Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2282 (since 2011-01-07 20:19:21)

Showing comments 2282 - 2201
Page:

  • Time Warner executive moonlights as speechwriter for Netanyahu
    • I've said from the moment Oren's book popped up in the news: this book is going to give us material for months. And it did deliver.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      link to ynetnews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      And then there's this sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Will it be enough to stave off BDS?
      Nah.

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

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

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

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

      It has nothing to do with Oren.

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

      That is mindpoison.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      link to youtube.com

      Please stop Rudoring him, thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • hahahahaha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Also, Phil, yes Obama said all those things.

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

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

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

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

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

      link to ynetnews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      link to ynetnews.com

      Little by little the world wakes up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Anything to whitewash Israeli and Jewish apartheid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The financial terror tactic has diminished in value.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      link to politico.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      And indeed, why not?

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

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

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

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

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

Showing comments 2282 - 2201
Page: