Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2241 (since 2011-01-07 20:19:21)

Showing comments 2241 - 2201

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      link to

      Little by little the world wakes up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Anything to whitewash Israeli and Jewish apartheid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The financial terror tactic has diminished in value.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      link to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      And indeed, why not?

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

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

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

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

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

  • Front-page attack in New York Times says BDS movement is driven by minorities' 'hostility toward Jews'
    • Honestly, does anyone have any good theories of what the fuck happened to the NYT? What accounts for this far-right shift? It's amazing.

      Maybe it isn't just I/P. I was shocked to find that Marine le Pen(!) got published in the paper after Charlie Hebdo. There seems to be something broader going on right now.

    • The NYT is the most important newspaper in the US and quite possibly the Western world. It matters.

      Further, The Times' coverage of the I/P conflict is looking more and more like the Klansman's paper. Would the NYT ever run a demographic scare-mongering piece about darkskinned people who are a "hostile force" to white Apartheid supporters?

      This article clearly shows the dual standards in the West. How Jewish apartheid is somehow "different" from white Apartheid and, well, the young students across the nation aren't having it.

      And that enrages the NYT, which is a staunch Zionist paper and at this stage is probably even to the right of the WSJ(I'm barely joking) on this issue. It's moved to the far-right on I/P.

      Apartheid is Apartheid, whatever the group that benefits. This is also why it will be much more difficult to tear down Jewish Apartheid than white Apartheid; Jewish Apartheid has a lot of elite support in so-called "liberal media" that white Apartheid never had.

      And here Chomsky/Finkelstein falter. This is about Jewish sociology, this is about tribalism. Not "US imperialism" or whatever. White-ruled SA was a staunch anti-communist ally in the 70s and 80s. Didn't prevent the liberal media from taking a stand - even if it didn't benefit US imperialism.

      The difference now is palpatable. And that means the fight will take much longer, because a lot of people have their entire Jewish identity mixed up in the defence of an Apartheid state. And a lot of those people run our elite liberal media, that's just the blunt truth of the story.

      After we got to talk about AIPAC, the media is next. The same people who tried to prevent & smear the debate on AIPAC/Israel lobby will do the same on the media. But articles like these will prove the point for us.

  • 'Israel should extend the right of return to all Palestinian refugees' -- Jebreal in 'The Nation'
    • By the way, good for the Nation for finally evolving on I/P. I'm guessing Katrina's husband, who is an excellent academic and a decent human being, must have turned against Zionism. I always perceived him to be a genuinely decent human being and I guess he had a nostalgic/romantic view of Zionism but nevertheless must have changed in the past few years.

      I continue to maintain that we underestimate the effect of intermarriage in the American elites on this question. Lots of gentiles with Jewish spouses who wish to keep the house peace. I doubt that Katrina would've evolved, and the magazine with her, if her husband wasn't on board. That may sound parochial but people often underestimate the effect of parochialism. When I read history of magazine magnates, it's often striking how much their personal relations affect their world outlook. It sounds so obvious but people somehow discount it for publishers/journalists, as if they are robots.

      Now TPM needs to turn, but I'm guessing Josh Marshall will be much slower in evolving. Think Progress was spooked in 2010 after the Zionist attacks and considering how close the institution is to the Clinton campaign I doubt that they'd make any serious efforts of evolving again.

      The NYT will be the last place to evolve. They're now running in the opposite direction. To embrace Apartheid.

      History will be very harsh on the Times.

    • I'm glad you brought up the racial question.

      I've always viewed the conflict through two prisms. The first is the conventional prism - Jews and Palestinians - but the second is White and non-White.

      If you look at the Ashkenazi population(non-mixed) it's about 30% of the population inside "Israel proper", whatever it means these days. "Pure" Mizrahi are about 50% but around 70% when mixed-Mizrahi people are counted.

      And that's just the Jewish population, which is 75%. Add to that not just the 25% who are non-Jewish but also the millions who are uncounted but who are de facto ruled over by Israel in the WB and Gaza.

      What percentage of the Ashkenazi class do you end up with? Well, you get about 2 million Ashkenazim in a total population structure of around 12 million. That's about 16,67%. What was the highest percentage share of the white population in Apartheid South Africa? It must be very similar.

      What you get is a very small white elite ruling over various shades of brown. Some Jewish, a smattering of Christians and a large group of muslims. The propaganda drumbeat that the racial question is solved inside the Jewish fold was dramatically smashed this past week with the Ethiopian protests.

      The big nightmare is if the Mizrahi start to realize that they have more in common with the Palestinians than the Ashkenazi ruling class who lord over them. The media, business, academia, politics, cultural establishment, it's all there.

      In this sense Israel is perhaps a lot more alike Apartheid SA than we thought. The whites relied on a small class of Indians who were nevertheless 2nd class citizens but enjoyed some level of autonomy. It's an open question if they were treated better or worse than the Mizrahi, but ultimately it was never in question which race controlled the country and that group would never cede space - unless forced to.

  • Netanyahu deputy charged with administering Palestinians says they are 'beasts, not human'
    • And WaPo continues to show that despite being a centrist newspaper, it's actually to the left of the NYT when it comes to Jewish apartheid.

      And the NYT has gone hard-right. Not just right, but far right, on Israel/Palestine.

    • Page: 22
  • No Palestinians need apply to new Israeli government-- and American liberals don't notice
    • Just me or has the NYT veered from centrist to right-wing on Israel?

      They had a left-wing phase around 2009-2011. Then came the centrist phase.

      Those days are long gone. Now you get much better coverage from even the supposedly right(ish) Washington Post from their Jerusalem correspondent.

      Can you imagine the Pinkwashing Op-Ed that ran in the NYT a few years ago to run today? Impossible, right? That's how far right the NYT has shifted. It's like the whole Sodastream affair. When the heat goes real, the masks are slipping and the true face reveals itself. All those "liberal" Zionists all lined up for Sodastream, one by one.

      P.S. For those unfamilliar with the Pinkwashing Op-Ed, here's what I mean:

      link to

      Again, it's very hard to imagine that Op-Ed to run in today's Times. That's how far right - or even hard-right - that they have moved in defence of Jewish apartheid.

      Just four years. Amazing how fast it changed. What explains it?

  • Netanyahu’s coalition: Who’s in, who’s out
    • The critical point here is that Herzog has refused to categorically rule out sitting in a coalition.

      In other words: he wants it.

      His party tried to introduce a motion at a party gathering but he killed it, this was right after the elections.

      Bibi is absolutely leaving the door open. If Herzog accepts being #2, he'll join. But I don't think he will. He'll wait for Bibi's fragile coalition to be tumbling down and then he will count on Bibi to cave, just like Bibi caved to Bennett.

      That's not a bad strategy, but I think he'll find it hard to stop the movement towards new elections once it starts. The right-wing will feast and gore on Bibi's flesh. Both Bennett and Lieberman will both gain share of the right-wing vote and Bibi's credibility after cozying up with Herzog would have been destroyed. No more last-minute rants against Arabs would save him then.

      Overall, I think Bennett and company will rush through their bills on NGOs, the media, the judiciary etc as fast as they can. They know their time is limited.

  • 'Most reactionary government in Israel's history' -- when will liberal Zionists hit bottom?
    • Let's not forget that Peter openly stated that he's fine for Palestinians not to have equal rights, he said so in an interview with Cpl. Goldberg a few years ago.

      On the issue of the whole "liberal" Zionist debate: don't count on a left-wing takeover in the next election! I also think this will be a shortlived government. Bibi has no real challenger from within but we could well see a butchering of Likud in the next election. Lieberman would benefit and so would Bennett.

      The fundamental point is that the so-called "left" has no viable coalition since they continue to practice Apartheid in government coalitions(no Arabs!).

      As Blumenthal likes to say: Netanyahu occupies the hollow middle. He is the most moderate guy in Likud these days. The rest of the pack has left. Rivlin is hated by his own party these days, so is Benny Begin.

      P.S. I'm betting we'll see Oren become Foreign Minister. A natural fit for the guy. Herzog would have done well there, too. (Herzog refused to rule out a coalition at a recent Labor party event, which I think is an important fact to keep in mind when you read his theatrical denouncements of Netanyahu today).

  • MSM's platform for Pamela Geller is equivalent to normalizing David Duke and Nazis
    • The comparison with Holocaust denial is really halting.

      Remember that Geller wouldn't have received this coverage if the event wouldn't have been attacked. The only reason this story didn't explode more is because she understood the risks and armed the event to the teeth. Had she not, we could easily have seen a mass slaughter.

      If the event wouldn't have been attacked at all, nobody would have bothered to have interviewed her. The reason why this is an issue is the persistent prescence of violence around Islam. You've had a lot of anti-Christian stuff, like piss Christ to just name one, but there have been many others. Christians, at least Evangelical Christians, are routinely attacked in ways that are often designed for maximum humiliation. Yet nobody worries about Christian terrorism that targets people who attack Christianity.

      Yes, yes, "tiny minority" etc, but it is still true. Whenever there is an event attacking Islam - even if those attacks are immature, as they often are - the specter of violence is always in the background. The whole point of these attacks is to induce a very heavy price on people. Security cost more than 10K. How many people can afford that? Most people just wouldn't pay that sum. And if you can't pay that sum and you still persist, you'll pay with your life, like the people at Charlie Hebdo. This is what you attack.

      And who is to say what is offensive? What scale are we using? Are you and I experts on Islam? Even the muslims who are offended are offended by varying degrees. There's no concensus.

      Further, there have been large amounts of polls indicating that mainstream support for pretty extremist ideas are quite widespread in Muslim-majority countries. Like the support for death for leaving Islam, overwhelming support in supposedly "moderate" countries like Egypt.

      The reason we get a person like Geller is that any rational and reasonable debate has already been vacated by other people who are indeed terrified of attacking Islam, and for very good reason. This means that we either get no criticism at all or shills like Geller, which ends up doing no good at all, because if people like Geller becomes the face, then even more reasonable people will turn away (and rightly so).

      And the net result is that things like honor culture, intolerance of difference of opinion and anti-Semitism, which are all flourishing in the Arab muslim world in particular, gets no real scrutiny until an event like this, when it all comes up to the surface because it can't be ignored anymore, and then it recedes quietly until the next (inevitable) attack.

      Finally, I do agree that Geller's "war with Islam" is dumb. But I refuse a simplistic dichotomy which is either "you accept the premises of an extremist of Geller" or the simplistic any real criticism of Islam is by necessity "Islamophobia" pushed by muslim activists. Both are stupid and the only difference between the left and the right is which side of stupid they are on in this debate.

  • Spanish Jews resisted oppression in tunnels and, exiled, clutched their keys
    • Yes, seconded.

      Although I don't see why the muslims should be allowed citizenship. They came there as invaders and colonizers. The Jews didn't.

      It's like giving honorary citizenship to people whose families were expelled as crusaders. That the muslims had a cultural production that was significant is beside the point. The "our culture is/was superior" argument is a colonial argument, whether used in Spain or in colonial America.

      They came there with the intent of conquest and it was right that the colonizers were expelled.

  • Night of horror at Ben Gurion airport for two French music students
  • Haneen Zoabi's power and vision (and answers to Theodore)
    • If you want to expose a liberal Zionist just bring them to debate Zoabi. She is relentless. The mask falls off right away and we'll get rants like Avi Shavit's "you're worse than the Palestinians, you want full democracy" attack on Gideon Levy.

      100% of the "liberal" Zionists support Apartheid but the pressure on them is never so great as to expose it. Zoabi would help in that. I hope she does annual tours in America.

  • Obama's role model to journalists -- Dorothy Thompson -- turned against Zionism and was silenced
    • Let me add to the heaps of praise that has been showered on you already for bringing her to our attention.

      I, too, like so many others here have not heard of her at all until now. Now I know why! It's also interesting to see that the common perception that Zionism really started to turn after '67 in America was untrue. The Zionist lobby was strong already back then and this doesn't square with the mythology that Jews were unempowered in the WWII and immediate aftermath of it.

      It's a shame to see how a brilliant career could be ended just because she chose to speak truth to power.

  • One rocket from Gaza outweighs 6 Israeli incursions and 67 attacks
    • For me, this is one of the key issues highlightning how the struggle against Jewish apartheid is different than the struggle against white Apartheid.

      There seems to be an idea that Jews can't quite do it, and furthermore, there is a lot of journos in the West who support Jewish apartheid, like Jodi Rudoren and half the NYT, which backs up Jewish apartheid in a way that white Apartheid never was in the elite media.

      This is central to understanding how people can be so misinformed for so long on this issue. Apartheid didn't last much more than 50 years and even after 20, it was largely discredited. By 30 it was a landslide. Yet Jewish apartheid is now pushing 50 years and even now most of the Western media won't even describe it as such.

      For me that is stunning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Which is quite an achievement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      This is why "liberal" Zionism is morally bankrupt.

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

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

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

      What a sad moral abdication.

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

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

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

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

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

      link to

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

      Whether in Israel or at the JCC.

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

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

      More likely will be people like Donna Edwards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The lobby is over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      link to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tipping point?
    • P.S.

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

      link to

    • 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 2241 - 2201