Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2372 (since 2011-01-07 20:19:21)

Showing comments 2372 - 2301

  • Iran Deal coalition breaks apart, and J Street looks more and more like AIPAC
    • There were genuine liberals in J Street in 2009-2010. Most of those have since left the organisation. A lot of fencesitters came into J Street from 2011 onwards as Ben-Ami kept pushing right.

      And as AIPAC's reputation lies in tatters, J Street became the only game in town. I know of many examples of former J Streeters who actually expected radical change who are now in JVP instead.

      The Iran deal showed that the monolithic nature of the old Israel lobby is over, but these new developments should temper any premature enthusiasm that the war is won, and that the lobby is dead.

      Destroying AIPAC is a difficult, but straight-forward task. J Street is far more savvy. Think of them as the Ben-Gurion vs Jabotisky. Jabotisky was a tough guy but you knew where you had him. Ben-Gurion kept shifting, used liberal language and was nuanced in his strategy. Even if he fundamentally agreed with the core goals of the Revisionists he was far more finessed about it.

      So it is with J Street vs AIPAC.

  • 'NYT' preaches to Palestinians about launching 'intifadas'
    • Not sure by tentacles and all that, but the NYT has a special obligation as a bastion of the liberal press. What do you expect from politicians?

      The whole point of the media is to be a spotlight on society and to be a critical force. Which is why the NYT's complicity in Jewish Apartheid, even in its terminal stage, is going to be judged exceptionally harshly.

    • History will judge the NYT's complict relationship with Jewish Apartheid very harshly.

  • Israeli soldiers can't win war for 'Israel's survival' without American friends fighting with computers and checkbooks
    • I love that attack on Alterman. This quote is surreal:

      It reminded me of the time that Norman Podhoretz insisted, years ago, that “the role of Jews who write in both the Jewish and general press is to defend Israel,” period. Talk about your dual loyalties. Talk about your intellectual dishonesty.

      How is this dishonest? It's refreshingly honest because it spells out what Zionism entails.

      Alterman doesn't really attack the notion per se, he attacks talking out loud about it. When Blumenthal released his first Israel book, we all saw the crazied frenzy with which Alterman went after the book.

      When pushed into a corner, people show their true colors. Alterman can write whatever claptrap he wants, but when the chips are down he is absolutely a soldier for Israel in the media. The only difference between him and Podhoretz was that Podhoretz was transparent about his wishes.

      We need more of that.

  • Anti-WASP tropes in the 'NYT'
    • Bigotry dies out with time. I'll admit I had no clue what "lockjaw" even was up until now. Also, nobody under the age of 50 would ever link to Safire, which of course reinforces my first point.

      Yeah, anti-WASP prejudice is socially accepted in America although I'd say I've only really seen Jews engage in it specifically. The rest of America tend to attack the hegemonic whiteness, which includes Jews of course, but that isn't necessarily bigotry(although it can be in some instances).

      I think part of the unease on the debate of Jewish privilege - that we are now part of white America full-stop and have been so for a long, long time - is that you can't really identify yourself as an outsider anymore and thus these attacks on WASPs reinforce a mythical notion of marginalisation which simply is laughable today. And when that option is no longer possible, your own privilege has to be examined. And people really don't like that. Witness the hysterical attacks in the Jewish press on the concept of Jewish privilege to see what I mean(Tablet has really been out there in particular).

      So maybe these slurs on WASPs, casual and "harmless" as they may be, are at root a sign of anxiety over your own group's status.

      I still look back to the 2010 'Girls controversy' on the issue of race for reference point. When Dunham got criticised for the monolithic whiteness on her show, she countered by saying she's "Half-Jewish, Half-WASP" and going on saying that 50% of her cast are Jewish.

      Lena played by old rules, the same Rothkopf and Brooks does. But the problem for Lena was that America had moved on. It was simply not possible anymore to pretend being Jewish on TV or in the mainstream of our culture was somehow a victory in and of itself.

      And as a result of that miscalculation, Lena got crushed. So that was 5 years ago. Lena had to adjust because she is still quite young. Rothkopf and Brooks are not young, so their outdated social compass will probably never be corrected, but then again their readership isn't anyone under 50 either.


  • Syrian and Palestinian refugees can be helped by better representation on TV and in film
    • That's only true from an American perspective, where day to day contact with Arabs in general and Arab muslims in particular is very sparse.

      In Europe there is a lot of contact. People may not live along side each other but if you live in a major city, you can't really avoid day to day contact. The problem isn't that they haven't been exposed to enough people, the problem is that they have and that they don't like what they see.

      Just take a look at this:

      link to

      Yes, german link but Google translate does the job. A lot of girls are at risk of forced prostitution and rape, often from men who have medieval views on women's rights. These are women who have fled the region and are now subject to the cultural norms of extremists who are in large part responsible for making the Middle East such a toxic place for women and sexual minorities. You think people don't notice these things?

      And then there's this from the BBC:

      link to

      Yeah, this is less about religion, FGM rates in some Christian countries is very high, but it is about a cultural practice that is barbaric and which is absolutely imported.

      You can dismiss these things as irrational fears etc, but the reality is, they can't be ignored anymore. Most people are fleeing genuine persecution and also in some cases in search of a better life. But what happens with the 2nd generation if they grow up with the attitudes of their homeland? We already know the answer to that question. Look at Bradford. Look at Bethnal Green.

      link to

      The real story isn't the 3 girls. It's the increasing reactionary development of the community at large, the advance of Islamists.

      These issues can't be wished away, or waved away. There is a critical mass which cannot be erased or invisibilised.

  • Department of Projectile Vomiting
  • Everyone's kicking AIPAC now that it's down
    • The ultimate question is, When Zionism crumbles in the U.S., and the New Yorker is questioning that ideology, will people say, Ali Abunimah said this years ago! Tony Judt! And I think they won’t give that credit, partly b/c there is such bad blood now between Zs and anti-Zs.
      When Peter Beinart becomes an anti-Zionist he will have an explanation of why the earlier arguments against Zionism didn’t convince him. He’ll ignore us. And really, in the end, who cares?

      I care. I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that Mondoweiss is widely read on I/P, something we're now seeing MSM journos admitting. So this site does have a large impact, probably much more so than its traffic would suggest.

      And you're right. The establishment journos won't give credit where credit is due. But my generation, those of us in our 20s, we will. Nobody in our midst is going to say: Beinart or Avishai or whoever did a tremendous journalistic job. We won't say so because we know better. We'll mention you, Abunimah, Judt, Blumenthal and yes Mearsheimer/Walt, too.

    • Interesting but also unspectacular.

      When J Street gets named and shamed - for they are no different in nature than AIPAC, but they are better at PR - then I'll get interested.

      J Street doesn't want Palestinians in their debates. Ben-Ami is all about endless support for the Jewish Apartheid state. And they're lobbying Congress, too. AIPAC is an easy and soft target at this stage.

    • I gotta give it to you, Phil. You've been calling for these events for years, much earlier than anyone else would have dared to make such bold predictions. I thought AIPAC was much stronger a few years ago but I remember you writing, no, they're not. And that we'll see an argument within the democratic party over Israel(correct) and that the monolithic nature of the lobby would also collapse(again, correct).

      I'm slightly peeved, however, that someone who was much earlier with this and wrote far more clearly about it than any other mainstream journalist still can't get to publish in the MSM. Meanwhile we're forced to witness B-grade journos like Avishai, who has no guts on this issue and who only attacks AIPAC when it is the safe thing to do, to take the victory lap instead of you.

  • Bernie Sanders is 'radical' on economic policy but a pussycat for Israel
    • Sanders is not an idiot, nor is he ill informed. He knows exactly what is going on with the Palestinians but has decided that his Jewish privileges are more important. You can be a lefty and a bigot.

      Exactly. I wish some Sanders supporters - and I am one - stopped excusing the man, claiming he is merely suffering from bouts of nostalgia of his youth, that he isn't that interested in I/P in the first place and if we only educate him a little more he will change his mind etc.

      It's all bull, guys, it's all bull. Sanders is a very smart and informed man. He has chosen Jewish Apartheid over equal rights and we shouldn't hide that fact. If you want to vote for a candidate in 2016 which isn't supporting Jewish apartheid and has a smidgen of a chance to win, good luck. But just because they all do doesn't mean we should let them off the hook - or excuse their behaviour.

    • How long will these non-answers fly with the progressive base?

      I don’t know that anyone has any magical answer, but I think the role that the United States can play is to bring people together and develop a fair and evenhanded proposal toward both sides.

      You can't be evenhanded to two parties when one party is completely dominant and is colonising the other. That's not being evenhanded. That's being complicit in Apartheid.

      Well look, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that I have a magical solution that has eluded every president. This is tough stuff.

      It is tough stuff. But it's also simple stuff. Apartheid isn't very complicated.

      Note again his repeated use of the term "magical solution". Equal rights under the law isn't a "magical" fairy tale. It's a bedrock American value.
      This country fought a bloody civil war on this issue with terrible casualties.

      I don't think Bernie's insistence that anyone wanting to end Apartheid is pushing for "magical solutions" is going to last very long with the progressive base. Especially when U.S. complicity in said Jewish Apartheid is knee-deep, poltically, economically and militarily.

  • 'NYT' and 'NYRB' publish important pieces on Jewish terrorism
    • I think there is in fact a good deal of ink consumed in explanation of jihadist terrorism.

      Yeah, I agree. I don't know where pabelmont is coming from with his attempts to wish this away.

      The origins of Jewish terrorism does matter. And Hirschhorn's attempts to pass blame on America are quite pathetic. She appears to be a woman who simply cannot deal with the fact that Jews can be responsible for terrible deeds without being compelled to do so by another, larger culture. That's why her cries for self-reflection sound so hallow. Start at your own door, Sara.

      As I'm reading these articles, I'm again reminded how important it is to get non/anti-Zionist voices in the mainstream. The "liberal" Zionist types peddle falsehood as replacement for history. This is the kind of stuff that used to be taken seriously in Reaganesque America when people, unironically, invoked Manifest Destiny as something noble and legitimate.

      They do the same, by peddling Labor Zionist myths, ignoring the massive and systematic violence employed to drive Palestinians out of their homeland. You get smarter reading them than you would a Likudnik ideologue, at least in the short run. But over the long term you might even be better off with the Likudnik because those lies employed are so childish that you'll stumble upon the truth without issue.

      These "liberal" Zionist types are far more slippery. But their mythmaking deserves a good takedown and a Palestinian intellectual is what we need here.

      But the left-wing media's insistence that only "liberal" Zionist Jews can weigh in on these issues is destroying the conversation. Luckily, I know that there is a sweeping and quiet revolution happening around campuses right now. I can't wait for these people to publish in liberal magazines.

  • Coulter's point is that Republicans pander on Israel to win donors, not voters
    • It was the "liberal" Bill Clinton who signed the "welfare reform" bill.
      It was the "liberal" Bill Clinton who signed the homophobic DOMA.
      It was you-know-who who saw the prison population explode.
      It was you-know-who who gutted the Glass-Steagall act.

      My subtle point is that labels can be very, very misleading.

      Especially when it comes to supporting Jewish apartheid or invading muslim-majority countries or just bashing muslims in general.

      Who is a "liberal" and who is a "conservative" starts to blur real fast.

    • I view Coulter as a Republican Firster. Not a white nationalist, per se, but she has de facto become a white nationalist because she understands a fundamental truth: demography matters.

      And the right has been in a submissive and subservient position on this for a long time. She understands that America is about to become California. In fact, it's probably already mathematically impossible for a GOP candidate to win the WH:

      link to

      So she has become something of a white nationalist because she understands these issues and she gets that the Republicans can only really win with a large white majority population. The problem is that she understood this way too late in the game, but obviousy she understood it before most other people in the GOP establishment(what does this say about the average intelligence of the typical GOP hack?)

      She (correctly) assumes that the GOP is never going to be able to match their white base with the non-white urban crowd that is growing by the day.
      The reality is that assimilation in America doesn't happen in any meaningful sense anymore. People don't "assimiliate" into middle America, we're talking about two islands, drifting apart.

      And in this moment when reality is so obvious to her, she becomes hypersensitized to fundamental truths in American politics; like pandering to (rich) Jewish donors.

      I mean Sheldon Adelson is pro-amnesty, but is also pro-Jewish only immigration in Israel. This is the hypocrisy which probably gets under her skin.

  • 'New Yorker' says anti-Zionism is 'firmly rooted' in British left, and it's anti-Semitic
    • There's no question that the U.S. matters more than the UK, but the UK still has a seat at the U.N security council. That's not something a 'finished' nation has, your hyperbole notwithstanding.

      Look at how strong the lobby is in Australia. The ex-foreign minister wrote in his book how influenced Gillard was from the Melbourne pro-Israel lobby, how 20% of party donations came from Jews. Is Australia even a middle power? The UK is far more important.

      Yet the lobby is weaker, much weaker, in the UK than it is in Australia. So I find your argument unpersuasive. It's not an either-or issue, we can acknowledge that the U.S. matters more interntionally while at the same time question why the lobby in the UK is so much weaker than it 'ought' to be given the country's relative importance on the world stage, certainly far more than either Australia or Canada.

    • The UK is the only nation in Europe which didn't institute pogroms against its Jewish population. Expelled, yes, but no physical persecution.

      In addition, the Anglo nobility have always had little love lost for Jews, but the working classes have always loved us. Mosley didn't understand this fully, because he kept seeing working-class British boys, and especially the Irish, teaming up with Jews in the streets of London whenever he organised his marches.

      So while the liberalism is there, the UK has also often had a fairly vicious press which is in many ways is far less respectful of institutions than the press in America or much of continental Europe. That limits space significantly for any lobby organisation which needs a lot of silent media support.


      British Jews vote conservative by a whopping 63%.
      Just 14% voted Labour in 2015. And this was with a Jewish candidate.
      I'm guessing we'll see single-digit results in 2020 for Corbyn.

      Source: link to

      Most French Jews are also voting UMP(right-wing). I wouldn't be surprised if Le Pen gets more Jewish votes than PS(socialists).

      In Europe, we're seeing a huge sea change in Jewish voting patterns and muslim immigration is at the center of this, with the increased anti-Zionism of the mainstream left-wing parties a close second.

      Also remember that money plays a much smaller role in European politics. That reduces the need for rich Zionist right-wing donors like an Adelson if you want to keep the parties pro-Zionist. They also exist in the UK, or in France, but their space is far more limited. So if they had the same amount of loose rules in EU as they do in US, I don't think Corbyn would have survived the primary. This is why the EU is way ahead of the US on the I/P question.

      Finally, do note how many British Jews equate anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism. Those of us who insist the two are disconnected are in a very small minority, at least in the UK. I don't imagine the situation to be better in the U.S.

    • Jews were massively overrepresented in communist movements in Eastern Europe. Just like we were in America, especially in Hollywood. That's why the McCarthy era terrorised so many upper-class Jewish households.

      These were Jews who, in many instances, had grown up in Brooklyn where 90% where socialists and they all bought the Forward, most of whom had been deeply involved in the garment industry, the trade unions etc. Socialism and indeed communism was natural elixir for Eastern European Jews for much of the first half of the 20th century. That's not a myth; it's a fact.

      That didn't stop some of them from being ethnocentric nationalists either, just as Doris Lessing's books show. The Jewish marxists she praises to the sky were fightning Apartheid in Rhodesia - where she was doing the same thing - but also supporting Jewish Apartheid in Palestine.

      Lessing never was smart/brave enough to really question this discrepancy, and why I believe she was unworthy of her Nobel prize.

  • I am Israeli
    • Good comment. I missed the initial exchange so I went into the thread and read it. I think Elliot wrote very movingly about the necessity of unmooring himself from a racist "education" system whose primary aim is to indoctrinate the kids with Apartheid justifications.

      P.S. Man those forests sure look like they belong in the Middle East! Is it a coincidence that they look more like Switzerland or Canada than they do of Palestine?

      And what does it say about the mentality - or cultural belonging if you will - of those who planted them there?

  • Iran Deal's liberation: Judaism is not Zionism
    • I'm glad you brought up the Bund. People often forget just how monolithically popular the Bund was back in its day.

      I'm reading a lot of Jewish history on the time right before the Russian revolution and right after it and the Zionists were really just a marginal force. The Bund had an overwhelming popular support and a non-Zionist/anti-Zionist mandate.

      It's not that the issue wasn't discussed, it was, endlessly, it just didn't catch on. The vast majority of Jews were deeply skeptical. Remember, this is post-pogroms of the 1880s.

      If it weren't for WWII, it's an open question if most Jews would be Zionists today.

    • I've often sounded a note of caution on the success BDS can have.
      Ultimately, I don't see Israel being seriously damaged by BDS economically. Nor do I see it ever being defeated militarily.

      In the end, it is a question of culture. Israel will soon become completely isolated from the rest of the West. Their last firewall will not be Jews; but rather right-wing Christians and a token minority of very few hardline Orthodox Jews.

      I think a lot of diaspora Jews, like Bret Stephens of the WSJ, have Israel as their guiding star for their identity. I don't think Israel really needs the galut for anything else than political cover.

      This is the ultrimate friction point, the vast power imbalance between state and diaspora. One needs the other for self-affirmation, the other only needs its counterpart for cash and political favors. Is this "love"?

      As Israel will gradually be at sea, alone, without any major group of friends, this question will be sharpened. It has never considered its immediate neighbourhood to be interesting, it respects China and India but ultimately has an entirely different culture and it is now standing to be rejected by the West, which it considers itself part of and which it reveres.

      Israel's future will depend on whether it can withstand this crushing cultural isolation and I am not so certain that it wouldn't be able to.

  • 'NYT' openly counts Jewish politicians, and Obama and Clinton both reach out to Netanyahu
    • By the way, this tweet says a lot about the ethnic politics of this entire affair.

      link to

      So just like the NYT premiered Jewish opinions on the Iran deal, they are now only dealing with this issue if the person responsible for the graphic is Jewish.

      We've got a long way to go.

    • Joshua Keating also wrote:

      If it is used to suggest that Jewish Democrats who oppose the deal have dual-loyalty to the U.S. and Israel, that’s a dangerous and ugly thing.

      When Debbie Wasserman Schultz calls Israel - not America - her "homeland", what is that about? When she blocked a DNC resolution on the Iran deal, what was that about?

      Keating goes out of his way to pacify critics but he reaches too far. Many people are also under financial pressure from Jewish donors. which plays a part in their opposition.

      If Schumer wants to become Senate majority leader, he needs to raise cash from rich Jews for other democrats. If these Jewish donors have burned him, why would other democratic Senators support him for leader?

      But even beyond financial pressure, is Keating seriously suggesting that someone like Nita Lowey or Steve Israel are 100% thinking about America when they opposed that deal? These are stalwarts of the Israel lobby, a foreign lobby which is oriented to advance the objectives of a foreign nation on American soil.

      This strikes me as something he probably doesn't believe himself but says anyway to cover his bases. Or maybe I am wrong. Maybe he really does believe it in which he might simply be naïve.

    • That's nonsense. Nobody is talking about Schumer as a Jew on a daily basis. We're talking about his Jewish background because he himself has said that it matters a lot to him on this issue.

      Not talking about it - while he has cited it himself - would be intentional malpractice.

  • 'NYT' misrepresents Iran's prediction about 'Zionist regime' to mean 'Israel'
    • Hmm, not really.

      First, the GOP primary is a sideshow. They need 45% or more of the Latino vote to win. That will never happen, with or without Trump.

      So it is either Hillary or Sanders. Both are Zionists and Hillary is probably the worse of them.

      So this alone pushes the time table to 2024.

      After that, BDS will not really have a big effect economically. But culture is where it is at. Can Israel remain culturally isolated? So long as it can, there's no obvious downfall. Israel can re-orient just as the U.S. can.

  • Settler group publishes anti-Palestinian children's book titled 'Occupation Shmuccupation'
    • It speaks volumes about how these settlers view themselves.

      Part of the white civilised West in contrast to these "inferior" dark-skinned mongrels are their servants, with a child-like smile too. Only thing missing is a slice of a melon in his mouth.

  • Buy tickets now! Only $360 to hear Elliott Abrams and Dennis Ross!
    • This event is superflous. If you want a free education on the Jewish future in America just read Pew's report from 2013.

      It's quite a few pages but it speaks of a trend that has been going on for decades and will continue in the future; a very affluent, safe and comfortable community with a small but growing Orthodox population.

      Highly assimilated, highly successful and with high levels of pride in its identity.
      The "crisis" is so real.

  • AIPAC is going out with a whimper not a bang
    • You're acting as if AIPAC sold the Iraq war on their own.

      You're conveniently forgetting the role of a unified media, where Chait, Goldberg and, yes, people like Remnick, Beinart and many more played a cruical role.

      Notice I've only mentioned self-described "liberals". I haven't even gotten to the neocons in the media.

      Yes, AIPAC was and remains a decoy.

    • A lot of us were saying over the last few weeks that AIPAC will be reduced to a ZOA-esque outfit but with lots more cash and a (slight) pretense of seriousness.

      I don't think anyone expected that transformation to happen with this stunning speed.

      The next battle, and in my view the harder battle, will be to defeat the rest of the lobby. Not just J Street but journalists like Goldberg, Chait and others. These players were always part of the lobby - a "loose coalition" if you remember - but thus far the target has been the easier AIPAC.

      Netanyahu won't come to the rescue of these people. He hates them and they hate him. And that alone, as long as Netanyahu is PM, will shield them from a lot of liberal criticism. Talking the media angle will also allow them to smear anyone who questions their fealty to a Jewish apartheid state as 'tropes about Jews'.

      These people are the last bastion to storm and they are the last bastion for a reason: they sit in the biggest castle with the biggest moat. AIPAC is just the decoy.

  • Why do Jewish legislators carry more weight on Iran Deal?
    • DWS declares Israel her "homeland". She should make aliyah. How would people react if a leading Chinese-American congressman declared China - not America - his "homeland" and going public with his anguish over how a vote would impact China and not America.

      People would say, and rightly so, that such a person doesn't belong in the American Congress. He's there to serve the American constituents who put him there, not to serve those who are thousands of miles away from him.

      I don't get why people are bending over backwards for DWS, claiming she's somehow "brave" for showing she doesn't care as much about America as she does for Israel.

      If you declare another country your homeland than the country you live in, that's your right. But you shouldn't be climbing for a position in the country you live in where you have real impact over that country's policy when your heart doesn't belong to that country and only that country, especially when the interests intersect.

      You should have the humility and the tact to excuse yourself from high office because you're unfit. But of course DWS never will because she took the leap in the first place and she sees no problem with her stance, because she lacks an ethical grounding, she lacks morality.

      The only reason this is accepted is because Jews have a special clause which gives us immunity to criticism of dual loyalty in a way which a Chinese-American, Indian-American, Russian-American etc wouldn't.
      That has to end.

      Nobody disputes the historical reasons for why this clause exists in the first place, but nobody also disputes that America has nothing to do with this history either and as such it shouldn't be bound by those rules.

  • Obama gets Wasserman Schultz-- and salutes her 'homeland' with a Netanyahu valentine
    • Voltaire used to say, to find out who rules over you, ask who you cannot criticize.

      Well, the lobby is fair game today. That wasn't the case 10 years ago.
      And while you can criticize it, well, you can criticize the NRA, too. That hasn't prevented them from having a strangehold on Congress re: gun control.

      While I am all for celebrating the new, (slightly) more open times, I also hope we keep our heads close to earth and understand that this is far from over. The Iran deal has forced these people out of the woodworks, but this is also once in a generation issue.

      Now watch all these self-proclaimed liberals rush to arm and re-arm the Jewish apartheid state.

  • The Iran Deal is an African American achievement
    • Democratic senators such as Cory Booker may have broken forever with the neoconservatives and Islamophobes and expansionist Zionists who helped get Booker et al into high office in the first place.

      Maybe, but then it is not out of principle as you suggest but for the same reason why they relied on the bigots in the first place: power politics/shifting sands. Who's up, who's down etc.

      But I agree 100% that the Iran deal can mostly be ascribed to black pols. When the going got tough, Obama had the CBC in his corner in March. White liberals were flailing around, unsure whether they could oppose or not. The black dems didn't flinch and I think Obama appreciated that.

      I certainly did.

  • The Israel lobby is alive and well-- and split
    • I think it's mensch, but yeah.

      BTW I am amused by the continuation of Zionist Jews who insist that the Israel lobby is dead. Gotta give credit to Rothkopf, he started this whole trend. Of course it is ethnic activism on the part of these people. What is perceived as dead cannot be fought.

      And as Phil points out, the lobby has always been more than AIPAC/J Street. It includes journalists like Chait or Goldberg, who both work on behalf of Israel whenever it is under fire in the media or when its interests are at stake, such as an open conversation on the influence the lobby has in the U.S. political system.

      Chait does not want that debate to happen, so better pronounce it dead before it can begin.
      It will take time but sooner or later, Chait will be exposed as a non-liberal, the non-liberal he always was, same as Goldberg. Goldberg who writes long articles on racism in the U.S. but supports a system of Apartheid in a country in which he does not live, like Chait. These people are voting left not because they are liberals but because they are ethno-nationalists.

      It makes sense to vote democratic in the U.S. as racial/religious minorities, its in our interests. And the same impulse of ethno-nationalism which makes them support left-wing policies in America, where they are in the minority, drives them to support race-based nationalism abroad, in a country where they would be in the majority.

      Once these people are forced to choose between their liberalism and Zionism, they will be in effect exposed as non-liberals because many of them will choose Zionism.

  • Debacle for the Israel lobby: Booker jilts Boteach, and Netanyahu sinks AIPAC
    • that has the effect of vanquishing this finely-crafted myth that there is a terrible political price to pay by going against Israeli government policy.

      The J Street spox is spreading a myth. There has been a terrible political price to pay by going against Israeli government policy for a lot of congresspeople.

      And considering how much Obama had to put in to get the votes, the notion that this wasn't tough is a total lie. Why would the spox spread this lie? I don't think he believes it.

      Also: consider that Obama had J Street in his corner. Before J Street you only had AIPAC and the rest of the gang. If that was still the case, would he have gotten the votes?

      The Street guy is full of shit on this one.

    • Booker waited until it was safe to come out for the deal. He's a whimp. Had Mikulski and Nadler and the other senators not turned, he'd likely stay mum and vote in opposition.

      He has shown himself over and over again to be a total turncoat, whether on I/P, on Wall Street and every other issue.
      I don't know why some liberals even count him as a principled senator.

      Lack of information.

    • It's highly ironic that what was once a civil rights organization and has since turned into a Islamophobic lobbying outlet for a foreign government feels it has the moral weight to lecture people how to behave as model citizens.

  • Max Blumenthal is an un-person in the 'New York Times'
    • Don't bet on it. Sid's thoughts were mostly anti-AIPAC, rather than anti-Zionist. He seems far less radical than his son, even if he of course defended Max as a good father should. These emails are a few years dated, however, perhaps he has evolved on the issue. Perhaps he hasn't.

      Also, Clinton has positioned herself as "more pro-Israel" than Obama. Sid is favoured because the Clintons value loyalty and most of his advice concerns stuff that isn't Middle East.

      If the Zionist donors put pressure on her she will totally throw him under the bus if need be. Without even blinking. Bernie is, sadly, not better than Clinton on this issue but he will certainly not be worse.

      He hasn't positioned himself as somehow more pro-Apartheid "pro-Israel" than Obama, unlike Clinton, and that gives him more space.
      Secondly, he isn't nearly as reliant on big donors as she is, and we all know that Zionist cash plays a huge role in the political system.

      So, don't bet on it.

  • Vicious 'NYT' article attacks Palestinian for bending rules to get out of Gaza 'to see her children'
    • The NYT is basically a snooty racist rag when it comes to Palestinians.
      Jodi better enjoy the moment because when she's a granny she's going to read other, younger liberals who grew up in a different era and if she isn't careful she'll have small heart attacks each morning as she reads the coverage in the paper from these liberals.

      We'll see who will have the last laugh, Jodi.

  • 'Turning point' -- Obama defeats Netanyahu and 'destroyers of hope' on Iran Deal!
    • Of course there is a point having one. Israel won't be able to bomb the country when Iran has nukes on long-distance missiles.

      Why do you think North Korea got nukes? It's the ultimate deterrant. And do you really believe Iran's propaganda? Of course they'll say that. Unbelievable how naive you are.

      Also, in 15 years time, the breakout capacity will be next to nothing. They could probably get a nuke sooner than that if they really wanted to. Iran could just announce it has nukes and that'll be the end of it.

      What all of this means is that an Israeli-Iranian war is now basically impossible to imagine. Saudi will get their nukes from Pakistan, if they don't have them already.

      But most importantly, Israel's premier advantage - nukes - is rapidly slipping away. Pare this with the fast increases in military spending from the GCC countries in the wake of the rise of ISIS and the so-called QME that Israel is paranoid about is disappearing with stunning speed.

      The next battle will be more military aid. Obama has said he will increase it. Now that he's safe out of the gate, will he follow through?

    • The biggest defeat AIPAC ever had was probably over the AWAC’s in 1981

      That's nonsense. The nuclear program is a much bigger deal than AWACS and we all know that.

      You're just attempting desperate damage control. Israel lost in a landslide - and AIPAC with it. It got nothing substantive to show for it, and the price was many millions from rich AIPAC donors and a long, drawn-out process in which the Israel lobby got exposed for all to see.

      If Obama wanted to write a script to expose and poison the lobby he couldn't have come up with a better plot himself.

      P.S. Interesting to see the two hasbara approaches. Rothkopf/Pollak tries the whole "the lobby is dead(forget my previous attempts to hide it)" and now your "the lobby will come back stronger than ever".

      Both are wrong, of course. The lobby is strong but it is getting weaker by the day. AIPAC will be reduced to a new ZOA. J Street will be the final castle to storm.

    • I always thought the biggest loser of the deal would be AIPAC.

      Iran will get the bomb eventually. The reality is that it is very hard to stop a large nation like Iran with a highly educated population from getting nukes. You can delay and that is what this will do. The Saudis have had access to Pakistan's nukes if need will be so we will have 3 nuclear states within 10-15 years in the Middle East. All of them are (relatively) stable.

      I'd trust the Iranians a hell of a lot more than the Saudis with nukes.
      The Saudis are ideologically fanatical. They are behind the massive rise of fundamentalist mosques and madrassas in muslim nations all over the world. Just look at Pakistan and increasingly at Bangladesh.

      And anyway, this entire spectacle has been somewhat of a sideshow. Even if the opponents won in Congress the deal would have gone ahead anyway.

      Now Obama got a double win: both a diplomatic victory and a political victory against AIPAC.

      This will create a lot of well-needed space for either Hillary or Bernie to further distance themselves from AIPAC.

      The final target will be J Street on the left. We're coming for you, Ben-Ami.

  • Pro-Israel Jews have 'inexcusable prejudice' against Obama -- Sandy Berger
    • Pollak is just taking a page out of Rothkopf's book. Because AIPAC doesn't win 100% of the time it is now "dead"?

      I don't think we would see this great rush to declare NRA dead after a big setback that they had. We would admit that while NRA isn't immortal it is nevertheless extremely influential.

      So why do we see these rushes to declare the lobby dead - often from the same people who spent years denying it existed in the first place?

      Ethnic politics.

    • To be fair to Indyk, he seems to have drawn the same conclusions as you did after the last attempt of the moribound "peace process", re: his leaks to Ynet essentially blaming it all on Israel(and correctly so).

  • 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

  • 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

      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.

Showing comments 2372 - 2301