Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2158 (since 2011-01-07 20:19:21)

Showing comments 2158 - 2101

  • 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

    • 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.


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

      link to

      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

      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

  • 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 2158 - 2101