Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1910 (since 2011-01-07 20:19:21)

Showing comments 1910 - 1901
Page:

  • Ted Cruz praises Israel and gets booed off stage at D.C. Christian conference
    • By the way, here is the full video.

      link to blogs.cbn.com

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

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

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

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

      P.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • British pol is beaten by man in Israeli army t-shirt, and the chattering classes are silent
    • I’d say he meant Jews from Israel – seeing as there is no such thing as “Israeli”

      I agree Dan, there isn't such a thing as Israeli, even the Israeli government doesn't give out Israeli passports, it's all based on ethnicity. I doubt Galloway is unaware of this.

      So why didn't he say "Jews from Israel"? Because that's what he meant but he didn't dare to say it, including in this interview. Why is he trying to weasel-word it?

      Finally, Dan, although most Israeli Jews are hopeless on ideology, not all are. Galloway's blanket-ban would affect those in the Anarchists Against the Wall, the +972 mag types etc.

      You find this "hilarious". I don't. I don't believe in ethnic blanket bans. You apparently do.
      And that's hilarious. That's creepy.

    • The word Jew never crossed my lips, would never cross my lips.

      No, but he meant Israeli Jews. I don't think Galloway wouldn't want any Palestinians living inside Israel to feel unwelcomed, we all know who he meant. He was weasel-wording his way through that interview.

      That being said, any violence whatsoever is despicable. It's as simple as that.

  • Richard Cohen says he married Israel and has been faithful during ups and downs
    • When Cohen supported the Iraq war in 2003, did he do that for his wife?

      This was so brutal, and yet so right on the mark.

  • Judaism's hijacking by Zionists drives 70% of secular Jews to marry non-Jews-- Koppman at Huffpo
    • One of the running themes at this site is to not ignore the American Jewish scene.

      And Bazelon to me is really a perfect example: here she is trying to write about race relations:

      link to slate.com

      It's obvious to me that her identity as a minority in America is deeply influential in how she thinks about race in America. She identifies with blacks, not whites, even if she lives and works among white liberals.

      Yet in Israel, she's part of the majority, and subsequently, her narrative changes. Thus, Bazelon's "principles", if she even has any, is to align herself with the group that would be most helpful to her own.

      This is the extent of her "liberalism"; crass racial self-interest over general liberal ideas.
      Bazelon is not alone in her racial hypocrisy. How many self-described "liberals" are just like her? Quite a lot.

  • Arielle Klagsbrun calls on the Jewish community to 'love and honor' those who refuse to support Israel
    • Beautiful and moving.

      And I think it is quite poignant that what truly turned her was not propaganda one way or the other: just going there made her understand what the factual reality was; that she couldn't simply lie to herself or to other people. That's why she is standing on that bimah.

      If everyone had her emotional maturity and bravery, the world would be a far better place.

  • Elizabeth Warren says killing Palestinian civilians is 'the last thing Israel wants'
    • MJ Rosenberg? The same guy who accused Mondoweiss of anti-Semitism and smeared Max Blumenthal as a kapo?

      I don't know why some liberals can't get over the fact that that guy is a bigot. When it really counts: he supports Israeli apartheid. He is the left-wing version of J Street(which is now a centrist organization): attack those to his right but fundamentally agree with the underlying ideology.

      He isn't on our side. Never was and never will be.

    • Page: 19
    • For all the talk we hear about Adelson, let's not forget that most of the senior people in AIPAC are democracts. And J Street - which has supported the massacre in Gaza full-stop - is ready to take over if AIPAC stumbles.

      Warren certainly has ambitions if she spouts this kind of nonsense.

      And Phil, I told you that I/P wasn't going to be a political game-changer in 2016 since the only candidate to be able to challenge Hillary is Sen. Warren and she has over and over shown herself to be craven to Israel, this is just the latest example.

      We're still looking at a post-Hillary campaign for that, so in 2024. About a decade from now. It takes time.

  • Yale Protestant chaplain says Americans must curb Israel so as to curb anti-Semitism
    • By the way, the fact that we can openly talk about Jewish billionaires like Kaplan proves three things:

      1. Jews in America feel very safe. We can discuss this without hysteria.
      2. Jews in America are no longer as monolithic on Israel, which of course breaks down the old liberal-neocon alliance. This old alliance, which people like Goldberg & Chait still wants to revive, is doomed.
      3. Non-Jews in America, partly because how Jews have changed but also on their own volition(Mearsheimer/Walt) have added to this conversation.

      Finally, and this is unrelated to the three previous points but still related to the larger point: the political awakening of Arab-America shouldn't be underestimated. After decades of sleeping, they finally came to life in the post-Cast Lead era. They are never going to sleep again. And they are bringing the progressive campus organizations under their umbrella, in defiance of those who support Apartheid full-stop.

    • The Lipstadt piece was really strange. In the article, she linked a NYT article from the previous month. The linked text said "right-wing parties". Yet the image of the article was muslim immigrants in Paris, probably at a pro-Palestinian demonstration.

      She really wants to connect the past to the present, but no matter how much she tries, the so-called "anti-Semitism surge" of Europe isn't really the 1930s. It's really a strong anti-Zionist sentiment, and it is most often expressed by muslims in Europe. Yes, there is also real anti-Semitism, and this is also mostly carried out by muslims (physicals attacks, verbal/racial slurs on the street etc), but it is of a much lesser capacity.

  • 'New Yorker' limits its expose of Israel lobby to AIPAC
    • I agree with your sentiment: Yawn.

      Bruck's "exposé" is really a warmed-over attempt to perform CPR on liberal Zionism.

      As Blumenthal and you have both stated numerous times: Gaza shows that Jews have to choose between Apartheid and Democracy. The 2SS illusion has been exposed and nobody believes in it anymore, save Jews like Bruck who clings to it in desperation because she understands that once she admits that it is dead, her Zionism really exposes her to prefer racial nationalism over liberalism.

      The New Yorker has gotten more conservative on I/P over the past year. I was surprised to see Remnick host a lavish book party for the ethnic cleansing apologist Shavit.

      Maybe it's a sign, to some extent. That the battle lines are now not between neocons and liberal Zionists - where Bruck and Remnick both feel much more comfortable, because that conversation is dominated by JEws - but between those favouring equality and those who are in a fight-and-retreat to protect Israel's de-facto Apartheid political system.

      And this wider conservation does include the JVP members, but it also includes a lot more non-Jews.

      And Connie doens't like this. She wants to keep the conservation within the Jewish fold, just like Ben-Ami, and her latest article is an attempt to do that.

      Sorry, Connie, it's a doomed attempt. Nobody's going to wait for you anymore because we know Israel better than you do by now, we aren't blinded to the real Israel. Which has been pushing settler-colonialism since it's inception.

  • Hillary Clinton just lost the White House in Gaza -- same way she lost it in Iraq the last time
    • First, Israel, a mature democracy, is frequently subjected to a double standard that is not applied to other states.

      I agree with this FT editorial. No other Western publication, FT included, would bend over backwards to call an Apartheid state that has committed what in many ways qualifies as genocide in the recent mass slaughter in Gaza a "democracy".

      The reason why they do this is out of fear, and because there are a lot of people like Brian Roberts in the U.S. media. Plus, a lot of Anglos these days are intermarried with Jews, such as the CEO of the NYT. Why disturb the house peace and quiet?

      These WASPy publications wouldn't call Apartheid South Africa a democracy - and they didn't. So why do they keep insisting on calling Israel one? I agree with FT: it is double standards. They are afraid of the massive Zionist backlash (and the house peace).

    • I wish you are right, I really do, but I do think you are wrong.

      But only partly wrong! Here's why:

      Hillary will win in 2016. Why? Because elections are always on domestic issues. 2008 was decided on the economy, certainly between McCain and Obama. And even between Obama and Hillary, Obama won primarily because of the idea of a non-white president appealed to the notion of the American Dream, that anyone can make it in America.

      Iraq didn't help her, but I wouldn't say it was her death knell.

      Also, in 2016, the idea of a woman president will be strong. The only one who can mount a sufficient campaign against Hillary is Sen. Warren and we have seen that she has been totally craven to AIPAC, too.

      But the part that I do agree with you is that I/P is going to be politicized within the Democratic party, finally. We already saw glimpses of it in 2012 and 2016 is shaping up to be that much greater an issue. Hillary will win, and she will bulldoze the base because she has a donor class to please and appease.

      But post-Hillary, we will not see someone as craven to AIPAC as she is.

      Remember, she is old. She & Bill came of age politically as the Jewish-Zionist establishment was peaking in power. Her daughter is married to a Jew. She is deeply ingrained in our culture, and she identifies much more deeply with Jews than Obama ever did, even if he was always surrounded by Jews politically, his cultural upbringing and coming-of-age was not heavily Jewish. Hillary's was. And her generation, when she was young, faced a much more monolithically Zionist generation than the upcoming politicians in America who are seeing Jews in their 20s and 30s, where Zionism is much more contested among progressives.

  • 'NYT' op-ed calls on Jews to abandon liberal Zionism and push for equal rights
    • In print, in the MSM, in the NYT!

      Yes, but it's in the international NYT, the ones that Americans don't read. So the significance is significant, but still subdued.

      Nevertheless, these days most people read the NYT online anyway.

  • Dead American soldier in IDF signed up to fight global jihadists plotting 'Holocaust 2.0'
    • I think his letter is valuable for no other reason than to illuminate the siege mentality some of these Zionist Jews have.

      The reality is that anti-Semitism has declined drastically over the course of the postwar years. If you consider opposition to colonialism anti-Semitism, then it is "increasing".

      Still, the fact is that the world, and most especially the Western world, has tolerated Jewish apartheid and colonialism far more than it has tolerated white Christian apartheid, in large part due to political money and donations, especially in the U.S.

      If South Africa had a lobby like AIPAC/ADL/AJC etc, Mandela would have died on Robben island and the old regime would still be ruling.

  • 'Lesson: The Jews will defend themselves even if it means killing children'
    • This is a sidenote, but still quite telling. The background in his profile photo on Twitter is Europe, not the Middle East, which kind of says it all.

  • US branch of the Jewish 'family' owes the homeland 'unconditional love' -- Rosner
    • Yet the vast majority of Germans living in America were fully invested in being Americans, not Germans. And they actually came from Germany.

      Yes, good catch.

      And to add: I find it bizarre that people like Chait are considered "liberal". If he is "liberal" then so is Jewish supremacist Abe Foxman.

      Most Jews in the American establishment are slavish to a fanatical racial nationalistic ideology. It's not a coincidence that neither of these "liberals" want to talk to a Palestinian. Because they know they could never win such a debate, they have nothing against a genuine Palestinian that can hold muster.

  • Goldstone sequel to be co-authored by Amal Alamuddin, Clooney's fiancee
    • They learned their lesson from last time, when they picked a Zionist Jew to appease the Jewish lobby in the U.S. and elsewhere.

      Picking a Zionist is the first problem but even a non-Zionist Jew is vulnerable to massive communal pressure. Goldstone actually did a pretty damn good report, but we all know what the aftermath was, when he was essentially bullied into submission by other Zionist Jews. And in the end, he wanted communal access more than he wanted justice.

      That mistake will now not be repeated.

      BTW: it will be interesting to see how Clooney will be treated in Hollywood after his wife is involved. I hope - and think - Amal has this as a test. Will you stand by me or is your career more important?

      I don't think she is going to care more about how many millions Clooney gets, I think she cares about the lives of children a bit more. A lot more.

  • Steven Salaita-- unremitting in criticism of Zionism and Gaza slaughter-- loses a job at University of Illinois
    • Oh, and speaking about a backlash. Now Hollywood is tightening the noose around the necks of those who spoke out:

      link to hollywoodreporter.com

    • This just confirms what everybody already knew:

      In establisment "liberal" circles attacking white nationalists is a cause for promotion. Attacking Jewish nationalists is a cause for demotion.

      How about we attack all ethno-nationalists equally? #shockingthought

  • Peter Beinart demolishes Gaza hasbara
    • The same Peter Beinart who admitted that he could live with Palestinians not having full citizenship rights. Don't forget.

      In the end, when the chips are down, ALL "liberal" Zionists choose ethnocracy over democracy. If they didn't, they wouldn't be Zionists.

  • Israel advocates are in a battle with US media
    • Frum perfecetly encapsulates the ruling hypocrisy: ethnonationalism, even violent ones, are okay so long as it is Jewish or similar.

      Frum spends a great deal caring about white nationalism, because he knows that as a minority as I am too, he wouldn't benefit.

      But he does so not out of enlightenment but out of crass racial self-interest. His words these past few days show very clearly a fanatic man deep inside.

      Finally:

      Shavit has gone haywire.

      Shavit has always been haywire. Don't you remember that debate he had during the aftermath of Cast Lead where he shouted at Gideon Levy that he was "worse than the palestinians" for demanding democracy and equal rights? Shavit's a demonic racist inside and that racist gets out in times like these.

      Remnick's embrace of Shavit says a lot about Remnick, and probably not a great deal that is good, but I know Phil has been kind of fanboying on Remnick for a long time. That was always a mistake.

  • Kerry is off the Israel bandwagon
    • By the way, notice that "liberal Haaretz" attacked Kerry and called his proposal bad.

      Also, Phil, Annie et al, have you read this?
      link to haaretz.com

      It's really the stuff that Phil likes to write about, elite identity and the ever-revolving way that Israel is perceived in the media industry.

      Note that the woman who wrote it suspected that a lot these artists got coaching behind the scenes.

  • Fox's Hannity abuses Yousef Munayyer, says he has a 'thick head'
    • Hannity is a meathead bigot and that's all there is to say about him.

      I'm surprised Munayyer - who knows this full well - went on anyway. I guess he was aiming for the 10% liberal audience Fox has. After all, Norman Finkelstein has revealed he is a regular listener(non-ironic, apparently) of Rush Limbaugh.

      Nevertheless, this "interview" just shows why you shouldn't bother.
      Heroic performance nontheless from Munayyer, who is a man of far greater dignity than that bottomdweller.

  • Dr. Kristol's curriculum: US 'special responsibilities' include 'ancient longings' of Jewish nationalists
    • Here's the irony though:

      Kristol is pushing Jewish nationlism in Jerusalem but multiculturalism in the U.S., just like the hypocrite Adelson is for amnesty in the US(cheap labor for him, even if he pretends he cares about the people) but would go nuts if the Africans got asylum in Israel.

      Kristol/Adelson et al just prove what needs to be proved: a lot of people who push policies in the US do so out of racial self-interest and not out of genuine liberalism. It would be foolish to think this phenomenon is only in the Jewish community.

      There is no difference between Kristol and a white nationalist like Duke, who is in many ways a very mild/mellow figure(even if we all know his vegetarian/vegan propaganda and "human rights" is just a veil).

  • NY Times reports source of UNRWA school attack is unclear even though Israel said they did it
    • Whenever Zionism is exposed for what it is, its apologist only have two recourses:

      1. Scream anti-Semitism.
      2. Scream about Syria(nothing to see here!)

      When they go for #2, you know that even they understand there is nothing to defend, which is why Goldberg whines about how everyone should talk about Syria instead.

      Rudoren's coverage of this conflict is now so bad even mainstream institutions like NBC are looking balanced, which of course they are not.

  • The swan song of the Israeli left
    • The narcissism of the Israeli Jewish left is laid bare, and we should be grateful for your role in that.

      Ultimately, they do not subscribe to the notion of justice. There are exceptions but they are few, and you're one of them.

      Territorial compromise was always a corrupt concept when facing an ideology whose basic center is premised around remorseless colonization of land. You can't be a "liberal" Zionist. It's an oxymoron.

      And this is the rub, because to truly be relevant, the Israeli left has to cast off Zionism and fight for equal rights. Most of them are unwilling to do that, instead preferring a total and endless system of racial violence and control instead of giving up their position of power within a Jewish supremacist structure from which they were reared and often viciously defend when forced to choose.

  • Bowing to AIPAC, Senate unanimously passes resolution supporting Israel
    • Honest question, Phil: why do you keep giving oxygen to a racist bigot like MJ Rosenberg? Why do you keep giving him space for quotes? Have you not seen the things he has written about Abiminah, Blumenthal and this site as well? You're tendency to look it all over looks almost like Stockholm Syndrome.

      The Nation is reporting that the “anti-Iran lobby machine dominates Capitol Hill.

      The Nation mumbles on, as usual scared of calling things what they are. It's the Israel lobby not "anti-Iran lobby machine". They're scared of calling it what it is. Clifton's doing a better job in the actual article but he doesn't connect the dots(I'm guessing its his editors, not Eli himself) and talk frankly about Jewish conservative donor networks in a broader context.

  • 'Heartbroken' at 'horrifying' killing of boys, State Dep't says Israel must do more to prevent civilian deaths
    • I’ve just said in reply to Citizen that nothing much changes.

      You're a useless defeatist, a ton has happened, especially in the discourse over the past 5 years.

      ‘Heartbroken’ at ‘horrifying’ killing of boys, State Dep’t says Israel must do more to prevent civilian deaths

      The same Psaki who yesterday blamed Palestinians for their own deaths. That trash of a human being has no credibility.

  • Chomsky and BDS
    • I'm disappointed in Suarez, his screed comes across as a last stand of a wounded fan boy. Maybe because it is one.

      Chomsky's opposition to BDS is pretty uniform. He claims to be for a bi-national state but refuses to endorse the path that the Palestinians themselves chose, arguing that we can't do anything.

      He is whitewashing his latent Zionism behind a veil of "realism". Well, the same voices were heard in the 50s and 60s when the battle was Jim Crow.

      Chomsky's Zionism will be a blemish on his legacy, although we can be sure his apologists like Suarez will keep denying it or at the very least try to deflect some of the fire.

  • Chomsky supports portions of BDS agenda, but faults others, citing realism and int'l consensus
    • Yes.

      Both Chomsky and Finkelstein are crypto-Zionists who can't defend Zionism to the left, so they keep trying to make the whole "it isn't possible" argument.

      Chomsky's statement that the left shouldn't be too critical of Israel because the U.S. is worse(which it isn't, actually, because Israel within the green line today is the same as Jim Crow South in the 1940s) is exactly the kind of typical Zionist claptrap we hear all the time:

      "Oh why do you pick on Israel? What about Syria or Iran?"

      Chomsky's version is to change Syria/Iran to America, but the basic motivation is the same.

      Honestly Chomsky has fallen so much in my eyes because of his persistent attempts to attack BDS in his transparent quest to protect Israel. It's his latent Zionism he has never been able to cast off. Finkelstein's better but not by much.

      Judging by the comments, so are a lot of other people. Now the question is: when will people start to ignore Chomsky/Finkelstein on I/P just like we do Beinart(who accepts a state where Palestinians don't have full and equal rights) or even a bigot and an extremist like Dershowitz?

  • Jeffrey Goldberg leads the charge on latest BDS smear: Presbyterian Church divestment is anti-Semitic because David Duke supports it
  • 'Forward' editor says Presbyterian vote was anti-Semitic
    • Do not forget. Eisner defended Sodastream, too.

      As we always said, when you strip the flowery rhetoric, all liberal Zionists become Likudniks.

      Of course she sides with Netanyahu.

  • Oldman says Hollywood is 'run by Jews,' then offers over-the-top apology
    • Mel Gibson is a bigot. Racism as sell as homophobia. Oldman is of the same cloth.

      That beind said, everything he said about Tinseltown is true.

      For me, seeing ADL and Oldman reminds me of Stalingrad; no matter who wins, I want both to loss.

  • What the MLA vote showed: Israel is losing the battle for liberal support
    • 57% or so is good, but not great. 66% is a super majority.

      Still awesome that the vore passed, but Im certain that we will see a supermajority within just a few years at most.

      Only a question of time.

  • Feinstein, Baldwin, Kaine, Paul among 12 senators who didn't sign AIPAC letter blasting Palestinian gov't
    • Really annoyed that Warren signed.
      She has long been retrograde on Palestine, but still.

      Depressing how such an economic populist can turn into such a reactionary just because of money.

      Bash Wall St, but not the Israel lobby!

  • World Cup 2014: Come for the soccer, stay for the politics
    • One of the unnoticed problems/issues with America's ineptitude with taking up world football, instead of the bastardised handball sometimes called "football", is the inability to use sport with politics when writing about international economics and neoliberalism.

      You see this a lot more in Europe, where there is almost a niche of journalists mostly writing about socio-economic issues framed through football, often from a left-wing(not liberal) perspective.

      It is a lot easier to engage people on Bolivia's economics history, say, if their national sport is the same as your country's.

      Neocons talk about political isolationism(i.e not enough wars), but America's sport isolationism is a bigger issue.

  • Tell FIFA to dump Israel now, urges international campaign
    • Great reporting, and great coverage overall of this issue. Americans gotta understand that they/we are an anomaly when football(world football) isn't the biggest sport in the country.

      For both Israel and the Palestinians, it is the biggest sport.

      So this will hurt Israeli apartheid just like boycotts on the SA sports teams did in the 80s.

      Just watch Zionists and other apologists of apartheid attack this as "collective punishment", just like the Apartheid regime's defenders once did in the 70s and 80s.

  • Let it go
    • Why can't Jews let it go? Because Zionists are right on one thing and one thing only: non-Orthodox Jewry does not survive in the diaspora without anti-Semitism.

      In Israel it does.

      Remind me again, how many Jewish girlfriends did tour friends have?

  • Meet Aryeh King: The brash right-wing settler bent on evicting Jerusalem's Palestinians
    • Aryeh King is a distraction, much like people like the former MK Michael Ben-Ari. They have both been made superflous by the present and past Israeli governments.

      They exist only for liberal Zionists to criticize and attack, thereby shielding themselves from charges of supporting Apartheid and by boosting their own self-image as good liberals. In short: they exist because they have to exist. And if they didn't, someone would invent them.

  • Shmuel Rosner's RX in the NYT: Occupation forever
    • Rivlin doesn't have the higher moral ground. The point of annexation is to gobble up more land with minimal amount of citizenship given.

      Remember, Israel is actively pushing out Palestinians by making their life very hard on purpose, it is also very difficult for many to even gain citizenship for their spouses and the like, leaving many to even leave Israel(and then magically getting their citizenship revoked).

      Rivlin is simply following the old Labor/Mapai model. If Nikles somehow points to Rivlin as someone occupying the "higher moral ground" you do kind of worry about his attachment to reality.

  • Jewish safety in Europe and Muslim safety are interconnected
    • I'm on a study abroad year right now in Europe and I have close family here, too.

      In brief: you are dead wrong, Phil.

      The FN rose in large part as a counter-reaction to muslim immigration. It's important to understand how much crime has risen as a result. It isn't just irrational xenophobia. Go into any European prison and you'll see immigrants from the Middle East wildly disproportinate. Is part of this due to poverty? Sure. But it isn't that easy. Europe is far more generous with benefits than America is to its immigrants.

      You can't pull a "but they are underfunded" argument. In some places, like Sweden, most new immigrants get slightly more than the median salary(!) on nothing else but benefits.

      The Jewish community is torn on this issue. On the one hand, you have the history on the continent, informing us that we should be watchful for the nationalists and neo-nationalists. This is also how you had a thuggish fascist like Lieberman suddenly speak like a pious liberal when discussing the crimes: when you are the racial/religious minority, it is in your racial self-interest to be a liberal. But that doesn't make you a liberal(which explains the PEP syndrome).

      On the other, the vast majority of anti-Semitic hatecrimes have come from muslim immigrants. So you have a mental perception that is clashing with everyday realities.

      If someone like you is writing from across the ocean, you don't have the everyday realities to check your prejudices, and instead you get a misinformed piece like the one you just wrote.

      I rarely if ever disagree with you on anything, but this is one of those moments. You ought to do better.

  • Dershowitz disqualifies an entire continent from supporting BDS, citing history of 'Jew hatred'
    • Just like Abe Foxman. The same thing.

      There is a broader lesson here for the left, because ethnic minority racists and/or nationalists can hide under the guise of liberalism in Western countries but are free to be bigots in situations where we would be in the majority.

      Another example is how some Indians in the diaspora vigoriously defended Modi, yet they are supporting policies that benefit them as minorities in the West.

      It doesn't matter whether it is Jewish, Indian or any other minority. Every group has racists and bigots and it's a problem that the left has defined racism as simply emanating from one direction(white Christians).

      The end-result is that we have people like Dershowitz and Foxman basically being let off the hook for generations, while both call themselves "liberals".

  • Chris Matthews channels his inner Bill Kristol
    • It was a shitty deal. We just have to come to terms with that.

      Furthermore, it wasn't just about the POW, which is the Obama administration's propaganda to the press. It was also used as a "trust-building measure" as the reporter said in that clip.

      And Matthews is right to be cynical and skeptical. Do they really think the Taliban will accept democracy and stop oppressing women? You'd have to be delusional to believe that.

      The problem for Matthews is that Afghanistan isn't our problem. We shouldn't have gone in there from the getgo. But the lust for blood after 9/11 was overwhelming. Americans have to abandon this notion of enforcing democracies from 10,000 ft. And we have to accept the fact that some socities are primitive - yes that's the word - and that they are fine with that.

      Just like Western elites have tried to pretend that Erdogan is a great Islamist moderate, yet he's turning into a muslim Putin by the hour. Now he's planning to hold on to 2020s, sitting in power for over two generations. And his support is deep among the Turkish people, which is why he is crushing his opponents.

      While you attack neocons, lets not forget that the left have their fair share of interventionists, too, who cannot accept the fact that not every society either wants or is ready for Jeffersonian democracy.

  • Super-PAC supporting Hillary Clinton launches outreach for one religious group (Jews)
    • Hillary is going to be like her husband, and if anything, even more hawkish. She has already gone to Obama's right on foreign policy, especially on Iran.

      Bill Clinton's two terms were the most philo-Semitic in American history and will likely never be surpassed any time soon. The Clinton style of democratic politics also suit my community not just because of his hawkish foreign policy stances, but also because of his passive acceptance of Republican positions, whether it is tax on the wealthy(a quick look at on the Fortune 500 shows that my community is disproportionally overrepresented) or on crime, mass incareration etc. The racial tensions between Jews and blacks in NYC and other places is largely unspoken of but a real issue. It's something Bloomberg exploited quite well.

      And Bloomberg is another kind of politician which really shares a lot with Clinton in this regard, who while more progressive on issues such as the environment, nevertheless enforced Guiliani's crime laws and oversaw a massive neoliberal push that benefits those with wealth, just like Clinton did.

      A lot of support for Hillary is driven by nostalgia of the 90s, when life for you was a lot simpler. Nobody really questioned the 1% back then. Nobody in the democratic party, or even grassroots, really questioned Zionism.
      It's was a lot easier to support policies that were really Republican-lite and yet still call yourself a liberal. A lot of older, wealther folks - and frankly white folks - want to get back to that era. And Jews are wealthy and white(95% white if the Pew study is any guide, more white than any religious group, even more so than Mormons).

      In American politics there are two primaries. The donor primary and the voter primary. The donor primary is the real primary, because even though the candidates may differ a little bit from each other, no candidate is going to get support from the donor class unless some key issues are upheld. Which is why it was always foolish to think that Obama could break free, even if he himself thought so for a few years in the beginning.

  • Palestinian unity deal pits Netanyahu & Congress against White House
    • When the Palestinians were divided, Israel told the world there couldn't be peace, because how can you enforce a deal with only one half?

      When the Palestinians are united, Israel tells the world that there can't be peace, because how can you accept both sides?

      Conclusion: no matter what happens, Israel will say that there can't be peace.

  • Yes the Palestinians got 'screwed' -- John Judis defends vernacular at Museum of Jewish Heritage
    • Great account of what happened. Judis seems like an awesome person overall.

      We're starting to reach a place where the public acceptance of the ethnic cleansing is no longer under dispute - unless if your crowd are a bunch of OAPs at a Holocaust Museum - bless their souls.

      The question is what next. Everyone kind of understands that undoing the Native American genocide is too late. I'm using the broader definition of genocide here, including cultural genocide, by trying to destroy their collective identity through force and the passage of time.

      Reparations for slavery is getting new traction in the US discourse, but it has been 150 years after all, and the country is no longer mostly white/black in demographics.

      In Israel/Palestine, however, the Nakba is an ongoing event as Max Blumenthal points out, the displacement is continuous. Furthermore, the same two demographic groups are the same, there hasn't been any significantly influx of non-Semites - whether Jewish or Arabic - in the past 100 years. Sure, there are some questions about some of the Russian immigrants but they have more or less assimiliated.

      This means that unlike America, Israel is still not at all detached from history. In this sense, it shares the character of Apartheid South Africa much more, where, too, the same two groups dominated and continue to dominate and where the colonial oppression of one group was an ongoing event, not just "mere" discriminiation.

      And all of this is probably one of the reasons why the there is such resistance to admitting the issues that Judis is raising. A white Republican can acknowledge the genocide of Native Americans precisely because he or she knows that they will never be held accountable for it, the population left is too small and by and large assimiliated already.

      That's not the case for Jewish Israelis - and their Jewish supremacist apologists in the diaspora - whose colonized population still lives in or just outside the country and whose memory has not been shattered and whose will has not been broken.

  • Historic football victory provides another global stage for Palestine
    • I have to add my thanks to you Annie for being on top of this story, as I'm sure there are sources who helped you, too.

      I hope this evolving story line is being kept up, it's a great narrative as football(real football) is the world's most popular sport by far.

  • Modern Language Association resolution criticizing Israel sparks raging debate
    • Even if the pro-human rights crowd lose to the Zionist lobby this year, you know we'll be back next year, and the year after that, and the year after that.

      You can't fundamentally defend apartheid, nor the extreme levels of complicity that Israeli universities have in that role, by advising successive Israeli governments on virtually every aspect of the occupation, to exactly how many babies the non-Jewish minorities have(sheer horror!), and even more importantly, how to "control" it.

      The Zionist lobby may or may not win this battle but they will never win the war. In many ways, the harder they fight, the more they are forcing the BDS crowd to reach out to bigger and bigger audiences and building coalitions.

      The Jewish Journal has a good piece about this:

      link to jewishjournal.com

  • UC Santa Cruz student government votes for divestment from occupation-linked companies
    • PS, most of the action seems to be in either California, Michigan or Illinois or small liberal arts colleges like Vassar.

      Does anyone know how things are looking at Harvard, Yale or Princeton? We hear surprisingly little from those places, how is the BDS movement doing there?

    • From what I can tell it is a non-binding resolution? The phrase you use is "urging", not commanding or forcing.

      This is better than nothing, but more needs to be done. And as usual, the major threat is typically campus presidents, under heavy Zionist pressure from the donor class, who are usually forced to veto something to save dollars for the university.

      That won't change until the drums of change become overwhelming and they can no longer afford to alienate a large part of the student body.

  • Israeli government tries to undo image of Pope at the wall
    • It seems like the Pope isn't going to sit by idly and meekly. He shows up at the Israeli locations out of a sense of fairness, but he knows who the occupier and the colonizer is.

      It seems like his entire visit is strained beyond reason. He even gets into spats with the pope over which language Jesus spoke.

      Somehow Bibi managed to wreck the relationship with the most important pope since John Paul II. And good for Francis to refusing to play along the Israeli hasbara machine.

  • Scene of NY derailment that took four lives is a disgraceful mess six months later
    • This is a microcosm of the complete and abject failure to fund infrastructure suffienctly across the nation. The American engineering society has said that there are hundreds of bridges across the nation that could collapse any moment since they are in such a bad shape.

      This is supposed to be the richest country on Earth. The American middle class is not even the richest in the world anymore. All the money goes to the top 1%.

      The result is that we can't even fund basic stuff anymore. It's really quite sad.

  • Netanyahu says Jews invented the idea of 'honoring your father and mother'
    • I ask any doubters to tell us all why the article I linked to is not reflecting the real probability, is not a most likely scenario for all of us and our children.

      The article you linked to was written by an idiot. I wasn't surprised to see he was a Republican. War is inevitable? The West is getting weaker by day. The notion that China and/or Russia will go to war with the U.S. - in a scenario where all powers have massive amounts of nuclear weapons - is just delusional.

      Asia in the 21st century could end up looking a lot like Europe in the 20th century. We're already seeing minor players like Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan and the like grouping together. The big unknown is India, but Modi has been pretty strident in condemning what he calls China's aggression.

      Countries typically go to war with states in proximity with themselves and where the power of both nations are not too similar. In Asia, obviously, nobody can match China, which is why you're seeing a slow formation of an anti-China coalition. You might get proxy wars, but they will take place in weaker nations and require very little in actual expenses, an example of which is Syria and Ukraine was heading there until recently.

      But going back to the author. He lives in a parallell universe. He claims that the constitution was destroyed by the Bush and Obama regimes, yet gives zero evidence for it. How do you even measure that? But it gets better.

      The guy was had a top position during the Reagan administration, a time when inequality massively soared and you saw extreme amounts of intervention in Latin America, particularly in places like Guatemala where Washington supported what could be seen as genocide by the regime, over 200,000 people died, this is in a country with a much smaller population than Iraq.

      And he apparently sees no problem with this kind of behaviour. That you fail to notice this, also speaks volumes on your own blindspots, Citizen.

    • It gets even more hilarious. He is trying to re-invent Jesus now, and even managed to get into a spar with the pope.

      link to news.yahoo.com

      Remember that book that Bibi gave Francis when they first met, on the inquisition? Really, can you actually get worse at diplomacy than Bibi?

  • John Legend derides portrayal of Palestinians as 'demographic challenge' in speech at Penn
    • Just as Telhami's poll of Americans showed: once the 2SS paradigm collapses, Americans will favor democracy.

      link to mondoweiss.net

      And part of that is not accepting language that targets a dispossessed former majority as a "demographic threat".

  • 10,000 University of South Florida students call for divestment from occupation-linked firms
  • The U.S. continues to appease Narendra Modi
    • James North says that the US continues to appease Modi, which is true, and James North continues to live in an alternative universe.

      Modi just won a huge landslide, like that of LBJ in '64 or Reagan in '84.
      In his previous article he called for boycotting Modi.

      This type of argument is symptomatic of an older kind of white liberal who was formed in a world where the West could impose on others a different kind of order from the outside as it saw fit. That world is long gone, and it was the world in which North grew up in, but he hasn't kept up with the times. He still thinks it exists, because he argues along those lines. This article is a bit more level-headed than his last one, which was borderline delusional in his appraisails of American influence and power over non-Western countries. Maybe it has, even for him, finally begun to sink in just how ignorant that notion was as reality is crashing his world view as the post-election results are clear.

      As bad as the business community and the American media is, where is North on holding the Indian electorate accountable? The NDA won a clear majority, around 60% of the Lok Sabha seats. And if you'd look at only the non-muslim vote, they probably won upwards of 70+%. That means that the Hindus of India overwhelmingly voted for a man who was absolutely responsible for gruesome sectarian attacks(by allowing them to transpire) and has essentially issued zero regrets.

      Yet he barely talks about these people, why? North prefers to talk about the Western responses, but the fault primarily lies with the people who elected him.
      This again is an amusing portrait into the older, white liberal generation which is stuck in time. It's a form of eurocentrism. Non-whites don't matter, only as victims. But what happens when PoC become the oppressors of other PoC? North's generation of white liberals are unable to deal with this, so they instead try to turn the conversation to the American media.

      Maybe it's just me, but I don't think most Indian muslims are shaking in fear of NYT editorials. I think they are much more concerned over how the Hindus in their country overwhelmingly voted for a man who could be accurately described as presiding over a pogrom. Yet North prefers to write about the NYT editorials, the business community and the Obama administration's statements.

      In effect ignoring the people on the ground in India and instead focusing on mainly Western elites.

      A lot of PoC talk about the latent ethnocentrism among white liberals and this is a good example of that.
      For the same reason why "white feminism" has become a term with a lot of baggage from women of color.

      North doesn't see it. He is myopic. He is shaped in that world view. He considers himself a universalist, yet his writings reveals he is less interested in non-Westerners other than as a jump-off to get to Western reactions. He should focus a lot more on what happened inside India itself to faciliate Modi's rise, but that would unfortunately necessitate actually reading more about the country, of course.

  • 'Today at 0800, Israeli bulldozers came to the fertile valley where we planted fruit trees--'
    • I'm sure Jodi Rudoren and her friends at the NYT are paying attention. And I'm also sure that they don't give a shit about this kind of colonization.

      After all, they're Zionists. They support this.

  • Apartheid label is reminiscent of runup to Holocaust -- Michael Oren
    • How can he be kicked out when the senate is filled with people like Mark Kirk, who has publicly said that he doesn't even work for the US but for Israel. Or when the top presidential contender for the GOP in 2016 kisses the ring - just like his predecessor from 2012 - belonging to his party's top donor - whose own sons wouldn't serve in the US army but would be permitted to serve in Israel's.

      As for Oren himself, how can the Palestinians "choose to be apart" when the Jews came to them and not the other way 'round? The settlers are encroaching on their lands and not the other way around.

      Oren has no argument except "segregation now, segregation forever", with some Holocaust spice added, as per usual from Israelis.

  • Another prominent liberal Jew runs away from the Zionist label
    • Very good point. That’s why these stories raise a bit of a shrugged-shoulder reaction in me. I guess it’s good that he’s where he is, but it’s not a sound position.

      Bingo. He has all the fake liberalism of a genuine liberal Zionist. Here's the quote that reveals it:

      Not because I feel estranged from Israel but because Zionism has been taken, kidnapped even, by the far right. You could say I was a normal Zionist until 1968

      It's the same old "liberal" Zionist claptrap: everything went wrong after '67 but Israel before that was a paragon of virtue, or at least a normal democracy. He ignores the previous 50 years of systematic colonization and the military rule imposed on non-Jews to ethnically cleanse them and encourage them to leave the country(after which getting back would be very difficult).

      Life's tough for people like Friedlander. They've been warning about extremism all their life, yet they looked on about what happened in Israel and did nothing. Peace Now is the J Street of Israeli politics.

      Friedlander's dear Labor party was responsible for the Nakba and for '67.
      But hey, let's blame Likud!

      He doesn't want to admit that a man like him who imagines himself as an anti-racist is in fact a supporter of colonization of another people. So he invents a parallell universe where everything that happened before Likud came to power was somehow benevolent.

      To do otherwise would be to admit that there is no material difference between Likud and Labor, and if anything, Labor has a worse history. But then his own identity would be plunged into a personal crisis.

  • 'Courting powerful Jewish donors,' Christie calls for aggressive foreign policy
    • It's a tough position. Should the U.S. turn a blind eye when chemical weapons are being used?

      Even Hitler refused to use gas in WWII because of the horrors he saw in the trenches(of course that only applied to soldiers, he had no qualms on using it on people in concentration camps).

      At the same time, how do you stop a regime like that, unilaterally? It's more or less impossible lest you invade, which was a no-go. Even if Obama's orders had went through, what we'd have gotten would be a minimalistic bombing run or two.

      I view Hillary's and Christie's speeches as empty gestures. They both came of age when America was much stronger and that is their world view. China will pass the U.S. this year in being the world's largest economy by the most commonly used measure to measure economies.

      By 2017, China will already be 15-20% bigger and the difference will only grow year by year.

      Christie and Hillary live in the past, and so do their donors.

    • "He may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch."

      Spoken by another Democrat.

  • On the day two Palestinians are killed, 'NYT' reporter flashes snark
    • Well, first, she reached out to Abuminah. Which made folks like Goldberg go nuts(always a good sign).

      Second, Bronner was just a total disaster. And as bad as Rudoren is, she isn't as bad as sidehustling for an Israeli PR firm doing hasbara plus having her kid in the army.

      (Still cracks me up that Bronner to this day insists he is "neutral" in the conflict).

      As for the rest of your comment, some of it is true, some of it is overblown. The NYT made a serious left-wing turn from 2009 to 2012 or so. It wasn't at all certain to think that they'd made a hard-right turn, and if you think you'd knew, you're fooling yourself.

      The NYT's hard-right turn is interesting. I think that it went a lot tougher on Israel as a way to get a deal. I think what we've seen in the past few years is a slow realization on their part that the 2SS isn't coming and as such the NYT has decided to prolong the inevitable, to shield Israel as long as it humanly can, until it is axiomatic that Israel's an Apartheid state and the 2SS is dead even for the beltway types.

      Kerry's A-word usage behind closed doors is as good an indicator as any that we are getting there. But how fast we get there is an open question.

    • There are two things at play.

      1. She's a Jewish Zionist, so she's naturally biased. No correspondent in Israel/Palestine should be Jewish(nor should they be Palestinian). That should be basic journalistic ethics in such a conflict.

      Nobody would have sent an Irish catholic or an Anglo Protestant with clear ideological leanings to Northern Ireland 20 years ago, for reasons that wouldn't even need to be spelled out. Yet this is what is being done, consistently, when it comes to Israel/Palestine.

      2. Power difference. The pro-democracy side can just get at her with tweets, basically. The other side can do serious institutional pressure. Sulzberger meets a lot of Zionists at parties, he's one himself, albeit faintly. How many Palestinians are in his orbit? Probably not a great deal.

      We can't really change the 1st until we change the 2nd. And websites like these are helping building up the pressure. Or to view it from another way: 10 years ago people like Rudoren could easily ignore people like us. Today she can't. She's still sarcastic and contemptous of even having to deal with us - imagine being accountable! - but she does have to deal with us.

      Over the next decade or so, there will be a lot more pressure from liberal people. We'll never rival the AJCs and the others in sheer fundraising and influencemongering behind the scenes, but we may not need to.

  • Shalom Modi: India and Israel look to deepen ties following victory of the Hindu right
    • It's ironic. A neo-fascist Hindu movement that viewed the Nazis with admiration... now Israel's new BFF.

      I guess Israel will take any friend it can get at this point. It has openly and warmly received Christian Evangelicals, many of whom view Jews as defected Chrisitans that must repent before Judgement day or burn in hell for eternity. Not one bit anti-Semitic, there.

      If those are your friends, what's a few overwintered Nazi admirers?

      By the way, here's Modi doing the modified Hitler salute:

      link to i0.wp.com

      The election of Modi should temper those who think that racism is somehow impossible if PoC do it, especially when the victims are other PoC.

    • And Ackerman was a Democrat, too, lest we forget. These are the "liberals" on I/P.

  • Rothkopf's jailbreak from the Zionist captivity is sure to embolden others
    • My sole dissent is how Phil framed this. This is the full quote from Rothkopf(which Phil edited down, a bit too much in my view):

      You can refer to it as a problem among "elites." It is not. It is a problem among important communities that are essential to the coalition that has provided support for Israel in the past and will be just as important in the future. You know that. It is not just the rise of J Street. It is not just liberals and the Walt-Mearsheimer anti-Israel Lobby Crowd. It is guys like me. You know, guys who grew up in New Jersey who were captivated by the story of a Jewish state that was in a way "ours," who were lifted up by the heroism of the Six-Day War, guys who admired the stories of turning the desert green. You know guys like that, right? You were one.

      Phil seems to interpret this as Rothkopf identifying himself with grassroots. Well, he talks about liberals, but in a negative, i.e. "not just liberals".

      He is basically telling Oren that this is an internal Jewish rift, too. Which is why he adds "You know guys like that, right? You were one". Rothkopf acknowledges the liberal grassroots, but doesn't identify with them; he is telling Oren about slipping Jewish support from average, non-elite, Jews. He's right about that, of course, but it is ultimately a tribal argument. Phil overinterpreted his quote, in my view, making Rothkopf sound a bit too universalist than he is as of now. (I think he'll get there in the end).

    • Reading through all of this, it seems pretty clear to me that you should be the one writing the script, Phil. Brillianty written.

      I've never been a fan of identity politics writ large, but it is increasingly hard for me to see how you cannot be forced to write about American Jewish culture in the post-war era when writing about Zionism. Because it was we who sustained Israel, defended it at every turn, attacked anyone who was critical of Israel as an anti-Semite. It didn't matter what your political affiliation was. We were all bound by fate to defend the Jewish state.

      Which is why Rothkopf's act of unchaning himself from the narrow confines of tribal loyalty is so remarkable; he is defying every convention and norm and rule placed on him from child birth.

      He is, in short, starting to look through the prism of universalism and principle, which leaves Oren rudderless and defenceless.

  • On Nakba Day, Israelis forced to confront a guilty secret
    • Yes, it's very impressive. And even more so since it is rife with risk. We just got word that several Palestinians got shot dead and scores more got wounded. They surely knew about these risks, how the IDF would try to repress them. Yet they went and did it still. Impressive.

  • 'NYT' publishes unvarnished ADL propaganda: 93% of Palestinians are anti-Semites
    • One of the key ADL definitions of "anti-Semitism": oppose Jewish apartheid and you're an anti-Semite.

      The second part which is really weird is the notion that Jews can act as we want to other people and if they hate us for it, they must be irrational and "bigoted". It is in of itself a bigoted view, because it means a Jew can never do wrong.

      It's a very self-serving argument, and beyond that, it is not only ADL which is pushing it. It is a common, almost axiomatic, belief among the Jewish writers I've read on the topic of anti-Semitism.

      And it is a very toxic belief, because it leads to conclusions that 90+ % of Palestinians must be anti-Semitic because they oppose Jewish domination, and since any opposition to Jewish actions is in itself "anti-Semitism", it in effect gives the moral pass to any Jewish extremist and settler.

  • After first visit to Israel, 'Foreign Policy' editor says religious, garrison state has 'passed its sell-by date'
    • self-correcting (frequently to a fault)

      I laughed out loud.

    • I want to believe that Rothkopf has opened his eyes but I remain skeptical. Why?

      Because I've read very similar columns from people like Bradley Burston or Carlo Strenger. They sound like universalists, but they keep crawling back to defending Apartheid when it counts. Would Rothkopf feel comfortable saying these things to a Palestinian? Or is it a Jew-only conversation, just like J Street wants?

      Finally, a bit unrelated, but still significant: link to ynetnews.com

      It was leading Ynet's front page during the morning. Yeah, the BDS movement is dead, I'm telling you!

      An additional thing:

      Zionism, as we all know(at least those of us growing up in Jewish communities), is the central plank of the modern (secular) Jewish identity; it has replaced just about everything else.

      Rothkopf is basically openly agonizing not over Israel per se, but over his own identity. It is, at its core, an existential article he is writing. And I agree, it is brave of him. But bear that fact in mind when you read it, and why it is directed at Oren out of all people. Oren acts as a balance to Rothkopf’s guilty conscience, for “betrayaing” his people, i.e. for slowly abandoning Zionism.

      There is no evidence that Rothkopf’s turnaround is driven by genuine compassion, rather than the fickle follies of a middle-aged man whose concept of Israel was stuck in the same sophistication of a teenage boy prone to romaniticism and militarism, like most teenage boys.

      This also bleeds into a larger point. That a lot of the whole “the path that Israel’s on is unsustainable” should be read as “the path that Israel’s on is making my Jewish identity unsustainable”.

      Israel’s path is very sustainable in terms of raw economics and military. If it hadn’t been, the occupation would have ended a long time ago and not deepen, year by year. So much reporting on Israel is really reflected in the anxieties of American secular Jewish identity. But since you basically can’t report on Israel without being Jewish or at the very least a mild Zionist(just look at the NYT staff in Israel, all of them Jewish Zionists), the change has been incredibly hard to change the conversation around I/P, which is why the campus is the central fight today.

  • Israelis are in Nigeria to help search for girls -- Susan Rice
    • Well, it doesn't seem to help much.

      Israel is ranked along with Saudi Arabia and North Korea in global polls. And it is not just the Middle East. Even countries like India rank Israel pretty low. Much of Latin America and Africa doesn't like it. And of course Europe isn't hugely pro-Israel.

      America is really the last bastion and even that bastion is falling, at least among the young.

  • 'It's what happened in South Africa': Palestine seeking sanctions against Israel at FIFA Congress
    • Expelling Israel out of FIFA will be tougher than the sporting boycott against Apartheid-SA, simply because Israel has a lot more lobbyists and billionaire backers. But we'll get there.

      As for Zionism re: Jewish life, I think this could be seen as a telling article:

      link to haaretz.com

      According to one of the communal New Zealand leaders, Zionism is now a dirty word in the country and the Jewish community has skipped any mentions of Zionism in their organizations.

      Note, too, that the same kind of brazen behaviour from the Israelis(stealing passports from New Zealand nationals) was sharply rebuked and Helen Clark's left-wing government at the time essentially frozed relations with Israel.

      That's the benefits you get by not having a significant Zionist lobby. Take heed, America, UK and Australia, take heed.

  • Pro-Israel camp blames John Kerry for breakdown of peace talks
    • The hysteria is getting worse.

      Now George Clooney's new fiance is apparently worthy of 3 pages(!) of condemnation, because Clooney is an influential Hollywood liberal and he could be influenced by his new Arab (druze) girlfriend! She's too pro-Palestinian!

      link to weeklystandard.com

      Hilarious.

  • Why the two-state solution never got anywhere
    • It is a fundamental disconnect. The reason why you had the intifadas were the occupation and Apartheid. So the uprising against Apartheid gives liberal Zionists the notion that they should give up on deepen Apartheid?

      This is what passes for "liberalism" in a Zionist context?

      Maybe now the Zionists can finally understand why most of us think there is little to no siginificant difference between Zionists, whether they are supposed "liberals" or Likudniks. (Who am I kidding?)

  • An Israeli tells American Jews they're miserable
    • Sterling even referenced Israeli racism to justify his own.

      He would probably fit in there just fine. I wouldn't be surprised if he made aliyah at the end of his life to Israel or asked to be buried there like a crook such as Marc Rich and people like him.

    • Don't blame the US for this one. The US has a lot of responsibility but it is not the prime responsibility.

      The burden of blame relies by and large with Israel.

      And the guy's arguments are really stupid. If he was really concerned with Palestinian jobs then why won't he push for them to gain real freedom? Because that's a threat to his racial privilege. No, just bread crumbs for them.

  • De Blasio mended AIPAC pander by kissing up to J Street
    • For The Nation to be calling on de Blasio to meet with J Street completely misses the point.

      Instead of pandering to either side of the Israel lobby, how about meeting with people who are interested in a genuine democracy, regardless of race or religion.

      Of course, the political price to pay for that is heavy. Which is exactly why progressive media oulets like The Nation should help pave the way for that, to cover him.

      Because if the progressive media isn't willing to do the heavy lifting, then no politician is going to move even a millimeter towards justice. As bad as BDB is here, The Nation and other progressive outlets carry a heavier burden.

  • 'NYT' correction privileges Israeli military investigation over firsthand Palestinian accounts
    • Patrick you're doing Lord's Work.

      The systematic pro-Israel/pro-Zionist bias is deep within the culture of the NYT.
      We won't be able to change that from the outside.

      But what we can do, at the very least, is to inform readers of the Times' and people who occassionally use it as a reference on I/P that such a bias exists, that it is pervasive and that their editors are very defensive about it.

      By counting all the instances, we're able to point to a body of work which anyone can feel free to go through and judge for themselves if they agree or disagree with the conclusion that the NYT does have an ingrained reflex to privilege Israeli army and ministerial sources over any other dissenting voice. As you go through all these articles, it is increasingly difficult to deny it.

  • Open recriminations begin over failure of peace talks
    • The previous owner was a really old Zionist man. This just proves that media ownership matters. Would these articles have been published otherwise?

    • Now Haaretz is jumping on the train, too, on the whole post-Newsweek story.

      link to haaretz.com

      It's front page right now. This is starting to get hilarious.

    • Peres was in large part responsible for the close alliance with Apartheid South Africa, too, so let's not forget that. He has for some reason been able to showcase a face to the world that is inconsistent with who he is. And because there is an inherent need in the Western press to find an Israeli dove, they are willing to overlook everything.

      It's often driven by nothing else than the personal crisis of senior Jewish journalists and editors own fractured liberal Zionism, and their inherent need of trying to justify it to themselves and their own self-image as liberals, and as such they need to invent people who don't exist to fulfill their own emotional fantasies and stave off the inevitable but uncomfortable questions.

      Because of this dynamic, expect people like Rudoren, Bronner or Peter Beinart for that matter to cling on to the 2SS myth forever. They will never give up, because that would plunge them into depression as a core part of their identity that is built on racial supremacism and colonization of another people will finally become inescapable.

    • All these stories just point to the fact that we are witnessing the slow but steady process of Israel being seen as a normal country in the American public discourse.

      A very, very long era is slowly coming to an end. And it wasn't a moment too soon.
      The bad old days are soon finished, and good riddance!

    • Now there is open warfare on the whole "Israel spies on the US", too.

      link to ynetnews.com

      Money quote:

      Intelligence and Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz slammed the Newsweek report [...]

      Next week Steinitz will meet with Dianne Feinstein, the Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Intelligence, to discuss the reports.

      So let me get this straight: a senior minister in the Israeli government is going to demand answers from a U.S. senator about a story in a newspaper who does not own nor cannot under any constitutional authority control or censor.

      Hysteria.

      Oh, and there's this:

      A senior diplomatic source in Jerusalem said Israel would send the US a strong message over the report, even going so far as to argue that parts of it were "tainted with a whiff of anti-Semitism."

      Honestly, who seriously thinks this is going to work this time?
      Desperation.

  • America's rabbi hoovers celebrities
    • Can't believe nobody has yet referenced his unhealthy obsession with Ms. Theron.
      Does he has his walls back home plastered with her pictures? Is she his Justin Bieber?

  • Newsweek: Extensive Israeli spying in the US kept quiet due to pressure from the lobby
    • As always with these stories, the more interesting part is the timing, not the substance.

      The substance has been known for decades, as the articles notes. But until now it has been an informal omertá on the subject.

      We can only speculate for the exact reason why it broke in this specific case, but there is the unquestionable overarching fact that Israel is slowly becomming a normal country in the American public discourse.

      Note that Israel tried the whole anti-Semitism strategy to be deployed against Newsweek, but it no longer bites. Everyone knows that Israel is guilty and everyone is tired of the smearing tactic. We have reached the point a lot of people warned about: where the attempts to smear people who talk frankly about Israel is no longer effective and if anything the attempted mudslinging helps build the case of the people who are targeted.

      They are only helping bringing more attention to the reports and they will fail in trying to bury it.

      Times have changed.

  • 'Washington Post' runs long article on Adelson's political activities without mentioning Israel
    • When people ask themselves why the MSM are losing subscribers it is not because the quality of the writing has gone down(although the length of the articles typically have).

      It is that people become much more aware, with the rise of the independent blogosphere and independent media through the internet, just how craven the MSM have always been to the rich and the powerful.

      30 years ago, without elite journalists telling us the things you tell us, that we need to hear, we wouldn't have known the backstory. We wouldn't have known the real story.
      I don't subscribe to a single newspaper. I get my general news from Reuters and the like. The NYT has some articles that interests me but I usually get by on the monthly limit.

      The real news, the backstory, is gained through websites like this or democracy now or other news outlets, not to mention highly intelligent and unbiased bloggers, like Sullivan and other less known people.

      I always laugh when I hear elite journalists lament the "end of journalism". It has never been better, but they have never been less powerful, and the two are not unrelated.

  • Using Schwerner and Goodman and the Nazis to deny the Jewish moment (privilege)
    • As for the whole debate about white privilege debate itself, the whole thing is a mess. I fundamentally disagreed about the argument he was making, he more or less wanted to ban discussions on privilege. That makes little sense.

      But there is a case to be made that there are tendencies on the left where people's skin color become more important than their arguments. Of course, your background informs your skin color, but if people automatically categorize according to skin color the first thing they do(and often the only thing they do), then it becomes a system based more on an inverted racial hierarchy to that one in the wider society, which is kind of the point in some sense, but it also assumes people are unable to transcend racial barriers, especially the intellectual ones.

      And that can become a very lazy way to argue on.

      It reminds me of a mini-debate over Suey Park's use of Michelle Malkin on Twitter. Arun Gupta wrote about it a month ago or so on HuffPo, was immediately called a "house PoC" and worse things. Blumenthal defended him, and Blumenthal in turn got accused as a "white guy doing things white guys do", i.e., somehow Blumenthal was acting out of "racial loyalty" to Gupta, a non-white and decidedly brown Indian man.

      It was a classic example of how someone was trying to dismiss Blumenthal because they were uncomfortable with him criticising Park for associating with right-wing supremacists like Malkin, and instead attacked him, basically, on the basis of his skin color.

      Conservatives like Fortgang, who wants to more or less ban any serious discussion about privilege, isn't going to succeed. But the left has a lot of work to do on identity politics, where the issue of race has become almost comical in how it used as a debate trick to try to silence people you disagree with.

    • I read Fortgang's essay. I viewed his referenced to his Jewishness as two-fold:

      First, to soften the inevitable counter-attacks. Being a white Jew is easier than being a WASP in an America where people's cultural privilege in left-wing discussions are based on the collective appraisal of their victimhood. In other words, if he were a WASP, he'd have a snowball's chance in hell. As a Jew, and referencing the Holocaust, he has a slim chance, but at least a chance. People will still write him off as a white guy with too much privilege, but there's that moment of hesitation because of his Jewishness, because of past persecution.

      And this gets to your point, that our role has changed. 30 years ago, there wouldn't be that hesitation. As a Jew you could almost identify yourself with PoC and nobody would bat an eye. The vast majority of Jews are Ashkenazi so that's out of the question now.

      The second reason why I think he referenced his Jewishness is that is his mind, at least, there is still that divide. He's an Orthodox Jew, so he comes from a milieu which is far less connected than most Jews either on this site or indeed in America overall, where we're by and large secular, which is a byword for assimiliated and cultural insiders.

  • Beinart predicts J Streeters will tackle immigration before thinking critically about Israel
    • In the early 2000s, Students for Justice in Palestine’s slogan was “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” Some progressive Jews were turned off, because it left open the question, what happens to the Jews who immigrated to Palestine and live there now? What does it mean, exactly, for Palestine to be free? I think these sorts of slogans will evolve into more inclusive chants like: “From the river to the sea, we demand equality!”

      Matthew, you seem to be buying into the myth that if Palestine is liberated then that means the end Jews in Israel. That's the same argument whites in South Africa used. If they(the blacks of SA) are liberated, whites have no place in SA!

      In other words, "liberation" becomes a code word for the threat of the end of the racial privileges they enjoyed. And "liberal" Zionists who react this way are not liberal at all. But most of us knew that. So why do you induldge them?

    • By the way, can we all agree that if the NYT is the epitome of institutional "liberal" Zionism then he who personifies it is Peter Beinart? That's the only Zionist both Abuminah and Blumenthal repeatedly reference when they are talking to progressive audiences.

      And I'd say he's the one who matters most, at least in the wider culture, which is precisely why his avoidance of the topic matters so much.
      And he keeps trying to slip away, avoiding that choice at all costs.

    • How can Beinart suggest young American Jews will ignore Israel and turn instead to pushing for progressive stance

      Beinart is basically exposing himself as a man who has no ideas once the 2SS paradigm is over. So he changes the subject.

      But he will not be forced into taking a universalist stance! He will avoid it until the last minute. And then some. Palestinians must suffer for his Zionism to flourish.

  • Abunimah and Blumenthal's freedom ride
    • Doom, doom, doom!

      Where have you been, Irish? The discourse has totally changed over the past 5 years.
      And it is due to these small, focused groups all over the country, rising in unison, questioning the common narrative.

  • Long faces at Israel's birthday party
  • Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon
    • By the way: on neocons, Putin and Israel.

      link to theweek.com

      Doughtery, who comes out of the realist Republican tradition, makes very fine points. But since he is writing for a weekly with mainstream aspirations, he has to spend the closing paragraphs trying to cover bases for political purposes.

      But either way, the hypocrisy of these neocons over Russia/Israel is staggering - and quite telling.

    • P.S. While we talk a lot about neocons as a Jewish issue, it's also important to put them in perspective. The only war that I can truly think of that they influenced was the Iraq war, which was a disaster, but it also couldn't have happened without 9/11, which was a very rare event in the history of America. You have to go back to Pearl Harbor to find something similar, and that wasn't technically a terrorist attack but rather a military attack by Japan.

      Leading up to the early 2000s, they were mostly ignored during the 1990s. They did take over the GOP media in the early 90s, using the same tactics used against Hagel, use social norms as a cover but in actuality the real reason is Israel.

      Before the 90s, in the 70s and 80s, the cold war took up all the oxygen.
      So yeah, the neocons need to be talked about. But comparing what they are trying to do with a World War is a bit of a stretch.

      Finally, talking about Israel - which Sleeper ignored - and the hardline positions that the political class in America have adopted, if you want to look who have ensured the greatest slavishness to Israel, liberal/centrist groups like ADL, AJC and AIPAC(yes, they are mostly democrats!) have played a far greater role than the neocons.

      But I guess, Sleeper wasn't dealing with that, because it would ruin his view of the neocons as the bogeymen.

      Just like "liberal" Zionists want to blame Likud for everything, overlooking the fact that Labor/Mapai has had a far greater role in settling/colonizing the Palestinian land than the right has, and not to speak about the ethnic cleansing campaigns of '48 and '67 which was only done by the "left", so too the neocons often pose as a convenient catch-all target for the collective Jewish failure leading up to Iraq.

      And I'm using the words "collective Jewish failure" because I actually don't believe, unlike Mearsheimer/Walt, that the war would not have gone ahead unless there was massive support by the Israel/Jewish lobby. If Jews had decided no, it would still have gone ahead. This is also contrary to Tom Friedman's famous saying of "50 people in DC are responsible for this war".
      I also think that's an oversimplification.

      But I focus more on the Jewish side because that's my side. And I want my community to do better, and just blaming the neocons is something I'm tired of hearing in Jewish circles. The inability to look at liberal Jewish journalists and their role in promoting the war to either gentile or Jewish audiences.

    • "Democracy in in the Middle East" was always just a weasel-word saying of "let's try to improve Israel's strategic position by changing their neighbours".

      The neocons basically took a hardline position on foreign interventionism based out of dual loyalty. This is the honest truth. For anti-Semites, a handful of neocons will always represent "The Jews" as a collective. For many Jews, the refusal to come to grips with the rise of the neocons and how the Jewish community (and really by "community" I mean the establishment) failed to prevent them in their own midst, is also a blemish.

      Of course, Jim Sleeper is doing these things now. He should have done them 15-20 years ago or so. But better late than never, I guess.

  • Palestinians remain marginalized at the New York Times
    • The NYT is still the greatest newspaper in the world, or at least the best Western newspaper. The coverage that it has on news in general is unmatched, but I/P is notoriously biased.

      And as bad as it gets, it is still better than outright shrill newspapers like WaPo or WSJ.

      The NYT merely reflects the Zionist concensus among the older, established classes in America. It is still a very Jewish paper, in no small part because it is based in New York. So of course all these things color the coverage deeply.

      We care much more about the NYT because most of us left/liberal types read it and have it as our primary news source for much of the world. And also because we recognize that the NYT sets the liberal agenda, and thus the agenda of large parts of the cultural classes, to a much greater extent than any other paper. It is also the newspaper with a huge elite readership outside the States. It has 20+ million unique visitors each month and those numbers are already several years old.

      So it isn't just important for setting the daily conversation in America, but also across much of the Western world. If the NYT turns, the entire conversation turns. And while I don't think any of us harbors any delusions that it will come on the side of human rights and democracy any time soon in Palestine, at least it should become less stridently biased towards Israel and become more neutral.

      But that process will take years and years. We may need an entire new generation of journalists, shaped in the new American liberal understanding of Israel, and what it has become(and in some ways what it always was).

Showing comments 1910 - 1901
Page: