Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1957 (since 2011-01-07 20:19:21)

Showing comments 1957 - 1901
Page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The rabbi's fridge
    • I'M HERE TO CONFIRM THAT MEGAN IS OKAY WITH JEWS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Oppenheimer is a bigot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Rosenthal is a Zionist, he protects his own.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      .

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

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

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

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

      2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • That should be obvious, Helena.

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

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

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

      Allow me to quibble on just one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Krauthammer takes money but he does not have to.

      He's like Schumer: a true believer.

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

      link to lowyinstitute.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Well not according to this:

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

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

    • Nope.

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

      A few points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • So is Brooks saying he’s Israeli?

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

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

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

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

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

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

      But back to Phil's post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Further:

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

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

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

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

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

      link to blogs.cbn.com

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

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

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

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

      P.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Showing comments 1957 - 1901
Page: