking tour and he can't go after Zionism and expect it to be lucrative.

      That being said, I think Goldberg's obsession with Obama as the "Jewish president" shows correctly what Phil describes as narcissism. It also shows the moral bankruptcy of a guy who claims to be a liberal but supports Apartheid. Goldberg will pay for that, just like he will increasingly pay for Iraq.

      Also, Goldberg, who is "we" you speak of? Jewish neocons like yourself(exist in both parties, just look at Saban).

      Rothkopf shows in the interview that despite the noises he made previously he is still very tribal and will likely crawl back to the cross(if you'll excuse the religious transgression), just like the NYT has done recently.

      His bizarre and desperate attempt to smear the UK-US special relationship, so as to make Israel's and America's increasing isolation from each other less extreme, was a case in point. He can't stand it that Israel isn't really that popular among liberals anymore and it isn't exactly going in his favored direction either.

      Some day people will write about the extraordinary, massive support that Jewish apartheid received within the American media. It'll probably be written be a Jewish author, simply because you have to make so many statements - even if factually correct - as to land on the clownish Simon Weisenthal Center "top 10 anti-Semites" list for a life time.

      But that book will be written simply because people will have to start understanding the essential role of Jewish sociology - that this interview is overflowing with - and how it pushed unconditional support for Israel, and yes wars in the Middle-East, too. Because does anyone seriously think that Goldberg wasn't thinking a lot about Israel when he pushed for Iraq? Or other Jewish neocons - dems or republicans - for that matter, too.

      This is what Goldberg alludes to when he speaks of "we". He knows he and his friend Rothkopf et al are in deep shit over Iraq and as time goes on more thoughtful books will be written about it, possibly in conjuction with how America stayed so slavishly loyal to a state that took billions and spat it in the face all the time, and who enforced that situation for decade after decade.

      If Goldberg/Rothkopf fear when the climate of such books come; they should. For it will be brutal to both of them, and it's coming. (And they both deserve it, and they know it)

  • First the occupiers exploit a Palestinian spring. Then 'The New York Times' does
    • Israeli Theft = Israeli "innovation". Haven't you heard? /s

      But seriously, this newest hasbara push has backfired. A lot of people will be inadvertently educated on how Israel steals Palestinian water through this latest desperate (NYT-sponsored) PR push.

  • Israeli President: Academic boycott of Israel is 'strategic threat of the first order'
    • Keep this in mind whenever people talk of Rivlin as this great peacenik. He's against Palestinian self-determination and R2R, too.

  • Israeli propaganda dominates front page of 'New York Times' today
    • Thanks for fightning the good fight, James.

      But no, I won't pretend I'm shocked anymore that the NYT simply pretends that outright water theft doesn't happen(80% of the Palestinian water stolen in the WB? What Palestinians!?).

      Hasbara central is an apt name to call the NYT henceforth.

  • 'Peace Now' and 'Breaking the Silence' leader call on Americans to oppose peace talks (Netanyahu is 'anathema to peace')
    • And if Herzog would have been elected, would Peace Now say the same thing?

      Yariv Oppenheimer, the head of Peace Now, just began his stint as an IDF reservist in the Apartheid territories a few weeks ago.

      Phil, you know you are guilty of ridiculous optimism, bordering on delusion, from time to time. These people will not change. Change can only come from the outside. It's time you accepted that.

  • US and Israeli pressure on Nigeria to sell out Palestine at U.N. amounted to 'national security threat'
    • Next time we hear about US "concern" of colonization, point them to these articles.

      The U.S. has never been against settlements and Apartheid; it has actively supported them when push comes to shove.

  • Despite differences, US showers Israel’s new right-wing government with arms and favors
    • History will be harsh on Obama. A person of his background, as obsessed about race as he is, going to Selma, making grand speeches etc, and then he doubles down on Apartheid.

      Doing the base minimum to support Israel in order to get his legislate agenda is venal, but at least it's normal. But this is going beyond what is necessary and actively supporting Apartheid. Even saying Jewish apartheid reminds him of the civil rights struggle.

      As I said: history will be harsh on that political prostitute.

  • 'Heart-wrenching, harrowing, transfixing' -- NYT needs to end blackout on Blumenthal
    • BTW on the topic of Blumenthal's prescience...

      Here's this report that the UN is considering putting the IDF in the same camp as Boko Haram etc for targeting children:

      link to ynetnews.com

      Little by little the world wakes up.

    • As much as we hope they would, we also know they won't.

      To do so would be to deal a death blow to their own ideology. There is not a single liberal Zionist in the MSM who can engage Max and win. None. He knows that country better than almost any Western journalist, probably the best. He knows the real Israel, he isn't blinded by tribal loyalty like most of the people reporting from there.

      To invite Max would be to annihilate their own credibility, it would be a death sentence to their own moral authority(such as it is). It would be fatal and as such it will never happen.

      But that's okay. That's why the BDS movement is winning. The NYT ignored it, too, until it attacked it head-on on page 1.

      Max will get his dues before long, but it will not be by gracious Times' editors, fearful of his attacks on Jewish apartheid, but by brave liberal students who are in the Ivies as I write this, who will take this on in the coming decades as they rise through the liberal institutions and purge them of bigots like Alterman, like Rudoren, like Bronner and all the rest of them.

      Then - and only then - will Max get his due. Long overdone.

  • Turning Lebanon into Gaza -- Israel's hole card against Iran deal?
    • I thank the heavens that the major difference between now and 10-15 years ago is that the blatant hasbara of the Times is highlighted, thanks to independent media. We should never forget to be grateful for that!

      Now; the big question before us...if Israel does indeed intend to blow up the deal in the summer, and the Times of course goes along Israel's propaganda campaign, is this:
      will HuffPo and the rest of the liberal grassroots go along? I doubt it.

      Zionists like Josh Marshall of TPM surely will, but I doubt HuffPo intends to go along and the Pillar/Parsi Op-Ed is a good sign of that. Jacobin won't. The Nation has moved past its hasbara stage but it isn't ready fully embrace the reality just yet.

      And this would in turn mean that there isn't just a divide between the Democratic establishment and the grassroots on Israeli Apartheid, but that this divide extends into elite establishment liberal media like the NYT and grassroots publications like HuffPo(which despite its size is still being run as if it headed by activists).

  • Now there's a 'Birthright' for those over 26 and intermarried -- 'Honeymoon Israel'
  • 'NYT' again acts as Netanyahu's mouthpiece -- wrongly suggesting he wants talks with Palestinians
    • Israel can't really complain about propaganda anymore. They have the NYT in the tank and these people are the real pros.

      So I guess we'll see the hypothesis being borne out: can you really fix a problem that is about substance(Apartheid policies) with a PR solution, even if you have some of the best writers working as free hasbara agents(which Rudoren at this point is)?

      I'm guessing no, you can't fundamentally do that. But having really skilled shills like Rudoren will surely delay that inevitable transformation in the world arena. And she's keeping at it with all her might. The Times is the Israeli propaganda central #1 these days.

      And they're doing this for free, out of conviction, out of ideology and yes, ethnic tribal loyalty, too.

    • There's a lot that is wrong with her racist coverage but by debasing yourself to attacking her looks you're only exposing your own low level.

  • 'New York Times' tour of conflict is led by Israeli who works for AIPAC, Birthright, and Israeli army and prisons
    • Bourgeois Apartheid tourism.

      Taking a few token natives along, whose sole purpose will be to sooth these bigots' conscience over their vulgar and racist safari trip, changes nothing from what it is.

      This is truly cancerous. The Times is not even bothering to hide its virulent racism toward Palestinians anymore.

  • Netanyahu's new Foreign Ministry aide gets $226,000 from Sheldon Adelson shop in U.S.
    • Yes, Pfeffer says this happens in all western democracies, and not just by Sheldon Adelson.

      Ah, yes "it's in all western democracies". Not really. The U.S. is only the real standout here. It's not like this in Europe, in Canada or in Australia nearly to the same extent as in Israel.

      Just like all those panicked opinion pieces from Zionists, trying to link the UK election to the Israeli one(like Rothkopf of the FP). Trying to drag down the west with Israel because they are surely seeing the obvious by now, and it doesn't look so good if Israel is an anomaly in how bad it is. Some of it is comical, like trying to compare the civic and non-racial SNP of scotland to the outright racist appeals from Netanyahu.

      Anything to whitewash Israeli and Jewish apartheid.

  • Red lines, shmed lines-- U.S. must buy Israel's compliance with Iran deal
    • You hit the nail on its head, Dan.

      The F-35 is a bloated freak, nobody wants it, not even American allies. People buy it out of politics.

      And yes, with the S-300 from Russia, Israel will basically not be able to hit Iran's facilities. That's why they are folding.

      I'm guessing Obama actually gave Putin the signal to go ahead, to force the Israelis to withdraw. Putin, after all, withheld for all this time. Or maybe it wasn't Obama, maybe it was the fallout after Ukraine. But why now? Why not back in 2014?

      By the way, I'm not buying Iran's excuses. They will get the bomb as soon as possible. They will be foolish not to. And once that happens, Israel will not longer have a big edge. Which is why they are begging for more assistance.

  • The crisis of the American Jewish community
    • You should. Obama's neo-colonialist rhetoric("making the desert bloom"), his endless pandering and frankly his betrayal of the Palestinians is all about chasing Jewish money.

      That understanding is based on what Phil outlined: that the Jewish community is cohesive. That's the Jewish community Obama grew up to understand. That community is now splintering.

      Your larger point is of course correct: people shouldn't have to wait for Jewish approval to go for BDS or not. Even if the Jewish community was uniformly against that should not matter: only moral principle should matter.

      But there's a thing called practical politics and regardless of the moral dimension, a splintering among Jews will push the process further along as fewer and fewer Jews, especially young Jews, are willing to base their identity on a state whose raison d'être is Jewish apartheid. It's not even possible to deny it anymore.

  • Like it or not, Obama is a liberal Zionist
    • Obama's comments are indefensible. He is supporting a Dreamcastle Israel which doesn't not only exist - it has never existed.

      As always, he gives token lip-service to Palestinians but insists on racial purity. What a "liberal"! Are these really "shared values"? Again, the racial hypocrisy here is astounding. He would never support a white colonialist state in Africa, which was artificially created on the backs of the indigenous population.

      Obama belongs to a generation of politicians - and Clinton is of the same mold - whose personal career depends on Jewish money. That's the blunt truth. His ascent was aided by a bunch of J Street donors. They may be more pleasant at face value than the AIPAC guys, but in the end, like all "liberal" Zionists, they support Apartheid. Just like all of them rushed to Sodastream's defence when its exploitation of Palestinian labor was under spotlight.

      I continue to belabour this point: Obama's foreign policy legacy will be blemished but on the Palestinian issue it will probably be the most poisonous, precisely because he can't be too much blamed for ISIS and other stuff that happened under Dubya, but he can and did not act on Israel.

      As a nonwhite Democrat, someone who has spoken so much about race, his responsibility for this is massive.

      He's a sellout. It's the sad truth. In a way I am relieved: no more illusions. In with the AIPAC-tool Hillary! Accelerate BDS.

  • JVP to Obama: 'Shared values' means opposing Israel's systematic discrimination against non-Jews
    • "Making the desert bloom" is colonialist language, because it implies that before massive Zionist immigration, there was nothing of value there.

      I doubt Obama would identify with those who approvingly talked of the policies of "civilizing the land" of the Native Americans.

      Obama is many things but he is not dumb; he knows what that means and he would speak out against it. It is precisely for this reason - and for the reason that Obama seems to be so aware of race - that these comments are disgusting and unforgivable.

      Obama knows better, but he chooses to disgustingly talk in this way. Why?

      I can only conclude: speaking tour. He wants to have a comfortable life after his presidency. He is still (quite) a young man by political standards. Going after Zionism is a deathknell in the media circuit.

      Of all the major failures Obama has committed in the foreign policy arena, this will be one of his greatest ones.

      Or take his quote about how he is committed to preserving a Jewish majority. He would never say that to a country with a large white population and a similar demographic dynamic like Israel. Remember that he organized against SA in the 1980s.

      Obama does these things because he knows he won't pay the price for them for decades. But I'm telling you, once he gets really old, people will fuck him over for this. Hopefully before he dies. Because he deserves every second of it. This is a total betrayal and the last nail in the coffin for Obama's authority of anything concerning race or discrimination.

      What a prostitute he is(and I apologize to all prostitutes for comparing them to him).

  • Pro-Israel wealthy Jews feature in 'Forward,' Christie roast, and U of Michigan censorship
    • Most of the giving to the Democratic party is not by Israel Firsters. Or at least that wasn't the case before. Part of that reason was that the bipartisan concensus on Israel was so strong before that you didn't really need to enforce it.

      Today, however, you do need to enforce it, hence the people like Haim Saban.

      The Israel Firsters on the GOP side don't need to spend money to drum up support for Israel; that is automatic from the base. They are there primarily because most of them are really hawkish social liberals, people like Adelson or Braman. On most other issues they are leftists except on two: taxes/unions and Israel and those two override every other concern.

      On abortion, gun control, gay marriage.. go down the list, they are firmly in the Democratic party. Ditto Paul Singer and the other hedge fund guys.

      This is why they are willing to dance with anti-gay pols like Ted Cruz, precisely because Israel trumps all other issues, even if they have nothing in common with him or his base on the vast majority of other issues.

      You see the same pattern with the Jewish establishment embrace of hard-right Christian right types.

      It's actually quite amusing. The level of insanity these people are debasing themselves to just for Israel is an indication of their fanaticism and why most of these people will not go quietly into the night, but will fight until the bitter damn end for Apartheid.

  • Obama equates Israel's creation to African-Americans gaining right to vote
    • You're going way easy on Obama, pabelmont. What he says and does is disgusting.

      Israel is a Jewish-only democracy. The Arabs are not wanted there and are a token. They've never been in a single sitting coalition and they won't get to be in one any time soon(this is something that all major Jewish parties agree on). They're a fig leaf.

      It's in this context that Obama says he "cares deeply" about Israel as a Jewish democracy. Basically, he's could be saying the same thing about caring "deeply" about a White democracy in South Africa.

      Obama does this for a single reason: money. He wants a post-presidential career and he can't have one without being pro-Zionism, it's that simple. Just ask Walt/Mearsheimer how many bookings they got after the book; it dried up.

      Obama claims to like multi-racial democracies but has shown himself willing to defend an Apartheid state. That he invokes the civil rights movement to defend this is grotesque and should end any claim that he has any moral authority whatsoever. He's a political prostitute.

      Just like Samantha Powers, who makes a lot of hay out of her human rights record but keeps defending Israel to the hilt no matter what, keeps sucking up to Rabbi Boteach even if he is best buddies with Adelson and accuses Susan Rice of genocide.

      These people are political prostitutes, that's what they are. Obama has sunk his legacy with this issue. He goes over the top to please the pro-Apartheid crowd, with Jeff Goldberg in front, and he will be condemned by history for it.

      In a way I am relieved. There is no hope in the political leadership at all, and this will act as a check against any passivity for the BDS movement. Now, more than ever, people must push ahead. Pro-Apartheid politicians, especially Obama who should know better, simply don't seem to run out of defences so long as the dollars keep flowing.

  • The end of hasbara? 'NYT' readers question US support for apartheid
    • It's funny because often journalists are much more liberal than their readership base(at least among MSM publications, even liberal-oriented ones like the NYT). And you often see that reflected in the comment section (which is why so many journalists don't like it, because it reminds them that their hive isn't always so representative of American discourse).

      This is why it's so funny and amusing seeing the opposite trend for once, that the Times is far more reactionary than their readership base and their desperation in their "Editor's picks" vs the people's choices.

      Wouldn't surprise me if they outright banned comments on I/P articles soon. They don't want to see them, and be reminded just how reactionary they are.

  • Zionism is tired
    • The whole "we civilized the barbaric natives" surely plays well to a white American audience, but will not play well to the emerging non-white one, especially the liberal class. These people are also immune to Shoah-related emotional blackmail: we have no history in that fight, so why are you bringing it up as a shield to cover Apartheid?

      P.S. sad to see that rich racists don't just corrupt our politics but also the academia.
      Not just paid colonialists like that guy but even the whole Salaita affair.

      They are freaking out, and because they have no new arguments, they will throw money at the problem, tons and tons of money, to silence the opposition and to buy off the deans. I wonder how much it will help now, considering so much is coming from rich Asians, especially abroad, who want to send their kids to the Ivy League.

      The financial terror tactic has diminished in value.

  • Maybe next time it's Arab Americans who will be interned by U.S. gov't -- Rand Paul launches filibuster
    • There was an interesting recent discussion between Kaus and Robert Wright @ blogginheads on Hillary.

      Kaus is a political heretic in many ways, and he often has interesting stuff to say. He says that nobody trusts Hillary and that she is an amorphous blob, bending to whatever wind is blowing. Everything about her is calculated, poll-tested. The point is power, the path is irrelevant.

      Rand is many things, but he isn't Hillary. I would still vote for Hillary on economic/social issues but seeing a politician with principles is hopefuly for once (even if Rand's pandering to the lobby is disgusting and his economic program is a neoliberal shock doctrine).

      I seriously hope Bernie Sanders will win in the primaries. Yeah he's terrible on Israel(so is Warren) but at least we can hope for genuine progress on the domestic front. I actually think Sanders will be better on Israel than Hillary, precisely because his Jewishness gives him a shield. That's how ethnic politics works and Israel politics is nothing but ethnic politics (sorry Chomsky, nothing about capitalism).

  • 'NYT' obit turns the murderous settler rabbi into a 'contentious firebrand'
    • After much consternation it seems the Israeli hasbara machine solved their perennial PR problems: just hire the NYT staff.

      Actually, that's too generous. The NYT staff aren't paid a dime by the Israeli authorities. These people are zealots, true believers. They do this for free.

      But you could be forgiven for thinking that they are paid, because the stuff they write is indistinguishable from that of paid shills.

      P.S. Actually, the NYT is pumping out so much gross propaganda that we are literally having "what kind of smelly shit did the NYT publish today in defence of Apartheid?" every single day. It's astounding how low that paper has sunk. Using the word "Pravda" is so overdone(just next to "Orwellian") but this is one of those rare moments when it applies 100%.

  • The U.S. is at last facing the neocon captivity
    • Understanding Iraq will take a lot longer than understanding Vietnam, precisely because Jewish concerns were and are still so central to understanding the primary motivations by going into war.

      No, it wasn't all about the Jewish neocons(and their liberal helpers, from Goldberg to Remnick), but it was a very large part of it, as the Economist stated.

      Further, non-neocons like Krugman obviously don't want to talk about it, so they obscure things on purpose because they are nervous about having this discussion.

      I read Krugman's blog with regularity and he has great things to say on economics but is usually a political coward when it comes to foreign policy. He quoted Josh Marshall(himself a Zionist and a former Iraq war booster) where Marshall himself slams people who have selective amnesia on the Iraq war, trying to say they shouldn't be blamed for their support back then even if Marshall is guilty of the same thing he attacks other people of, as a former Iraq war booster himself. I am reading it and I wonder, Krugman, do you not see your own hypocrisy in quoting this man approvingly?

      And as Matthews stated, the legacy of the Iraq war continues, in the calls to go into Syria, to go into Iran(or at least bomb it into the stone-age), a kind of permanent war in the Middle East. It just never ends, and Israel looms large for the neocons.

      Walt/Mearsheimer's 2006 book will not only be the most important foreign policy book of the first decade but likely the most important foreign policy book of the first quarter of this century, precisely because the issues it raises are still burning hot today.

      One day people will be amazed how these two prominent scholars were marginalized and smeared for telling the truth(and a mild-mannered version at that, too).

  • International calls rise for FIFA to suspend Israel
    • Your loathing of FIFA is shared by me. That it has allowed Apartheid Israel to stand uncontested for so long is another notch to add to that list.

      Football is a beautiful game and it has been saddled with a kleptrocratic and corrupt worldwide organisation, headed by the slimeball Sepp Blatter.

      Yet it is nonetheless thanks to grassroots pressure that this campaign is even off the ground. Just like it was with Apartheid South Africa.

      Progress will be in spite of FIFA, not because of it.

  • Congress and state legislatures are on the warpath against BDS
    • Beyond those good points, this entire circus also shows the extreme power that the Israel lobby has over Congress. The TTIP is really EU/US relations, so why is the Israel lobby butting in there? Any talk about a so-called "Arab lobby"(which is non-existant) is bogus in background to this.

      Yet TTIP is likely to not ever pass anyway. Opposition in Europe is mounting and since even TPP is stalling in Congress(that's the one with Asia), and TPP was always seen as more important, I doubt that TTIP will go ahead.

      It's a shame. I wanted to see a long, protracted fight over TTIP where these small pheripheral issues come to dominate. It would expose the lobby even more and it wouldn't pass anyway. Now we're looking at at a fast and silent death since if even TPP goes down, what hope is there for TTIP, which has the unfortunate fate of being negotiatied with nations whose population is actually quite well-informed to the dangers of neoliberal shock doctrines(just ask the East Europeans).

  • 'NYT' public editor faults paper for failing to quote Jews who support BDS
    • For me, even if they left out the Jewish support, fundamentally, the problem remains that Jewish support for BDS remains a litmus test in of itself.

      Despite the headline, the public editor basically accepts that litmus test. Even if there was virtually zero Jewish support, any discussion on BDS should not be hinged on how many Jews support or not support because the implicit message is that morality doesn't matter as much as a kosher stamp of approval. And that is a deeply disturbing message to send.

      BDS, as any other program of principles, should be judged on its own merits, regardless of the support it has in any specific community.

  • What if the Times had sent Rudoren to Selma in 1965?
    • Let me heap praise, even if one is aware of the fact intellectually, reading the two versions side by side really jolts you in a visceral way.

      You really start to understand just how shocking NYT's embrace of Jewish apartheid is. But of course, because it is so common in the MSM you have kind of assimiliated it. The flashback to 1965 is vital and in many ways, the opposition to MLK and the rest was actually more moderate than the outright pro-Genocide Shaked.

      I wonder if Rudoren would have described those who attacked neo-Nazis who preached genocide on the Jews as "fulminating". I doubt it.

  • Adelson primary heats up -- fawning George Bush gives him a painting of his casino
    • I continue to maintain that the so-called "Adelson primary" is a misnomer.

      In 2016, there will be many more Adelsons. He won't have such a huge singular influence like he had in 2012, not because he has gotten more stingy but because others are catching on, like Braman and now this:

      link to politico.com

      Doling out 10+ millions won't be seen as so extreme anymore and Ellison for one can certainly easily afford 100 millions.

      Back in the Jim Crow days you had two primaries: the white primary and the general primary. Everyone knew which really mattered. Well, after the floodgates burst post-Citizens United, American elections are increasingly being decided by a small group of wealthy kleptocrats and quite a few of them are obsessed with Israel.

      And as a result you'll see more and more dehumanizing language by political elites aimed squarely at Palestinians(with an eye on the money on the table).
      Hillary will start to smear them too, if only to catch up.

  • The 'New York Times' is now a pro-Israel weapon. Who decided that, I don't know
    • That's (used to be) true Donald, but even mild criticism of Israel is out of the window at the Times.

      There has been somekind of a hard-right shift in the coverage over the past few years.
      Maybe it's all these Times journalists and their children in the Jewish apartheid army(IDF). That is one difference from white Apartheid. You didn't find a lot of Western journalist's kids in the South African army durin the 70s and 80s.

      Maybe it's their kids meeting BDS on campus. I don't know what it is, but it's perceptible. When even the Washington Post does more balanced coverage of Israel - and on some days even the 'effin WSJ - then you know how far to the right you've shifted.

      We're not talking about casual bias(which was always the case), no, we're talking about a paper that it is going out of its way to be massively in favor of one side time after time. "Balanced" coverage hardly exists anymore, even the pretense to it. Rudoren will claim her token piece on some artist in Gaza but for every such example you literally have 10 pro-Israel propaganda pieces. And we're talking really vulgar propaganda, like the IDF general responsible for warehousing Palestinians, portrayed as somekind of suffering Platonian nobleman, which zero Palestinians in the article to counter-claim him.

      Like doing a piece on Jim Crow with only white suffering policemen in it.

  • Rubio calls out Clinton over settlements -- and his biggest donor funds one
    • Phil, it's not just Braman and Singer. Even Larry Elliot(of Oracle) is now hosting fundraising dinners for Rubio.

      That guy makes Braman look like a beggar. Seems like the term "Adelson primary" is already out of date. From all intents and purposes, we're seeing an avalance of rich right-wing Jews(even some in Silicon Valley!) pushing into the GOP field in 2016.

      Hillary will turn hard-right because of this. And BDS will only grow faster.

  • 'NYT' plays shameless propagandist for Israel's threats to kill Lebanese civilians
    • By the way, just me or is the article something of an obvious plant? That IDF even supplied the photos in the article suggests that the growing extremism of the Times' Israel coverage is growing to new heights!

      They are now the unofficial IDF's media relations arm. Well, the Times do hasbara a lot better than the in-house people, that's for sure, but it is still hasbara at the end of the day. People will see through it, and the Times' reputation as a pro-Apartheid paper will sink with it.

    • An Israeli expert familiar with military planning said that if Israel attacked Lebanon again, it would probably do so in three phases. First, it would strike without warning at targets that pose the greatest threat

      Well, that entire article is a warning. Yaalon's recent verbal attacks on Lebanon seem to suggest that the Israeli military are preparing for the inevitable blowback of turning the entire zone of Southern Lebanon into a giant Gaza.

      And of course, the NYT is there every single step of the way, helping them along.

      P.S. Isn't it wonderful to note how the so-called "leftists" of ZU chose a guy like Amos Yadlin, who approves of attacking civilian territory without any hesitation?

      There can never be any "reform from within", ever.

  • Putting Israel's cynical humanitarian work in Nepal in the proper context
    • A lot of the aid has gone to bailing out surrogate mothers, something that is a lot less reported.

      These are poor and exploited Nepalese women who are sacrificed for the all-encompassing goal of more Jewish babies. So there's J-positive blood babies to save and thus it's not hard to see why this is rolling.

      And in any event, it's been long-standing policy for Israel to bend-over backwards to send aid in high-profile cases, but Israel's foreign assistance as percentage of GDP is not where it needs to be(1% is the aim for developed countries) - and that is much more telling of the state's real priorities. Even austerity-hit Britain is meeting that goal.

      But of course such aid doesn't garner headlines - it merely saves lives in much more systematic fashion - and as such, it's a lot less useful.

  • Matthews says Bush is pandering on Israel to get 'huge money', but his guests won't help him out
    • It's not impossible. It's already happening. The conversation has shifted in the grassroots and increasingly even in the elite media(like the Nation).

      Those of us at the frontier of this issue are blinded by the speed which we are travelling by. People who began at our opposite end are terrified recently, haven't you noticed? They see the movement we don't, because we're always so impatient - and rightly so.

    • I was about to say "if they do, they'll end up as you". I mean that as a compliment, but then again not everyone can bounce back the way you did. Not everyone can find an audience.

      But still, the point remains. The reason why Capeheart is chickening out is because he is a coward. Corn is probably more motivated by ethnic loyalty(not with the right-wing bigots, he doesn't care for them, but he's scared that if we'll talk about it, it will blow back on himself, his family and his community).

      Still, Phil, the fact that Matthews is pushing at this issue, even if haltingly, is surely a sign of progress. Wouldn't be possible 10 years ago. Then again, 10 years ago this issue was a lot more monolithic. There wasn't a J Street, everyone was behind AIPAC and you could still maintain the illusion of Dreamcastle Israel.

      Or take the rancid attack from the NYT, at the front-page at that, too. It's a sign that the establishment is fully aware of the issue. Now it's only a time to break through the wall, and little by little, it's happening.

  • Rubio's biggest backer says U.S. must be 'global military power' so that we can sustain Israel
    • Maybe it's just me, but rich Jewish money is okay to talk about on mainstream left-wing blogs that I frequent. It isn't seen as the same thing like "The Jews", as a community, but basically "every community has their crazy people, why would the Jews not have their own Kochs?".

      And indeed, why not?

      P.S. Isn't it nice to get a confirmation that so much of the neocon movement was all about protecting Israel using American blood and money, and not about "spreading democracy"(the propaganda line used tailored to American audiences).

      Or how people like Goldberg, whose main function is to give oxygen and air-time to neocon views to a liberal audience, with a subtle alliance with Republican neocons(and Zionists), as Glenn Greenwald pointed out recently. Ditto Jon Chait.

      But of course, if you point any of this out, then it's a "conspiracy". And then throw in some Godwin's law for good measure.

  • Ilan Pappe on the western awakening and what it means for Israel/Palestine
    • Great interview! I missed these longform interviews, they used to be more prevalent on site in 2010-2011(maybe just my memory). The great thing about independent journalism is that you can precisely choose which people to interview without worrying about attacks from the lobby/establishment "respectability" and you're not constrained by space for advertisements in the same way that the major corporate organs.

      I hope we get more of these similar interviews. As Israel is irrevocably moving into total isolation, there's a lot of people in Pappé's age that I think have valuable perspectives. These are the people who grew up from within the system and as such their insights are important. In a few decades time there won't be any of them left, so the more we can gather from them before that moment, the better. They have much to share.

Showing comments 2328 - 2301
Page: