Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2190 (since 2011-01-07 20:19:21)

Showing comments 2190 - 2101
Page:

  • Reconstructionist Jewish site censors rabbi's essay because he supports BDS and one state
    • I'm sorry Phil but "reform from within" is dead. Totally dead.

      Reconstructionist is at the far-left of the Jewish religious spectrum and even there people are getting censored? Let's get real, those of us who are pro-BDS are a tiny minority. We may be growing but if you start from a very small base, of course you're going to get high growth rates.

      I understand why people want to see this happening inside the communal fold - it's depressing to realize just how monolithic and not liberal the community is on this issue - but by and large, outside the major progressive campuses, I don't see it happening and your story kind of underscores it.

      So why bring it up? Because while I agree with you that our community holds the keys to what has happened I am no longer certain our community has to turn for this to turn as well. In other words, while we may have led the situation to this place, it doesn't follow automatically that we have to move for the situation to move either.

      The fact is that Palestinians led and continue to lead the BDS movement. Not us. Most of the people there are non-Jews. So most of the progress we've seen has not depended on Jews. It's nice to see Jews there but in the end, if we construct a narrative where we have to wait for the communal organizations to turn we're going to wait forever. And these fake-hype stories aren't helping the movement in the right direction. Because we may indeed come to the conclusion that you may just have to roll through the major institutional obstacles for this to change.

      I used to be pretty certain 5 years ago that the major denominations would change but they haven't. I think we may have to settle that a lot of people in the communal Jewish space are comfortable with Apartheid. Oh, sorry, that's a "divisive" term! Silly me.

  • Mark Shields blasts Adelson for 'making foreign policy for the United States'
    • 1. Yes, pabelmont, but what is the common denominator among all those three you cited?

      They're all above 65 years of age. These people were shaped politically in the 70s and 80s. The peak of Jewish political power, first, and also a time when the opinions on Israel were essentially monolithic.

      2. As for Romney, the fact that he opens the crowd at Adelson's primary shows what a remarkably good political prostitute he is. That's why he was chosen, of course. He's like Newt Gingrich(Adelson's real dream candidate) but with an ounce of discipline.

      3. Finally, it's funny to see Brooks acting as the shomer for Israel on NPR. What has Brooks being doing his career if not shilling for Israel in liberal spaces? Sad to see Mark Shields yield so much at first contact. A bit pathetic, frankly.

      A public prediction: If the Iran deal goes down, all seals will be broken on criticism of the lobby within liberal spheres. If it becomes successful, not quite yet. We'll see a slow and steady erosion instead, just like up until now.

  • AIPAC-backed legislation targeting BDS movement advances in Congress
    • I hope the amendment passes. TTIP is a terrible piece of legislation.
      I view this amendment like I view Bibi's insistance that Iran should recognize Israel for there to be a nuclear deal. Only I think this will pass. Europeans are very passive in Washington.

      Also, it will expose the lobby for pulling the strings on much more than just Middle Eastern policy.

      So you hit two flies in one go; kill TTIP and further expose the lobby.

    • MHP isn't going to do anything. She has been loyal to Obama like a footsoldier. Obama wants TTIP to happen. If he has to throw U.S. sovereignty under the bus to do that, and outsourse U.S.-E.U relations to AIPAC then he'll do it.

    • In Cardin's case it isn't just dollars but also personal ideology. That is important to remember. Money helps but he's an Israel Firster at heart.

  • Using the dead: the 'NYT' works with Israel to justify military service
    • I don't think she's a very useful person for what is attempted here.
      She comes across as bitter and angry.
      Every single war can be avoided? What world does she live in?

      Yes, Jodi's piece was total hasbara 101.
      But if you bring in a total hater like that woman in your article, Jodi almost comes across as more sympathetic.

      Which is quite an achievement.

  • Accusations of anti-Semitism roil Stanford campus as student coalition denies discrimination charges
    • What is the issue even if they had asked the question?

      Horwitz obviously cares a great deal about Zionism and brags about having IDF T-shirts.

      How could this not affect her support for a violently apartheid state?
      Even if they didn't ask it, they probably should've done it. Her statements of fanatical support for the IDF, as the enforcer of apartheid, merits such a question.

      To do otherwise would be to turn a blind eye to oppression and those in America, like Horwitz, who live and die to uphold it.

  • Will Graham's gaffe about 'all-Jewish cabinet' get the MSM to talk about pro-Israel money?
    • I understand the historical anxieties, but in the long run this kind of Omertà isn't going to last. People should know what motivates the Koch brothers to throw billions of dollars just as they should know what motivates these old Jewish geezers.

      The old Jewish geezers shouldn't be singled out: their corruption shouldn't be held as more abnormal than that of a Koch, but they shouldn't get reverse treatment either (kids gloves), which is what the situation is now.

  • Leaked Sony emails reveal Hollywood execs efforts to support Israel
    • The emails are interesting, and shows how the definition of the Israel lobby must be pushed further than just AIPAC. Basically, we're reaching a stage where old conspiracy theories basically prove to be not necessarily true but certainly not outlandish.

      We're seeing very major Hollywood execs basically working on behalf of a foreign state here. I'm not talking about a doc about anti-Semitism, which is another matter, but the insistance to attack those critical of the genocidal attack on Gaza, because doing so would protect Israel. And let's not forget all those endless "friends of the IDF" dinners that are so common in Hollywood.

      The emails also illustrate just how deeply Zionism is etched to the identity of a lot of these people. There is zero disconnect between Judiasm and Zionism in their world view, so why are they surprised when other people make that same leap as they do?

  • 'NYT' runs piece of unadulterated propaganda for Israeli army
    • I feel for Rudi like I feel for Bibi. May both of them stay where they are, for as long as they can be. They are doing our work for us.

      We hardly have to have any arguments anymore.
      It's becoming very easy to argue about massive pro-Israel bias in the MSM as long as Jodi sets the tone for the Israel coverage. It's like she is the IDF lead propagandist. Gotta say she's a lot better at hasbara than what the IDF itself has produced, so credit where credit is due.

  • Leading American rabbi issues first public criticism of apartheid conditions in Jerusalem
    • Never, ever, forget that the reason why that panel even took place is because of the enormous sacrifice that has been put in, largely by non-Jews, to bring the issue to the table despite MASSIVE resistance and brazen attacks.

      So while you cover all their bases throughout the post, my sympathy is never with the Anguished Jewish Soul, just as it wouldn't be with the Anguished White Soul in either Jim Crow South or in white-ruled South Africa.

      The brutal reality is that these people are being dragged kicking and screaming into a resolution of justice. Look at the racist attacks on SJP at Berkeley. Anyone who thinks this fight is over are fooling themselves. Whoever becomes the president next is going to be worse on the Palestinians than Obama was, who was never good but who must be judged against the Bush/Clinton disasters.

      They can whine all they want. The reality is that they are in the way and we shouldn't show even a shred of empathy to people whose "concern" for human rights prohibits them from speaking out on apartheid a full 15 years and even then only tepidly and to a closed Jewish space.

      This is why "liberal" Zionism is morally bankrupt.

  • Graham and Rubio are dependent on pro-Israel money in bid for White House
    • As long as the mainstream media refuses to report on this story, Mondoweiss will be needed.

      You simply cannot understand the primacy of Israel in America politics without understanding Jewish donors. It's that simple. And you also need to understand the fear and paranoia that drives them.

      And yes, I do think this is generational. Just look at Bend the Arc, by Soros' son. It will only focus on domestic issues and it refuses to go for foreign ones. A foolish choice, in my view, but I can see why they won't even touch foreign stuff. It means that they have to get to Israel and any progressive can't support an Apartheid state. So they just skip it, and try to raise money on gay marriage instead.

      What a sad moral abdication.

  • David Horowitz gets free rein in 'Daily Cal,' which ignores hate campaign against SJP
    • This seems pretty coordinated. It has all the fingerprints of the lobby.

      It's almost always a top-down operation that they are doing. Influence the administration via donor pressure, pick out a few people in leadership positions and tokenize them(like the attempts with black student leaders) and/or take people in top positions in a daily newspaper.

      I doubt that most Berkeley students are on the side the reactionary and racist lobby, so I hope SJP digs in and keeps doing the good fight. This is a fight-and-retreat.

      Even during retreats, there are occassional and temporary pushbacks, but that doesn't change the overall direction of where the battle is going.

  • Israeli racism takes center stage at Manhattan JCC
    • This is related and simply too important not to share:

      link to ynetnews.com

      Think about this next time you hear "liberal" Zionists/the "peace camp" talk about "reform from within" and how "pressure from BDS will empower the right".
      Their racism and complicity in Apartheid is everywhere and constant.

      Whether in Israel or at the JCC.

  • 'Everything Hillary Clinton will do will always be for Israel' -- Saban warns the Republicans
    • Hillary is the last and final hail mary pass of the lobby. The final candidate from the "left" that they can reliably count on to do their bidding.

      After her, the best-case scenario they could hope for will be like Obama. Say nice things but quietly move away.

      More likely will be people like Donna Edwards.

      But seriously folks: can't we get a better candidate for 2016 than her? I'm dismayed at how weak the democratic field is. Even Bernard Sanders is hard-right on Israel.

      And let's not even talk Wall Street(where Sanders is better but that's about it).

  • Jewish and Palestinian women are segregated in Israeli maternity wards -- Chomsky
    • Phil, I continue to say that you should write a book on the media and the total silence on Jewish apartheid. This would never go unreported if whites & blacks had to go to seperate maternity wards in the UK for example.

      There have been tons of books about the conflict on the ground - and that's needed - but little to nothing written about the reasons for the complicity in silence in America in particular, and especially in the media.

  • Just like the Nazis, Iran 'plans to exterminate six million Jews' -- Netanyahu
    • Netanyahu is 100% correct.

      They declare: “We will not turn a blind eye to the expansion intentions of a violent tyranny.” They promise: “We will oppose evil things as soon as they begin.” But as long as these announcements are not backed with practical actions – they are meaningless

      This sums up U.S policy to Israel for many decades now.

  • No Palestinians need apply to program on 'Palestinian issue' at Center for American 'Progress'
    • Maybe the BDS movement needs to focus on more than corporations, think tanks also need to be pressured in their complicity of apartheid, by excluding voices of the marginalized.

  • Marco Rubio and AIPAC allied in effort to insert poison pill into Iran deal
    • I'm simply ecstatic over these news. I hope the amendment comes in!

      We need more loyalty tests that AIPAC is pushing. Everything in the open. Bit by bit they will preen the democratic base from Israel.

      Oh, and is anyone surprised that the so-called "Israeli left" is acting the same as Bibi?

  • Gunter Grass became 'persona non grata' for 2012 poem exposing Israeli nuclear hypocrisy
    • A lot of people are going to be re-examined as the years pass because they were cast out for their views on Israel. Gore Vidal was another figure who was attacked and smeared because he didn't bow to Israel.

      The lobby does seem to reserve a special hatred for gentile centrist/center-of-left intellectuals who are not craven to their dream castle Israel.

      Remember how Dana Milbank racialized Mearsheimer's white knuckles and singled out his Germanic name in his hysterical attack in 2006. This is a sign of a psychological psychosis.

      Germany as a culture is also pretty degraded and backwards in general. Something that Max Blumenthal has spoken about a lot. They had a panel on anti-Semitism without a single Jew recently (which speaks volumes of how anti-Semitism is a political tool to be used rather than a real concern in the body politic) and if you're an anti-Zionist Jew then Christian Germans will take the liberty to attack you as anti-Semitic. They are also under somekind of psychological psychosis.

  • Does Schumer have any idea how angry his constituents will be if he torpedoes his president on Iran?
    • I'm sure I'll get pushback for saying this but I think Israel's approach to this is 100% rational.

      Paul Pillar observed, and rightly so, that Israel opposses this deal not because of a fear of a nuke going off, but because it undermines Israel's line of argument that it is the only real partner for America in the region.

      If the deal goes as planned, Obama would have demonstrated that Israel doesn't hold any special value to America and it would open a door to a more varied approach for America in the Middle East.
      No longer would all policy in the region go through Jerusalem.
      This would be an unmitigated disaster for Israel.

      Obama has wanted to do this for a long time. Have you already forgotten Obama's 2009 comments (to Jewish leaders no less!) that it would be in both America's and Israel's interest if there was "daylight" between the countries.

      This was 2009 and Obama had the biggest congressional majority in 40 years. He probably thought the Jews would just roll over. It took him 6 years until today and even now it isn't certain he will succeed but he is well on his way.

      The reality is that it isn't in Israel's interest for there to be any daylight at all, and Obama probably understood that then but underestimated how candid he could be by even trying to spin Jewish establishment figures.

      If the deal goes through, Israel would be relegated in the rung. It would still be the preferred country to deal with, but it wouldn't be able to claim that it is the only country worth dealing with. If America can deal with Israel's #1 enemy, why would America believe Israel's hasbara on the Palestinian issue?

      So I don't blame Bibi for going all-out to destroy the deal. I would do the same in his place. I just don't think he'll be successful and the public way he does it will have lasting damage on Israel's image in the democratic party.

  • Rand Paul's antiwar populism should be celebrated, not scorned
  • Who cares what Jeffrey Goldberg and Netanyahu don't like about the Iran deal?
    • I thought Iran missed a good propaganda victory opportunity when Bibi demanded that they'd recognize Israel.

      They should have countered by saying, sure, only if you join the NPT first.
      The Iranians are a bit too cautious, unfortunately, unlike Israel and its agents(Goldberg).

      As for why they have so much influence, this is partly a sociological question. A lot of the white liberals have a lot of Jewish friends who, at least at the top echelons of the establishment, are uniformly Zionist. Quite a few gentiles have Jewish spouses, too, and even if your spouse isn't a Zionist, her family most likely is to a large extent and so whenever you are eating family dinner, if your reporting is anti-Zionist, you're likely to pay a significant social/personal price for that. Most Americans, including most journalists, don't care all that much about the Middle East.

      People underestimate the importance of social proximity and the impact it has on politics. How many Palestinians, let alone muslims, can you find in the top echelons of the white media? How many of the people in that space have Palestinian/muslim spouses?

  • Rand Paul greeted by neocon opposition, in $1 million ad calling him 'dangerous'
    • The neocons hate Rand Paul because he is the comeback of the socially liberal Rockefeller Republican who isn't crazy about foreign wars on behalf of Israel.

      Bill Kristol thought he had purged them in the 90s, but he was wrong. In 2012 all the young energy among the GOP voters was around Ron Paul. He could tour elite Ivy league campuses and speak to diverse audiences in a way that the neocon candidate simply never could.

      This is what Bill Kristol fears. He understands that the democrats are already lost. Hillary is the last train for them. Now he is watching a populist attack on the big-money crowd that he represents and he is terrified.

      P.S. The anti-Semite smear didn't begin with Goldfarb but with Hadas Gold, an Israeli-born journalist. It was the kind of smear that Jeff Goldberg had perfected. This was the old liberal-neocon alliance among Zionists that we've seen so many times in the past but which is far more rare these days. It's what banished Pat Buchanan from mainstream GOP media for speaking of "Israel's amen corner".

      It's noteworthy to see it back in action precisely because it is quite rare these days. Unlike those days, you won't see it bite. The more the neocons attack the more they will expose themselves.

      The lobby is over.

  • Fingerhut boycotted J Street because 'millions of dollars' were on the line
    • Good rant.

      I'd just add that although progress may seem glacial for those of us who want to see immediate progress, you have stories these days in mainstream left-leaning publications on the issue of (reactionary/racist) Jewish money.

      I think Phil is right when he says that these stories wouldn't be possible before, because the Israel lobby has split and because it isn't so uniform today, you don't implicate The Jews as opposed to right-wing Jewish donors(with helpful quotes from left-leaning Jews).

      In some sense, it's the same reflex that caused the editors of the NYT to tell Judt to publicly identify himself as Jewish when he wrote his infamous piece in the Times over a decade ago now which caused so much drama.

      I think it's important to show sensitivity to a community that has been historically marginalized, but I also think it's damaging if the principle is taken in one direction unilaterally without considering the changed historical circumstances.

      Sensitivity to Jewish concerns can sometimes be - and have been - used as a pretext not to discuss the occupation and the underlying Apartheid because it makes some Jews feel uncomfortable.

      It's the same reflex which causes Ben-Ami to say that he welcomes discussion - so long as no Palestinians are at the table. And it is the same reflex which is responsible for the fact that we can't still discuss these issues without Jewish alibis.

      Did we need white South African alibis? The comparison is halting, of course, there are many white-majority states and white Europeans haven't exactly been a persecuted minority in the past few centuries.

      But the reality is that this reflex hinders solidarity work. Because if the Jewish community doesn't evolve fast enough? Are we then stuck because I can't have a serious discussion about my sedar family table? (I can't, btw).

  • 'NYT' addresses pro-Israel donors' influence over Congress
    • Babysteps.

      Note that it was only adressed through the prism of liberal Zionism. We can (barely) talk about this, but only if we cast J Street as the sheriff riding into town to save the day!

      Not a Palestinian quoted anywhere and don't forget a comforting reminder at the very end that democrats are behind Israel, too!

      Any Israel-criticism is still colored through the suffering of the Anguished Liberal Zionist Soul™.

      Real progress is when the people attacking the racism involved in all of this are non-Zionist and especially Palestinians. When we see that happening, then we can call progress. Real progress.

  • Now Obama needs to 'compensate' Netanyahu -- NYT pipes Israeli propaganda (Update)
    • I read that piece and I was astounded.

      Yes, Jodi is the most notorious hack for Israel the NYT has seen in a very long time but it is like she doesn't even bother to fake even-handedness anymore.

      Can anyone please mention a single issue that the NYT covers in which it is so perfectly aligned with the Republican agenda? Their Israel coverage is basically Likudikian/Republican.

      After the Rasmussen poll showing that the democratic base now views Mexico as a better ally than Israel, the NYT is becoming alienated to their own readership base.

      This is truly spectacular when you think about it, when you compare it to how they reacted to white Apartheid. It seems Jewish apartheid deserves special treatment in their eyes.

  • The epic season of spinning Iran deal begins!
    • The neocons will struggle in their "protect Israel" campaign.

      More democrats now view Mexico(!) as an ally than Israel.

      link to newsmax.com

      (Would link to Rasmussen right away but they have subscription service)

  • Bibi talk: 'New York Review of Books' trivializes Israeli fascism
    • Yeah, I call him Bibi in that way as well, pixel, and I will continue to do it.

      I don't think either I or the vast majority of commenters here have any particular sentimental attachment to the guy or view him as "harmless".

      I understand where North is coming from, but I largely disagree with the puritan take.
      Most people say Bibi because it is just faster and most of the people on the left do so with a lot of sarcasm attached.

  • Liberal Democrats sympathize with Palestinians over Israel by 68-60 -- Pew
    • Reading this poll its becoming increasingly clear that Operation Install Hillary in the WH and pretend it's the 1990s again - is doomed to fail and fail badly.

      You won't be able to put the image of Israel together in the same way. America has some military interests in Israel which will continue but the people who talk about a "special interest" typically are only Zionists, and they are numerous in the top echelons but you don't hear it among the people unless you only hang around Christian end-timers.

    • There's a lot of problematic stuff in your comment, such as the unwarranted doomster mentality, but above all, the notion that nothing can get done without having a group of pols "think about us" is downright poisonous.

      Change always come by forcing people. It doesn't come by asking for sympathy. Instead of worrying about pols, you should worry about activism at the grassroots. The pols will inevitably come about, don't think about them.

  • DEAL!
  • Trevor Noah, next 'Daily Show' host, is no fan of Israeli attacks on Gaza
    • Jon Stewart couldn't have retired faster. He was craven to Israel until the very end.
      It was very clear that the attacks got to him and he ultimately cared much more about Jewish acceptance than about Palestinian lives.

      That may sound harsh but I think it's correct.

      When Bibi went full-out in the election campaign, Jon Stewart was trying to find all the buttons to press in order to draw attention to the GOP. Oh, they're just like us!. It's basically a reverse "shared values" propaganda piece. Oh, don't you worry, liberal America, Bibi is their Bush. They'll get their Obama soon.

      They won't.
      But Stewart won't be around to tell them and I'm thankful for that.

      The best show host as of right now is doubtlessly Mr. Oliver. Still disappointed that he is so meek on Israel. I think he does it out of deference to his Jewish friends. Don't blame him, you gotta get along with your friends, but still an issue. The guy is obviously a very moral human being but he won't touch Israel. Cowardice.

    • I listened to a podcast where they interviewed the guy when I heard the rumors. He was very positive about the UK, even if he comes from a non-Anglo family. He particularly praised them on race relations.

      I think that is probably going to be key to the ongoing UK/US alliance. I personally never really bought into the whole military aspect of the special relationship. Young people will identify on emotions and values. How can a young minorities like Trevor identify with a state like Israel versus one(s) like the UK or Australia?
      That's what counts. People don't care just how many soldiers America's allies sent into a doomed and illegal war. That only counts for the pathological beltway crowd.

      It turns out you don't need family history in a place to feel kinship towards it.

      As for your predictions, I sure hope you're right, but the immediate effect may be somewhat of a chill. He has ADL's top bigot Foxman's foot on his neck and a willing media. It's not just neocons who are slamming him, JTA/Haaretz and even the NYT ran a piece with dark undertones.

      If we're going to see a change of direction, I'm assuming it'll take a few years as he will settle in. Either way, it's coming alright.

  • The Jewish establishment has banned these four valiant Jews. Why?
    • It's critical to understand that the same tactics that is used against BDS is also used against Jews from within, so to speak.

      This is why these reports are so valuable, so that people understand that despite the best efforts of the Foxman's of the world, the actual opinion on the ground is more diverse.

  • Clinton and Cruz both betrayed Obama's foreign policy yesterday
    • I'm with just on this one. And even if we look at the middle east, when people say settlements are the problem, what exact 2SS are they looking for? If we're talking about the Israeli version, which would essentially cement the status quo with a thin promise of not building further, that would give the Palestinians a series of disconnected bantustans.

      This is what people like Eric Alterman support, or people like Goldberg. And these are card-carrying democrats who would never vote GOP. They are not isolated.

      On the Iranian deal, I think the sentence carries more weight but if anything I'd expect Jews to be more hawkish on the issue precisely because Bibi speaks for the nation when he talks in dark terms about Iran. Herzog would basically be the same as Bibi just less strident (rhetorically). And if Israel is deeply concerned about something, that tends to give off ripple effects to the American Jewish community(even if I don't think most Jews support military action).

  • Tipping point?
    • P.S.

      Can't believe this site hasn't covered this yet(or have I missed it?)

      link to thisworld.us

    • 2016 will be the last year that a senior democratic presidential runner will pander to AIPAC.

      2020 it will be divided, democrats will give their fealty to J Street.
      GOP to AIPAC.

      2024, BDS will be mainstream and J Street will have no choice but to jump on that bandwagon, too. JVP will drive the conversation among most non-elite Jews, especially the young as well as non-Jewish progressive elites who are looking for cues on Israel.

      If anything I may be too conservative. If you look at the last 5-6 years we have seen not just one but several revolutions in how this country talks about I/P. More has happened within that timeframe than 40 years before it.

    • I'm rooting for Donna Edwards. They will try to destroy the black woman because such a person is less reliable than a white man to support Zionism.

      Where is AIPAC's tokenism now?

  • Scripted Hate: What to expect when Campus Watch writes about you
    • What you got was passive-aggressive emails. They didn't even call you names. They were wrong in substance but if that's "hate speech" then the words have no meaning.

  • White House will go after AIPAC next -- Newsweek
    • J Street will become the de facto lobby for democrats.

      It will no longer be required to bow to AIPAC in deference because you can always go across town. This will give J Street power and in return they will be let into the communal tent.

      The same people who tried to destroy J Street will soon come to understand its significance in stopping the bleeding to the left(the real left, the JVP crowd). And J Street will revel in the recognition it has so long sought with such desperation.

      AIPAC will have an edge in the sense that they will be more attuned to the hardline Likudnik concensus in Israel, but their strident disloyalty to every single American president will make them increasingly marginalized as the go-to lobby.

      This is the splintering of the lobby; instead of being pro- or anti-Israel, it will be different shades of pro. At least in the beginning.

      In the end, J Street are just a bridge to BDS. Their base is very liberal. Much more so than their leadership. Wouldn't surprise me if Hillary skipped AIPAC in 2020. By 2024 even going to J Street will be fraught with controversy among democrats, because J Street will never give up the delusion of the 2SS.

  • CUFI Leader John Hagee confirms Christian Zionism is anti-Semitic
    • The Jewish establishment has decided to dance with the devil with this guy. He very clearly articulates that unless Jews convert to Christianity then they'll burn forever in hellfire or whatever.

      You may think they are getting the last laugh, but you must understand that these alliance do not come without costs. It also sends a signal to the troops that these people are to be trusted. It changes the internal culture.

      I'm not as cavalier as you are about these things, precisely because these alliances have been done in such a hurry.

  • Jeb Bush bashes Iran talks as 'foolish' and hails Israeli settlements as 'new apartment buildings in Jerusalem'
    • Kay, it's only a real problem personally if you think he can win. No GOPer can win in 2016 due to demographics and the imbalance will only compound as time goes on.

      I view it as a clown show. Where it really matters is in the democratic primary. Will it sway Hillary? No. But I hope the democratic base will force her to come out bat and swinging for Apartheid.

  • The liberal Zionist lament: Joe Klein and Jodi Rudoren try to explain away Israeli racism
    • Would the NYT have accepted someone who was deeply biased to one side in the Northern Ireland "troubles" in the 1990s for the paper's coverage? Jodi should be fired

      Was also hilarious listening to her explaining that Bibi "really believes" in the 2SS "but just not now". Oh please. People say you start believing your own lies if you repeat them long enough. I'm not even sure if Jodi even admits to herself just how flagrantly she is lying.

      I'm telling you, Jodi will immigrate to Israel once she's done with her assignment. She's throwing herself on the tracks for Israel time after time. It's really amazing to watch.

    • Brooks is not alone in claiming that anti-Jewish bigotry is "special".

      What Brooks is really saying is that Jewish blood is worth more than non-Jewish blood. And in that, too, he is not alone in believing.

      There's a lot of undealt racism in the Jewish community and we're seeing it all gush forth these days.

  • Cruz's 'unapologetic' stand for Israel plays well with VA Christians and rightwing NY Jews
    • I disagree with both of you.

      Cruz is not Romney, who sold his soul to anyone willing to buy it(shudders).

      Cruz is a genuine fanatic and he happens to be intellectually brilliant, too. He's my dark horse for the 2016 GOP candidacy. Not even the GOP base wants Jebya.

  • American Jews are taking back their power from Israel
    • Anybody else see a problem with the idea that the 98% plus of Americans who are not Jewish seem to have no say in American foreign policy in the Middle East?

      Bingo, Giles.

      The most important book on the I/P was actually the Israel Lobby by Mearsheimer/Walt and both are non-Jews. I don't believe two Jewish professors would have written that book - just look at the community leash imposed on Richard Goldstone.

      Even if I agree with the technical analysis of Phil's words, I'm annoyed that he doesn't see the deep problems in this situation. People shouldn't be licensed by anyone but their own conscience to speak out. If there is a roadblock, whether by an ethnic/religious or even class-based group, then those people must step aside or else be forced to.

      We can't wait for these people to change, and I say that even if it concerns my own community. This oversensitivity is helping nobody.

  • I want my country back
    • Bibi backed into corner showed us who he truly was.

      Now we see the same for Jodi. She is driven by carnal fear to protect Israel as she surely senses that it is losing altitude very fast among the liberal elites. Mask dropped.

      This woman should never have been hired. And the fact that the NYT gives her front-page coverage indeed shows that the NYT is occupied territory in our media landscape.

  • 'NYT' and 'J Street' address power of Jewish donors behind Hillary and Hillel
    • Thanks just for linking that article.

      I believe this is just the beginning. Hardline organizations like Hillel will be keep losing more and more Hillels as their until-our-death support for Apartheid softens(which it won't, because they need to obey their donors).

    • JW, that may be true in other cases but not in Israel. To shift blame on wealth is to look away from the real issue: tribalism.

      There's not much money to made for uber-billionaires like Adelson in supporting small colonies of Jewish settlements in the WB. He does so out of tribal loyalty.

  • Why did Herzog run scared? He fears the Israeli people
    • I agree, the U.S. is toothless to stop Israel continuing. So what if they make a bunch of UN resolutions? It won't matter.

      In reality, nobody can force Israel to do anything. Economic sanctions would have limited effect as the country is re-orienting to Asia economically; this process has already begun.

      The real reason behind the hyperbole is that when Israel becomes pariah in the U.S., it attacks the identity of "liberal" Zionists who have clung onto Israel as central to their identity. That's the real angst.

      The practical implications of any serious U.S. action are quite limited and will remain so for several decades minimum due to donor pressure at which time Israel will have had time to pivot away from economic/political dependence of the West.

  • Bill Maher justifies Netanyahu's racism by saying U.S. has done much worse
    • It's not just Maher.

      Jon Stewart did the same thing. He also went over and above to try to implicate the U.S. The difference is that while some GOP advocates seek to constrain the voting of non-whites, it's not done openly and it's not done very efficiently either(or else Obama wouldn't have won with record black turnout in 2012).

      The difference here is that it's being shouted from the very top. In the U.S., there's no way a white president could say the things Bibi said about blacks(in our case) and get away with it.

      That's what Maher/Stewart are missing. But it's nevertheless interesting to see so-called "liberals" like them bending over backwards to protect Israel.

      Everyone knows about Maher, but I'm surprised so little attention turned to Stewart's ritual defence(which is often about deflection/downplaying) of Israel. I'm glad he's leaving.

  • Apartheid is no longer verboten word for Israel in 'NYT' and 'CNN'
    • Kay, I wonder if the Obama administration will even send a rep to AIPAC next year. I'm guessing they'll shift to J Street only.

      This could be a trend. GOP to AIPAC and dems to J Street. Of course, over the long term, liberals should go to neither because neither wants a democracy for Palestinians.

      Further, I think Bibi's re-election will have little to no repercussions on actual policy. The UN actions the Obama admin are contemplating are chump change.

      The big shift is in our culture. You can no longer seriously claim that Israel wants 2SS.
      Israel is not a partner for peace.

      After 40 years of propaganda, the tables have turned on that phrase.

  • Netanyahu and the unraveling of the British Jewish consensus
    • I agree with you chick, but I also think people have been focusing so much on his rejection of the 2SS so much precisely because they want to shift attention away from the fact that he did that.

      Rejecting the 2SS may be a big deal in the political beltway, but everyone else knows it was dead anyway.

      His call on white Israelis to counter the swarthy hordes

      Actually, the irony here is that his base is pretty brown. Most of the Mizrahi Jews(forming an absolute majority of Israeli Jews if you look at 100% heritage and over 70% if you include partial heritage) are voting Likud and Ashkenazis are typically voting Labor(excluding Russians who are very right-wing).

      There's something sick about that. These Jews are racially almost impossible to distinguish from their Palestinian neighbours yet they have been brainwashed by Ashkenazi right-wing elites like Bibi to such an extent that they view these brown people as the enemy and instead embrace Hungarian-origin Netanyahu.

      Of course, it didn't help that Herzog essentially looks Aryan and much of his team, but still.

  • Netanyahu's victory marks the end of the two-state solution
    • Your political list is very strange.

      First, UTJ is not "Other", it's hard-right on every issue, including the occupation. Officially and nominally they are sanguine about it, but in reality every government they have been in have been pro-settlements. They have a large share of their voter base in the settlements as well. The notion that they would support a settlement evacuation of a significant part of their own base is laughable. They are not only right, but hard-right. Certainly not "other".

      Secondly, Labor is not a "leftish" party if your definition of left(or even leftish) is their stance on the occupation. Herzog criticized Bibi for not being brutal enough in Gaza. And that's just the beginning. He would essentially be no different than Barak in his policies - pay lip service while increase settlements.

      Meretz and the Arab parties are the only real left in Israel.
      And they got 20 out of 120 seats.

  • New York Times published piece about Netanyahu’s racism, then rewrote all of it
    • Cliff, I was in total rage yesterday as I read the NYT's shocking whitewash in the post-election.

      Their blanket defence of Jewish Apartheid will seriously strain their credibility with young educated progressives in America in the coming years. Do they want their Middle Eastern coverage to be equated to the equivalent of Tom Friedman's reputation?

      That's the path they are on.

  • Who can save Israel now?
    • That's my point Stephen. I'm not counting the liberal Zionists as only Labor. Kahlon may label himself centrist but he has been open to negotiation with the left, ditto Lapid.

      Yet both these centrists are against sitting with Arabs, even Labor, the supposed left.

      Remember Avishai, in the New Yorker, claiming that the Kulanu represents a new "cosmopolitan" Israel. Hogwash. As you said, they refuse to sit with Arabs, ditto Lapid.

      My original point stands, and I've had enough with "liberal" Zionists claiming they are shocked with the election results when they don't protest the Jews-only political coalitions.

      The "liberal" Zionists and their preferred parties have brought this unto themselves.

    • By the way, the "liberal" Zionists have brought this onto themselves. Herzog could gather a coalition of parties but that would have to include Arabs.

      And neither he nor any other "liberal" Zionist is willing to sit with Arabs.

      So as long as they are not willing to do that, the Likudniks will win. That's something no "liberal" Zionist Jewish journalist is willing to challenge so why do they complain?

    • Donald if I could upvote you a 100 times, I would.

      I read the NYT's coverage in rage. Bibi's racism was disguised as "ugly campaigning". His racist supporters were labeled as "hardliners". It was a total makeover, and a total washout.

      Further, the spinning went into overdrive. They all quoted a bunch of panicked Zionists telling the readers that Bibi's attack on the 2SS was "something in the heat of the moment" and "surely he will reverse himself".

      These people are acting as de facto blocking backs of Likudniks. It's like the Sodastream affair all over again, when the chips are down the "liberals" are shoulder-to-shoulder with the Likudniks. Just like when J Street cheers on the Gaza massacre.

      I disagree with Phil that this outcome doesn't produce a liberal Zionist vs non-Zionist outcome. If anything this accelerates it. There's no defence anymore. Yet the apparatchiks will continue to fight for Israel. Nothing will delegitimize them more.

  • Israelis go to the polls today--and nobody knows who will win (Updated)
  • Why I hope Netanyahu will be crushed tonight
    • Now the exit polls are out. It's either 27-27 or 28-27 in favor of Likud.

      Remember, in 2009, Livni had 1 more MK advantage over Bibi yet who was it who formed the ultra-nationalist government in the end?

      It was never close. Ever. People who thought so were either ignorant or deluding themselves. I say that even as I maintained - and continue to maintain - that a Labor-led government would have been better for BDS than more of Bibi. But I was never under any illusions of the likelihood of that. And I don't think a lot of people were either, deep down. Some of them just got caught up in their emotions and wishes.

    • Phil's argument is basically the same that I've been raising: the best would be if the liberal Zionists would win because the reality on the ground wouldn't change but it would deprive the Beinart/J Street/Remnick crowd of their talking points.

      But he's wrong to try to paint it as more humane or even different from the "let Bibi win" people on the left.

      It's the same underlying logic: what would delegitimize Israel the fastest? The only disagreement is on method, not end aim.

      Also, Phil, even you concede that the suffering of the Palestinians wouldn't be materially different under liberal Zionists, so why do you try to paint your position as more noble?
      I happen to agree with the logical aspects of it, but please skip the moral lecturing when there's no legitimacy to it.

  • The farewell party of the mezuzah-kissers
    • And here he is in a recent interview bragging about building settlements and standing up to America. And it's all in English. Yet the NYT is silent.

    • The largest party may be the centrist Zionist Union but they will not win.

      The only reasonable way to get to a coalition is with Likud and Bibi won't want that. The only way forward is if Bibi is ousted but there is nobody from the inside capable of taking the mantle right now.

      Bibi has options outside Labor, and Labor does not have options outside Bibi since they won't sit with Arabs. Thus, Bibi will win. All else is a sideshow.

  • Herzog and Netanyahu are likely to share power -- because Herzog won't share it with Arab List
    • Yesh Atid and Kulanu, the two supposedly "centrist" parties have both ruled out being with Arabs. Without an Arab party, Labor has no way out. Lieberman is never going to go with them.

      Labor needs Likud but Likud does not need Labor.

      Bibi isn't going to go anywhere. Nobody can replace him from Likud. Shalev is just speaking drivel, channeling his own wishful thinking.

      If Likud ends up with Labor it'll be beacause Bibi wants to. If he says no, Labor has no other way out. Bibi does.

      Edit:

      Just to illustrate. Take the most pro-Labor polls out there in recent days:

      link to knessetjeremy.com

      4-seat lead. But take a look at the coalition math at the end. The numbers in brackets is the current seats. So again: even when you cherry-pick the best pro-Labor polls, the net result is that the far-right get better results than in the last Knesset.

      Tell me again how Labor is going to set the agenda.

  • Big front-page NYT article on 'settlements' does not quote one single Palestinian
  • Netanyahu flails against int'l conspiracy, as liberal Zionists seek orange revolution against 'fading strongman'
    • Blah & Meridius, you're both wrong. If the Laborites win, it'll be the ultimate attack on the notion that "liberal" Zionism is any different, because it isn't.

      Bibi makes for a good alibi.

      Also, he will still form the next government. They need Kahlon and he's a Likudnik. Shas/UT will never sit in an Arab government. And without Arabs, they can't form a majority.

      So it doesn't matter in the end, Bibi will rule on. But it would be better in the long run if he didn't.

  • 'J Street' leader promotes Israeli 'change' coalition that could include politician who called for beheading Arabs
    • Some say, like Gideon Levy, that things will be worse if the Labor "left" wins.

      In the short run; probably. But in the medium to long run, it'll be better.

      Because it will destroy any last vesitiges of the illusion that there are any serious differences between the camps on Apartheid. They mainly differ on tactics, not on the main strategy.

  • Even if Netanyahu loses, he can still win
    • The “surplus votes” rule does not necessarily mean that a larger party gives votes to a smaller one. Two parties sign an agreement and the party that’s closest to the next mandate will get the votes of the other one, regardless of which is larger.

      You are correct.

      And it still doesn't matter squat shit(if you'll excuse the french).

      For Livni/Herzog to rule, they need to bring the ultra-Orthodox together with anti-Haredi Lapid(whom they hate more than anyone else) as well as with the Arabs.

      Never going to happen. The Arabs are props in the Apartheid state, only J-positive blood matters. So it is among those parties where a majority must be found. And Bibi will simply outnumer and outgun the Labor/left any time of the day. Doesn't matter if they get 5 seats more.

    • You're right. Livni hasn't really moderated, but the center of gravity has shifted far to the right. She declared Ariel Sharon as her spiritual and political mentor, even a "father figure". So the notion of her as somekind of leftist is hilarious.

  • Barney Frank says Israel and AIPAC lobbied Congress to support Iraq war
    • Too juicy to pass up:

      the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the large, establishment Washington Israel lobby

      Not pro-Israel lobby but only Israel lobby. This is still language the MSM cannot afford themselves to use. It's often said people in Israel write about these issues much more forthrightly, well, it seems the Jewish press in America does it too.

    • Correct me if I am wrong, but there's been a huge shift in public opinion among grassroots liberals on Israel in the last 10 years.

      Ask any BDS activist and they'll tell you they couldn't even do the kind of stuff they are doing these days 10 years ago without being shut down and/or nobody daring to show up at most campuses around the country.

      These are the people that Moline brands as "politically insignificant".

      You can't get more stupid and out of touch than that. I hope he continues on this path.

  • Cotton's rise was fueled by pro-Israel money-- but 'NYT' and Matthews won't tell you so
    • Post-Dubya it seems the GOP is doubling down on the Harvard guys. It's like, we didn't have enough issues with Ted Cruz, now this guy?

      As groomed as he was by the Israel lobby, this guy's fanaticism is real. They may be exploiting it, but you get the feeling that it's unclear who's playing who. Cotton would still be a crazie without the Israel cash.

      The difference, and it is crucial, is that he wouldn't have nearly the same reach without it. And that's the problem.

  • Neocon meteor Sen. Cotton is funded by Abrams, Adelson and Kristol and loves war a little too much
    • For me the interesting dynamic is why now?

      What I mean is that Corker-Menendez already had a letter with a much higher chance of getting to 67 senators going. So why this letter from AIPAC undercutting their own effort?

      For me, this displays the panic of the lobby. Note that Menendez claims he wasn't even asked about the Cotton letter. So he is being routed by his own paymasters, ouch. And while Cotton has said that he welcomes democrats on his letter, none has thus far signed up.

      So the letter ends up like Bibi's speech; solidifying support for negotiations among Democrats. Flop!

      With Menendez going down in an indictment, AIPAC must feel like Obama has got this handled pretty well so it went out and brought the big bazooka.

      The big loss to them was that Clinton, in her presser yesterday, basically took the side of Obama against the notorious 47. For me, this is a huge deal. Clinton was supposed to be this AIPAC-friendly hawk and here she is selling them down the river. This means she is confident she'll win in 2016 with or without AIPAC and it also means, crucially, that AIPAC's increasing desperation signals weakness, which a cunning pol like Clinton can sense from miles away.

      All in all, Obama has been slowly destroying AIPAC - with more than a little bit of help from themselves - and it's been a gory and amusing spectacle. Will it last? Judging from Clinton's comments, it would appear so. Plan A: get Clinton in the WH and pretend it is the 1990s again, seems to be floundering. The shift in perception among the establishment is permanent; AIPAC is on the way down.

  • Israel's Foreign Minister calls for beheading Arab citizens and it's not anywhere in the New York Times
    • It's fucking disgusting and revolting.

      People cannot only talk about the complicity of the American government in Israeli Apartheid, we have got to talk about the persistent campaign in the MSM to cover up the crimes, too.

      Apartheid SA was treated much more harshly.

  • Senator who spearheaded letter to Iran got $1 million from Kristol's 'Emergency C'tee for Israel'
    • This incuriosity is at an avalance after the Bibi speech to Congress.

      And then people wonder why Israel has such high approval ratings?

      Gee, I wonder why!

  • Bearing witness in Gaza, Kristof can't see the bigger picture
    • Liz remember who owns the Times'.

      Kristof knows the boundaries of criticism of Israel; do it out of love for Apartheid.

      If he really went all the way he'd be out of a job. This is the limit of what you can do in the Times as of right now.

  • 'NYT''s Bruni pulls more punches than he delivers in Netanyahu column
    • Bruni has scrabbled himself to the position of a forgetabble Op-Ed columnist in the NYT. He know the ground rules.

      The whole "Pastor Hagee" equation is out of date. It was never relevant, but the time when this claptrap could fly by unnoticed is over.

      Bruni would never touch the issue of Jewish donations to political parties, and if the price is permanent racial Apartheid; so be it. Again, would never happen in the South African case but the MSM has a very strong supporting stance for Jewish Apartheid rather than the white Christian one.

      Bruni, as a man who prefers prestige and money over opposition to Apartheid, is more than happy to oblige.

  • It was a bad week for the Israel lobby
    • Cruz is actually probably correct in his conspiracy theorizing.

      Menendez has always been a corrupt politician. That's not new. Obama had to keep him floating before the midterms because he is AIPAC's #1 whore in Congress. That used to be Mark Kirk but no longer.

      It's delightful that Obama is finally casting off the chains of the Israel lobby.

      Bibi's speech in a parodoxical way has opened up a lot of leeway for Obama and his friends(like Rice) to appoint people like Malley to senior positions. Nobody can now claim Obama has any serious responsibility to uphold relations with Israel after that clown show.

  • WSJ columnist says 'I'm almost grateful' for attack on kosher supermarket that killed four
    • Nope.

      link to theguardian.com

      Turns out we're both wrong.

    • Today, there is no question that most of the anti-Semitism in Europe comes from muslim - especially Arab muslim - immigrants. That's just a reality.

      But I would say two things in response:

      1. Historically, anti-Semitism in the Arab muslim world has been much more muted than in Christian Europe. It really began to flourish after WWII. This is something Zionists don't want to think about, instead they want to blame Islam, like Bret.

      2. And two, what, exactly, happened in the postwar period in Jewish life? Oh yeah, a Jewish state built on the Nakba and endless occupation.

      You could make a seperate point that the Islamic world has been falling behind generally, and that's correct. So I wouldn't blame Israel entirely. The anti-Semitism we see from that part of the region is partly bound up in the reactionary and degraded state it currently it is in, and that has typically targeted religious minorities generally.

      You see that in the attacks on Christians, on muslim minorities like the Yazidis and more moderate streams of Islam. In this sense, it mirrors the backwardsness of Christian Europe during its religious wars. A lot of anti-Semitism during that epoch was a by-product of the attacks on various Christian minority sects by larger streams. If you're going to attack these religious offshoots, why not go after the Jews, too?

      In both cases, the root causes are religious and social stagnation. Neither, however, is essentialist in nature. Islam itself has and can again be the flower of civilization. To say otherwise is to be blind by basic historical reality, both of the Arab muslim world and of the Christian-dominated West.

  • Media are stunned by Congress's 'loyalty' to Netanyahu (but refuse to explain it)
    • I'm super shocked to see Jon Stewart covering up for Israel and the lobby. Yeah, it's all Republicans, amirite? No wonder Chris Rock even refuses to call him a liberal, instead claiming he is "center-left, more to the center".
      His analogies were disgusting anyway. Won't be sad to see him go(but I will miss Colbert).

      Btw, I don't think this controversy is dead yet. Bibi will go nuclear once the deal is announced and his allies in the U.S. will, too.

      Anthony Blinken, the deputy security advisor has basically said that he sees this conflict dragging on for the next two years. Hillary may come in and try to change the equation but the grassroots have shifted. Huffington Post has been going nuclear on this story for days leading up to it, even as most of the established liberal media, like the NYT, wrote about it but didn't place it on their frontpage as prominently as HuffPo.

      HuffPo is much closer to the base and they in many ways reflect it, just like the NYT's commenters do rather than the arcance and aged editorial board.

  • Pelosi blasts Netanyahu speech as 'insult to intelligence of U.S.', Amanpour calls it 'dark, Strangelovian'
    • The question is, does this speech beat the last speech with its 29 standing ovations?

    • I watched the speech.

      What most struck me is that even if Bibi has always been deranged in his anti-Iranian rhetoric, it seems it has dawned on him that he has to become much more detailed in his opposition.

      Sure, you had the implicit comparisons with Nazi Germany but he no longer pretends that Iran is imminently seeking to shoot ICBM's on U.S. coastlines. He mentions that capability in passing, once. Before, he'd make serious arguments - repeatedly - that somehow Iran was just a moment away from launching missiles on New York.

      This means that he is losing the argument. I'd admit that some things are probably good arguments, such as what is the safe-guard after 10 years etc.

      But the fundamental reality is that Bibi has no option. There isn't a deal Iran will accept that will dismantle their nuclear program. Under sanctions - Bibi's favored approach - Iran went from hundreds to almost 7000 centrifuges. Everyone understands that war will solve nothing.

      His approach has failed.

      P.S. Here is a better link to his speech/transcript:

      link to c-span.org

  • Journalists Goldberg and Gordon once again try to 'drag us into a war'
    • I didn't even know about Gordon, thanks for reminding us James.

      Amazing how these neocons never get called out in the MSM. Goldberg is an Israeli agent masquerading as journalist, has been from the beginning.

Showing comments 2190 - 2101
Page: