Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2516 (since 2011-01-07 20:19:21)

Showing comments 2516 - 2501

  • Tel Aviv housecleaning service advertises higher rates for European help than Africans
    • But remember, Beinart and the other "liberal" Zionists keep telling us about this fairyland called "democratic Israel". It's a total myth, of course.

      Israel within the green lines is a Jim Crow state. This is why the obsession with the West Bank and the 2SS is reproduced for the same reason Netanyahu kept the Iran deal on the table for as long as possible: to divert from the real issue. In Netanyahu's case it was the occupation/Apartheid, and for the "liberal" Zionists it's to divert from Jim Crow.

      Zionism is racism.

  • Adelson-owned newspaper denies Rubio endorsement came from Adelson
    • Wasn't there news floating around that Adelson had given Cruz 5 million, either to his super pac or his campaign? Maybe just a test balloon in case Rubio collapsed in NH(while it now looks like there will be a three-way race in the GOP).

      Anyway, this is very predictable. Rubio is the establishment puppy, just like Clinton. It won't help, because the GOP can't win elections anymore, but in a sense I hope he gets the nomination. It would seriously plunge the party into deep crisis when he (inevitably) loses, thereby making sure we get endless Trumps and Cruzes, and as a result permanent WH control and possibly even permanent congressional control after the 2020 gerrymandering.

  • Video: Sanders's campaign fact-checks Clinton's 'smear' defense with Elizabeth Warren charges
    • Stop whining about these political articles, most of the readership are interested in them. We're mostly to the left of center here, and everyone is engaged in the primary.

      I just don't understand how anyone can support Hillary after knowing the full facts. I can understand if you're not informed but the woman is totally bought and paid for. By Wall Street and by the Israel lobby.

      Get engaged and make sure she doesn't get the nod. Remember, due to demographics, whoever wins the democratic nomination is going to get the WH.

  • 'New York Times' picks up Bernie Sanders's 'socialist' kibbutz but leaves out the ethnic cleansing
    • Yeah, Bernie's probably the most right-wing in his close family on Zionism, but when you're around people who are in JVP and are pro-BDS, that's much better than when you are selling your soul for shekels, in the case of Clinton slaving away for Saban. Literally, she's the tool of monied interests, Wall Street will control her domestically and the Israel lobby will control her Middle Eastern foreign policy.

      For people who keep claiming "they are just the same", I literally don't understand how someone can say that in the face of the facts.

  • Pro-Israel group wants to send army colonel to your campus to explain battle for west's 'way of life'
    • It’s about a war that we are fighting as the front outpost of the west

      And here you have the pro-Israel pitch distilled. This is why they have allied themselves so tightly to the neocons and the clash of civilizations view. It's why analysts at their war colleges are writing Op-Eds in Jerusalem Post and other papers that the rise of nationalist parties in Europe can potentially be good because Israel can sell itself as an ally against a war on Islam.. oh, sorry, I meant radical Islam!

      And lastly, this is why the BS from Zionists that "Israel is singled out" doesn't make sense. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the other states don't claim to be Western. Israel does. And Israel gets far more money than they do.

      It also speaks volumes about where Israel feels it belongs, culturally, and it's sure as hell not in the region. The reason why BDS scares the shit out of so many Jewish Zionists is because they know the West has a ton of leverage over Israel, and most of that leverage is not about money but cultural identity and belonging, two things far more powerful.

  • Bernie Sanders' spirituality is resonating with young religious 'None's
    • Bernie should just admit he's an atheist/agnostic. It's obvious he is one, but he still is scared of that stigma.

      BTW, Chris Matthews gives you a skewed sense of the media. Anderson Cooper has been very harsh on Clinton(I suspect because of DOMA) and very nice to Sanders. Morning Joe has been amazing to Sanders. The worst have been the old elite media, the NYT and WaPo. Krugman has been an atriocious shill for Clinton.

      P.S. That New Yorker article tried so badly to tap into the discredited "BernieBros" meme. Bernie wins huge among young women, but my guess is that women who wrote that article comes from a privileged background where Bernie's economic agenda induces fear and ridicule. We'll see who wins in the end. Even if Hillary gets the nod, it's obvious in which direction the democratic party is going.

      P.P.S. I recommend everyone watch the Townhall in Derry, N.H. It was a really good event, with plenty of time for long and extended answers and no artificial deadlines. I skipped Hillary's event because why bother with a Wall St shill? But Bernie's event was the best introduction to the man I've yet seen if you're still on the fence.

  • Define 'establishment candidate': Rubio and Clinton both love Netanyahu
    • I confess to be a Sanders supporter, so I'm naturally biased, but I do not think it's correct to assume that he'll be on the same level as Hillary. Progress takes time. If Sanders would by some small miracle get the nomination, he'd be better than Obama on I/P without any question, but he'd still be pretty terrible on the issue.

      Hillary would notch up the slaving to a whole 'nother level. Sanders wouldn't outright go for BDS, but I don't think he's the kind of person who swears personal loyalty to Saban on BDS. I doubt he'd get involved in the campus wars.

      Remember when some Palestinan activists got thrown out from a Sanders rally(by a Jewish Zionist volunteer from the looks of it) for comparing Ferguson to Gaza? Sanders' campaign immediatedly clarified that they were welcome back and she got fired.

      Now imagine if it had been Clinton. She'd have applauded them getting kicked out and would probably even run off to her Zionist donors trying to fundraise off the issue while it was still hot. Also, since Sanders is Jewish, it would give cover to criticise Israel more for those with weak spines in the liberal press(meaning, most of them).

    • I don't focus so much on the GOP primary. The press loves a horse race, but demographically the GOP is already finished. I kind of hope that Rubio wins, because it will show that the mythological "moderate" hispanic candidate who embraces amnesty and endless foreign wars is never going to win an election.

      That's why I keep donating to Sanders, because the real election is right now. Whoever gets the democratic nod gets the White House. Those are the rules now. The U.S. is turning into one large California, permanent democratic control.

      That being said, it was obvious from 3000 miles away that Hillary was going to be slavish to Israel in a way that even Obama never was. This is why I've been calling for the understanding that even if the grassroots are gone for the lobby, it will take a decade or more for this to make a significant impact.

      Secondly, the most powerful aspect of the lobby isn't AIPAC or J Street, it's the media. Look at this attack from someone who is often understood as a liberal against Sweden's FM for daring to criticise Israel:

      link to

      This is a guy who has built a reputation of taking on the settlers. This is classic, virtue signalling by taking on the (easy) targets of the settler youth, but whenever there is any *real* pressure on Israel, they all fall back into line, shoulder to shoulder, defending Israel to death.

      This media presence is what separates white Apartheid from Jewish apartheid. Nobody defended white Apartheid in the Western media in the 70s and 80s aside from a few token examples. The opposite is the case on Israel.

      Basically the Jewish establishment in the media has to be taken on, and nobody is willing to do that because A) there is no critical mass, and nobody wants to be the martyr and B) many of the pre-supposed critics are already in relationships with members of the Jewish establishment, either as spouses or as close friends. The reality is that the Palestinian presence is virutally nil in the U.S. media so there's simply no contest there and most of the non-Jews in the media are too cowardly to call out their Jewish friends/spouses on their racism vis-a-vis Jewish Apartheid/Palestinians. You see this all the time.

      The white establishment has merged, we see that with Trump(two of his kids have Jewish spouses, his doctor and some of his closest advisors are Jews), Clinton(self-explanatory) and of course Bernie, who is fully assimilated but who nevertheless retains a sentimental attachment to Zionism. Neither of the people in that establishment will call out the Jews in their circles. Who in Bernie's circle is going to stand up to him? Now think about the same situation in the media.

      People underestimate the importance of sociology and personal relationships. So even if I agree with those that say that we can't wait for the Jewish community to rid themselves of the racism, my counter is that many of the elites are already very comfortable with Jews in general and aren't comfortable at all with Palestinians(as brown muslims).

      Ultimately, what helped white Apartheid to fall is that white liberals turned against it, especially in the media and in the universities. Until elite Jewish liberals in the media/academia turn against Jewish apartheid, nobody in their circle will force them. The only way out I can see is a critical mass of muslim activists, but right now they are too few and too weak and most of them are dealing with issues of Islamophobia in the U.S.

      My guess is that most of these Jewish elites will unlikely find their anti-racist voice because for so many of them, Zionism is basically what their identity revolves around. As Max Blumenthal said (somewhat acidly), remove Zionism and they are just another conventional white liberal. They have no other identity aside from Zionism that set them apart from their Christian white liberal counterparts.

  • Generational sea change within the Democratic party will also include policy towards Israel
    • Good, data-driven analysis. I would add, however, that Obama won 57% of the youth vote in the Iowa 2008 caucuses but that vote was also distributed over a MUCH wider field of candidates than the three in Iowa(and in reality, just two major ones).

      So if it had been just Obama and Hillary in 2008, Obama would likely have gotten numbers close to that 84% and yet would that have signified a lot of change in the coming years after his election?

      Don't get me wrong, I agree with your general premise. I just caution at the immediacy of the argument, because the young would have chosen Obama at similar levels in 2008 had the field been much narrower and it didn't do much on the issue for the next eight years. Really, it will take at least a decade until this becomes a general election issue. You guys have your work cut out for you in spreading more information to liberal grassroots.

  • Israeli designer eroticizes the Palestinian keffiyeh
    • But entirely predictable.

      Israeli Jewish society has tried to steal Palestinian culture for a long time now, just look at their attempt to steal food culture like hummus and bizarrely claim its their own.

      It's like the white settlers of America, who took in Native American mythology and tried to make it part of their culture, whether it is naming helicopters Apache and Chinook or football teams like the Red Skins(there are many more examples).

      Both are instances of a nervous settler-colonial population with thin roots to the region who try to cover that fact up with blatant theft of the native culture.

      This is disgusting - but entirely expected.

  • 'I cannot support Israel as long as Netanyahu is in office'-- many American Jews are saying
    • Even though I am an anti-Zionist, I largely agree with your thesis. This whole "coming break" isn't coming.

      It's another episode of shoot-and-cry Zionism; we've seen this movie countless times.

      When the chips are down, all these "liberal" Zionists line up behind Apartheid. If Netanyahu would lose the next election and a Labour leader would take over, soften the rhetoric but continue the fundamental project, all these shoot-and-cry Zionists would stop their bleating and attack anyone who dares to criticise Jewish apartheid as "anti-Semitic" and so on.

      I'm tired of seeing these delusional posts from Phil. He does them as therapy, because he himself does not want to believe just how firmly Zionist the Jewish community(at least his generation) truly is. He does not want to accept that so many of them are total hypocrites on the issue of race and nationalism, that they are only holding their positions in the U.S. because it benefits them as a minority community but that Israel is what exposes their true political leanings.

      We were supposed to see I/P become an election issue this primary as well. Didn't happen, as many of us warned. I repeat: if white Apartheid had even 10% of the support that Jewish apartheid has today in the media/donor class, Mandela would have been assassinated a long time ago and Afrikaaners would still be in power today.

      It's becoming increasingly clear that Jewish apartheid has much wider support than white Apartheid ever managed to have, and that Jewish support for Apartheid is almost unbreakable in comparison. Phil may not like that, but that's the reality.

  • After 'tepid' welcome at Israeli Embassy, Obama's pro-Israel speech brought down the house
    • I'm surprised you skipped over the most important part of his speech:

      when voices around the world veer from criticism of a particular Israeli policy to an unjust denial of Israel’s right to exist,

      Does a settler-colonial Apartheid state 'deserve to exist'?
      Obama saying this in 2016 is like saying in 1986 that the white-ruled Apartheid South Africa is being a victim of unfair attacks on its legitimacy. And that's probably an unfair comparison to Apartheid South Africa.

      Let us never forget that this is a key part of Obama's legacy. And whenever he talks about race and racism, never forget this part of his speech.

      As I've said many times: if white Apartheid had even 10% of the support of Jewish apartheid in the media and in the donor class, Mandela would have been killed in a prison a long time ago and the Afrikaaners would still have been in power.

  • In his war on Sanders supporters, Krugman forgets about Iraq
  • Iraq war hangover is fueling anti-establishment candidates
    • Interesting column from Buchanan. I've always viewed the GOP's dominance with working-class whites as a form of racial politics.

      The problem for the white working-class is that they either had a party, the democrats, which essentially sided with the ethnic lobbies like La Raza against the economic interests of their base and the GOP, which has always been controlled by the Chamber of Commerce, and the plutocratic interests it represents(cheap labour).

      This was all compounded by a press which attacked anyone discussing immigration as a "nativist". I think its fair to say quite a number of people who pushed for open borders did so out of their own racial self-interest. I've remarked, and so have people like Max Blumenthal, that a lot of Jewish Zionists who are very liberal on immigration in America are VERY hardline on (non-Jewish) immigration for Israel.

      Pat Buchanan isn't a liberal, and I view him as a social reactionary, but I can nevertheless appreciate his honesty. The people who attacked him and tried to drive him out of the establishment(and largely succeeded) are hypocrites. People like Kristol, Podhoretz etc. And yes, there is an ethnic angle here. Those people were motivated in large part by Jewish nationalism, how to safeguard the Jewish interests(as they saw it) in America, which means a nation which is diverse and highly accomodative to minorities. I agree with that, but I don't see how you can push for that vision in America but the opposite in Israel and claim you're for a liberal democracy, when your support largely hinges on whether you're in a majority or in a minority.

      As for Biden's warnings, I saw a similar warning coming from Hague in the Telegraph a few days ago. One is a leftist, the other a rightist, but those labels matter far less than if they are a globalist or not. That's also what unites Sanders and Trump, even if they are quite different, both have a deep skepticism toward foreign intervention, towards the so-called "free trade deals" which mostly meant outsourcing American blue-collar work and a large range of issues where the global Western elites are largely in agreement.

      The dividing line in Western politics is no longer right vs left, but establishment vs non-establishment, interventionist or non-interventionist. This is what the elites fear. Their "concensus", which was always a top-down castle made out of sand, is falling apart before their eyes.

  • Obama kisses up to foreign leaders who lobbied against his signature achievement
    • BTW, a general comment on Obama. I believe Tavis Smiley's criticism of Obama was basically correct. Obama did nothing for black people, which is ironic, considering how much the GOP right demonized him as somekind of Nation of Islam covert operative.

      But it's not like Obama has been sucking up to white people either. In the end, he's mostly comfortable among the coastal Jewish establishment. He even joked a bunch of J Street Jews were his "cabal". He has said to Axelrod that he's the closest thing to a Jewish president the country ever got. (Delusional, but still telling of his mindset).

      With hindsight, it shouldn't be so strange after all. He even complained to past girlfriends that he doesn't have a single black bone in his body. The Jewish community is still a monolithically white community, but since it is a liberal, urban and highly educated one, it is easier for Obama to fit in. And then you have the religious/ethnic minority factor.

      Even if American anti-Semitism is a fiction at this stage, which is why the ADL is all about Israel(they lose a purpose to exist otherwise), it nevertheless give some contact of reference for someone like Obama.

      He can go back to his white roots, the community he was raised in, but still seperate himself within an ethnic minority community.

      You saw this during the 2011-2012 years when the black community was devasted. Obama just kept lecturing black people to "take off their slippers" and other stuff a white republican president would never get away with. Although I'm grateful for the ACA and the less-atrocious foreign policy than would have happened under a McCain or a Romney, Obama in so many ways was never really a change candidate in the same way that Sanders is. And as many pointed out, the actual difference between him and Clinton were never really large, which is why it makes sense he has essentially endorsed her.

    • Page: 25
    • I don't really understand why the Israel lobby was so nuts against Obama in his early years. He has proven himself a loyal tool of the lobby. Not a total tool like Dubya and Bill Clinton, but more or less pliant. Maybe they have become so arrogant that anything less than complete servility is now seen as hostility?

      Either way, I/P will not become an election issue until 2024. The liberal educated base have already moved on, but its still concentrated among the young. The older folks are still totally shitting their pants about upsetting their Jewish peers. Plus half of them sleep with Jewish spouses and need to keep the house peace.

      Consider it in a way like the Howard Dean movement in 2004. It took slightly over a decade for it to mature into the Sanders movement, now it's a genuine force. It has continually forced Clinton to the left and will continue to do so as the primary process moves on. Even if Sanders will lose(which isn't as assured as it was a few months ago), it's clear of which direction the party base is taking.

      We saw the early rumblings of change during the 2010-2013 years on I/P, especially on campuses. Now it's a done deal. We need to wait a decade for this to mature. As usual, you're too optimistic, Phil. But your fundamental instinct is correct, just a matter of being wrong on timing.

    • If your definition of "vast majority" is the party/media establishment, sure. Have you been reading the latest polls from Brookings? Absent a 2SS, the democratic base would favor a secular, binational state by crushing margins. This is what the Dennis Ross' of the world fears; a wake-up among the liberal base, because they know they can't sell Apartheid.

      This is why the 2SS will always live on, even in a comatose state, because it has to, for the sake of Jewish apartheid.

  • Dennis Ross says Clinton was the only president to stamp down anti-Israel forces inside the White House
    • My guess is that we'll find Mr. Ross nested in a new Clinton administration within a year in his usual capacity.

      Israel's lawyer never sleeps!

      He'll continue to claim that the 2SS is alive and well, but the democratic base has moved on and now understands Apartheid as they see it.

      Dennis Ross will continue to claim that the 2SS is just around the corner 20 years from now. He'll be the last man on earth to continue to insist that, unable to discern the mocking tone of his audience.

  • 'Maximum Jews, minimum Palestinians' -- Yair Lapid is the pretty face of ultranationalism
  • Kerry and Shapiro bring the one-state news the NYT failed to deliver
  • 'NYT's next Jerusalem chief routinely offers Israel as a model for American conduct
    • I'm shocked people are shocked that the bias continues.

      Listen peeps: as long as the majority-owner of the NYT is a committed Zionist, it doesn't matter who the journalists on the ground are, because they know there is only one opinion that counts, and that is the opinion of the owner/publicist. Same is true with the Murdoch media. Everyone knows what the agenda is, they all know the unspoken rules.

      When will people learn this? The Sulzbergers are what Mearsheimer called The New Afrikaaners. They will never, ever give up the dream of Jewish apartheid. Simple as that.

  • The sons of Sa'ir
  • Knesset anti-BDS meeting reveals Israeli fear of isolation
    • I've been making the same point for years now. BDS is ultimately not going to defeat Israel economically, but the hope is to create a strong cultural isolation. That's what broke South Africa. They could manage with the economic sanctions and the like, but it was the total boycott from a cultural/social perspective that they couldn't endure.

      Israel might, in part because while it sees itself as part of the West, its dominant group, Ashkenazhi Jews, have a very troubled and double-edged relationship with Western civlization. There's plenty of fodder in history to point at if you want to delegitimize it in order to go at it alone.

      In a sense, the Arab Jews can do this a lot better than the Ashkenazi, because the Arab Jews have never had a problem in fitting in with the surrounding. It's the Ashkenazi ruling class that has nowhere else to go, culturally, than the West.

  • Goodbye to all that (my Jewish-WASP shtik)
    • The racism against Jews of Color is still very strong. Name me a single major Jewish institution headed by one.

      Pew says that only 5% of Jews are non-white. I view that figure as comical if not tragical. It reminds me of Hispanics who are very clearly brown yet demand to be identified as white, out of self-denial if not self-hatred.

      I forget the name of the organization, but there was one advocacy group which tries to represent Jews of Color and they estimated that the figure was around 20%. If you look at Jewish day schools in New York, there are plenty of dark people of varying complexion.

      There's a price to be paid for all of this. Children of interracial marriages move away from Judaism, seeing a monolithic bloc which sees whiteness as synomymous with Jewishness.

      Non-Jewish, especially black, converts, being treated as maids, questioned why they are even there and who are treated as frauds on a daily basis.

      No, I don't share your optimism. While the reconstructionist movement and the reform movement may be very tolerant, it's the orthodox who are powering through the big organisations, like AIPAC. Their views on race are known to all, and they have no liberal fig leafs and no desire to hide their views to anyone.

    • This has been a long time coming. I've been teasing in the comments about how integrated the Jewish/WASP elite classes are, how they have melded into one, and how the old conflicts of the past make no sense at all.

      It's all a big white liberal establishment now, they're all intermarried and your cultural background is of no importance anymore.

    • That's probably true in the underclass, but I am also troubled by the unrestrained hatred against the white working class from the elites.

      I've never been a fan of victimhood olympics; it's completely okay to say that one group has more priviliges than another, yet at the same time acknolowedge racism against both groups. This isn't a zero sum game.

      Maybe it's because I've been reading about Iraq and the rise of ISIS lately. Smart people have no trouble in understanding the rise of ISIS in part because of the Shiite sectarianism of al-Maliki. Now, with the recent capture of Ramadi, led by Sunni tribal troops instead of Iranian-backed Shia militias, the notion that all, if not most, Sunni Iraqis are pro-ISIS has been shattered.

      I view Trump the same way. He is a vehicle for genuine concerns, and instead I see total demonization and a casual indulgence in racist rhetoric ("redneck", "white trash" etc). This isn't going to end well.

      It's not hard for Western analysts to be smart about these issues in Iraq, but all of the sudden, people lose 50 IQ points when it's happening at home. No understanding, just demonization.

      The NYT Magazine is running articles calling whiteness a "moral problem". This is reminicent of white racists saying that "black culture" is the root cause of the devastation they face in their neighbourhoods.

      From where I stand, white elites are generally sympathetic to the black cause, as evidenced by the swift response to the demands at universities this year and the sympathetic coverage BLM has gotten.

      Islamophobia is still not there yet, but Trump has shaken up a lot of illusions and shown that it's deep among the ruling class. The casual hatred of the white working class, and the rampant demonization of it, is next.

  • Trump calls out Clinton for her support for Israel's separation wall
    • Atlanta, Trump has no chance in hell to win the presidency. In fact, no GOP:er has.

      link to

      The 2016 will be a bloodbath for the Republican party. And good riddance, I say. I don't mind a genuine conservative opposition, I don't want a neocon-ruled corporate-controlled party.

      I hope the neocons who have mused about a third party will do what they threaten to do, to create a third party. They will watch their support plummet immediatedly to Lindsay Graham levels and hopefully they can stay in the purgatory, forever.

      As for affirmative action, I've long been in favor of moving it to class over race. It makes no sense that poor asians/whites don't get in while privileged offspring of black ivy league parents get in on the basis of their race.

      Furthermore, current AA policy also empowers groups that are not disadvantaged at all, like Jews:

      link to

      But I doubt AA will ever be dismantled at the national level, instead we will see a piece-by-piece approach where some states like Nebraska demolish it and states like Michigan severely curtails it while others double down on it.

    • Trump has thus far chosen his targets carefully. It's "okay" to bash Mexicans and muslims in U.S. discourse - but not blacks or Jews.

      He has stayed away from blacks, even publicly backing affirmative action(a nod to their cultural power in the U.S, open anti-black racism has a very steep price).

      He's not going after Jews here per se, but rather Zionism but in his own weird way. He actually supports all that Israel is doing, but he is threatening the self-image of these supporters of Apartheid as "liberals".

      That is his greatest sin, and why the establishment will go out to utterly destroy him in 2016.
      They will succeed but the danger here isn't that he will win - he won't - but that he will fundamentally expose their hypocrises for all to see so that once he's down, he's taken down the rest of the bigots with him. Such as Clinton and a ton of "liberals" in the media(Goldberg, Chait, Remnick, et al). They will fight for their life to preserve their status as "liberals" and try to maintain support for Jewish Apartheid and Trump will threaten that, by showing how alike he and support for Israel is(including Labor Israel).

  • Nate Silver should stop calling Israel a democracy
  • Suddenly, comparing Jewish state to ISIS is OK
    • And as always, this kind of analysis is verboten in America, because the lobby always wants to protect Israel at every turn, and by extention, the special relationship.

  • Novel featuring Palestinian-Jewish romance threatens 'Jewish identity,' Israeli gov't rules
    • I wouldn't be so surprised that there wouldn't be an outrage.

      After all, establishment Jewish groups have made a crusade against intermarriage for decades now, even as they teach their children to speak out against white Christians who are against interracial marrage as intolerant or worse.

      So living in a nation that is open to mixing and difference as a minority and supporting an ethnosupremacist Apartheidstate is not really that different in light of previous hypocrisy.

      My question is: when will we stop actually allowing these people to be called liberals? They're not liberals. And furthermore, they never were in the first place.

  • 'Lunatic/Marco Rubio for President,' is Rubio's title for his latest ad
    • The last gasp of the neocon establishment in the GOP. They never cared for America as much as they cared for Israel. I'll be enjoying their rot.

      It's strange that the non-interventionists won faster in the GOP than in the democrats. But it'll come to the democrats, too.

      Obama won in part because of his opposition to the Iraq war. Bernie is far, far more popular among the young grassroots. The future of the Democratic party is clear: non-interventionism and democratic socialism. Clinton may prolong that transition, but it's coming nonetheless. The neocon establishment is dying.

      And it turns out there will be no refuge in either party.

  • Israeli ambassador flings Nazi label at Israeli leaders, after latest authoritarian step
    • You make one fundamental error. You assume there is any distinction between the WB and "minor" Israel.

      As Israel's tuffle with Brazil shows, they don't make that distinction. Why should we?

      In Greater Israel(or Greater Palestine, if you'd like), it's about 50/50 and the Palestinians are growing faster. Yes, I count Gaza too because when Israel has a level of control where it can even restrict your calorie count then you essentially control the place.

      Your link to antiwar was fascinating. I'm sure they'll get away with it. They have so far. And we can also be sure that "liberal" Zionists will keep claiming that the 2SS is still possible even after those 55,000 settlement units.

    • Remnick has said that the "situation is tragic" for many years now.
      Doesn't prevent him from inviting Ari Shavit and praising him to the heavens.

      Let's dump these "liberal Zionists". Even if they all went pro-BDS tomorrow, they must still account for their crimes up until today, as they have fanatically blocked any real resolution, or even any meaningful pressure, up until now.

      It's too easy to blame the Adelsons of the world, he had plenty help from self-described "liberals" like Remnick/Beinart/Goldberg/Chait and of course the Sulzbergers.

  • Brazil and Israel square off in diplomatic showdown over settler envoy
    • Remember, the only reason - the only reason! - why Israel feels it has the impunitiy to do this is because of unlimited backing from the U.S.

      In a world without blind U.S. support - aided by the Israel lobby - this kind of behaviour would never happen, because Israel would have to fight for its friends.

      Still, as Brazil goes, so goes Latin America. Israel is burning bridges at an astonishing speed.

  • After 10 years of ignoring an important story, 'NYT' finally gets to 'Breaking the Silence'
    • The truth is that BtS is not a very radical organisation.

      They often oppose real sanctions and anything that will put real pressure on the regime. I'm not surprised that NYT chooses to profile them now. BtS is the epitome of the failed "reform from within" fantasy.

      That the NYT failed to do even that during the Rudoren Regime was just another piece to the puzzle just how racist/right-wing she was. Don't forget the glowing profiles of Israeli generals in charge of controlling the Palestinian occupation, comparing them to philosophers. Or the positive profiles of settlers, detailing their fine wine collection and their good taste in art.

      If that is how low the bar has been set, then you can do almost anything and still come across as a liberal.

      No, BtS is not enough now. The NYT has a lot of filth to account for, and we shouldn't expect their Apartheid apologism to fundamentally end.

      Remember that it's the owner of the paper which decides the direction and the Zionism of the Sulzbergers have not abated one bit.

      P.S. Citizen, I take no pleasure in viewing you in lesser light henceforth but I have no choice to do so since I am slightly disgusted you would even take the arguments of pro-Apartheid racists worthy of consideration, even going as far as trying to take time out of your life to disprove their argument, like a submissive dog. Disgusting - and disappointing. I thought you were better.

  • Congress seeks to undermine Iran deal by linking Iran with ISIS
    • I view this legislation as blowback, yes, but also a kind of after-payment from the U.S. Congress. The Israel lobby wanted to shoot down the deal. Now it gets these late, last-minute "gifts" for the holidays.

      10 years from now it will get nothing. 20 years from now it will be gone.

    • Good comment. The regimes attacking ISIS are brutal dictatorships but we've come to the point in the Middle East where all major sides are evil - it's only a question of supporting a lesser evil.

      This will hopefully pass one day, but any remaining delusions about exporting Jeffersonian democracy by the end of a barrel or from 10,000 ft above ground is by now a shattered carcas.

    • Don't forget that Israel has been treating wounded warriors of the al-Nusra Islamist group, a thuggish Islamist army almost as savage and brutal as ISIS.

      Yet we will not read that in the U.S. press - precisely because it undercuts Israel's saintly image.

    • Let me guess, your heart aches every single hour of the day for the Iranians and of course the solution is a coup.

      That all of this would destabilise the primary peer competitor of Israel in the region has of course nothing to do with it.

      Cut the crap, we all know you don't give two shits about Iran if it weren't for Israel.
      The neocon fairy tales, using liberal flowery rhetoric to push regime change to benefit Israel, is an exposed fraud at this stage. The only thing you will succeed in by talking about it is to remind us all about it so that we will not forget it. For that, I am grateful.

      Now go back to your little trollcage.

  • Marco Rubio should thank Lindsey Graham (for eating enough lox to 'sink a battleship')
    • So sick and tired of you claiming that the “Establishment” is “Jewish” because there are prominent Jews.

      Boohoo, I don't like reality being described.

      This is exactly the type of antisemitic nonsense that Germans used to say in the 1930’s.

      Yes, it's exactly like the Nazis! Congrats on invoking Godwin's law! I didn't think you could become more of an idiot, but you keep surprising me! Auschwitz is clearly next!

      Hophmi, your lament is that of the loser. You've kept saying the same things for over 5 years or even more and your side has seen nothing but endless losses and failures. The reason why you lose is very simple: you have no argument to offer except to say you're offended and you want to censor the debate.

      When you actually have a substative argument to make, you'll be taken seriously. Until then you'll be seen as a butthurt clown which is easy to make fun of, and deserves to be made fun of.

    • P.S. Phil, don't use a term like "isolationist" so casually. It's a term used by the enemy and framed by the enemy(the neocons, whether in the GOP or the Democratic party). Use the term "non-interventionist" and "neocon/liberal interventionist" instead.

      If you want to be really mean, use America Firster and Israel Firster. Those terms are still accurate, especially in the case of the people supporting Lindsay Graham.

    • Graham found a group of people who would be willing to support him with cash for a cause not in the interest of the country he was supposed to serve and he gladly took it.

      Milbank is naturally praising him. Remember the neocons are not just in the GOP. They are cross-party and they have ALWAYS relied on "liberal" commenters like Milbank or Goldberg or a Beinart or a Chait to do their dirty work.

      The common purpose is protection of Israel - seen as a key goal for the Jewish establishment. That's why Scoop Jackson was so loved. He was liberal on domestic issues, which helps Jews, and a conservative/militant on foreign policy, which helps Israel(and in turn helps Jews).

      The irony is that this old equation is breaking down. The Beinart's of the world are writing much more clever articles on foreign policy and are not willing to be used as propaganda tools for neoconservatism/Zionism anymore.

      Sure, Milbank/Goldberg will remain committed to Apartheid Israel until the end, but that circle is growing smaller.

      The major contenders in the GOP are pro-American first and not pro-Israel first, unlike Graham. Even after Trump, Cruz is far more cautious. Rubio isn't, but he will get crushed by the GOP base.

      Clinton is still an interventionist/neocon but Sanders proved in the last debate that he's essentially a realist. The base is with Sanders, the money and the older people are with Clinton. Clinton is the last one standing for a neocon foreign policy.

      So the shifts are changing rapidly. I will not be surprised to see the neocons in the media, who were never a group with any support from the base and in any case in many instances were never really Republican anyway, just political opportunists with money to spend to corrupt candidates, I expect them to attack the GOP and just move over to the democrats once Clintin wins the WH.

      Let them destroy that party too and then we can finally purge them for good from the American political system. Better yet; deport them for Israel and throw the keys away. That's where their heart belongs anyway.

  • Israel's ambassador taunts the White House (again) with holiday gift of settlement goods
    • Historians will not really come at the central issue - a large section of the U.S. establishment are Jews and the vast majority of them are Zionists - and will instead obfuscate the issue by trying to pretend that CUFI and other Christian Millenial groups had an iron grip over U.S. middle eastern policy.

      Eventually the truth will come out, but in hackned and dislodged bits and pieces and it will be up to the brave to put them back together. Not that it's complicated. That's the thing about this: it's not very complicated at all. It's just that it requires a lot of bravery to do.

      The moment will be helped by large numbers of anti-Zionist Jews, but ultimately it can't depend on Jewish support.

      It's actually quite remarkable how unwilling Israel has been in using its considerable military forces to attack Jihadists and other sworn enemies of the U.S.

      It always boggles my mind how they can be viewed as "the closest ally in the region" considering that they are doing fuck all to actually lift some weight. It's usually mostly the U.S. and the Europeans. The Saudis and Turks are double-dealing with the Jihadists and Israel wants to do nothing but get more cash in return.

  • Liberal Zionist group says Israeli army compares favorably to 'oppressive police forces in the US'
    • I think the "IDF is better than U.S. police forces" is steeped in the mythology, a lot of it racist, that Jews are simply incapable - or at least less capable - of being brutish and racist than other peoples.

      It's part of the Light Unto the Nations narrative that never made sense. As if settler-colonialism and Apartheid is somehow better if you have J-positive blood. That's a racist belief, one that plenty of Jews who are knee-deep into Zionism share, no matter where they fall on the U.S. political spectrum.

      My view is that a lot of these "liberals" were never liberals to begin with. The 2SS is totally dead. If you continue to maintain that it's possible, you're essentially trying to avoid looking yourself in the mirror and ask the inevitable question: why am I supporting Apartheid and colonialism of another people? Why?

      I have no sympathy for such people and they deserve to be called what they always were: virulent racists. The "liberal" mask is coming off and it's no longer possible to pretend you are one.

      Good riddance.

  • Rubio's neocon-establishment team bolstered by 'Zionaire' hedgefunder who denies existence of Palestine
    • Tokyo, and FDR's indictment of Japanese-Americans, with his administration deeming them "enemy race blood" and thus worthy of keeping in concentration camps?

      Which is worse, that or Wilson's re-segregation?

      People have to be judged against their time. Wilson came from the South, his opinions was shaped by that. He still has a great legacy for pushing for greater international cooperation.

      Churchill was a great statesman in the fight of Hitler. He still was in favor of gassing the kurds.

      Ghandi was a great activist for Indian independence. He still supported the facists in Italy and personally visited Musolini to commend him on his good work.

      Your rant on Wilson comes across as uninformed and ignorant. If Wilson's fair game then so are the other men I've mentioned, many of whom have done/said far worse things yet are regarded as heroes by the liberal left nonetheless.

    • Just me that's wondering how come people like this Herenstein, who is obviously very clever, manages to become so stupid in political/social matters?

      I mean his Twitter feed comes across as the average low-information Trump supporter in rural Mississippi, with Israel plastered all over it.

  • Adam Sandler says he's devoted to Israel because of his parents
    • When you ask the Jews of France, they'll tell you that the vast majority of violence is coming from muslim immigrants. But I guess Jesse has a fixation of Europe(europhobia), which is fed by the Zionist narrative of "Europe is always against us".

      This europhobia was helped by the fact that the U.S. was truly a pro-Israel bastion. Today, Israel is becoming a wedge issue in U.S. politics. The liberal base hates Israel.

      Say goodbye.

    • It's not taboo to say you're proud to be Asian, black or Hispanic. The fact that it's taboo to say so as a white person is partly due to the fact that the only people who say so are on the margins of society.

      And partly because American identity is, still, so tightly wrapped up with white identity, although less so by each year. But think of it this way: when was the last time you heard "European-American" in a casual conversation on a newscast or a newspanel? You hear African-American, Asian-American etc all the time. You don't hear "European-American", precisely for this reason.

  • Sanders warns U.S. against 'quagmire' of 'perpetual warfare' in Mideast for 20, 30 years
    • I don’t see a professed Zionist such as Sanders making any real difference

      100% Wrong. If he was towing the Zionist line, he would have demonized Assad/Iran.

      Sanders said what was necessary, but tough, to say: Iran needs to be part of the anti-ISIS coalition. The Zionists and the neocons don't want to hear this, because the Iranian axis includes Hezbollah and of course Iran is the main regional rival to Israel. So you're just ignorant/uninformed of the issues. You saw the same dynamic taking place with Rubio vs Trump/Cruz. Rubio took the Zionist/Neocon line. So did Hillary. Neither Bernie nor Trump/Cruz/Paul did.

      I did notice that once Bernie let it slip that Iran has to be part of the coalition, when he faced pushback from Clinton, he dropped Iran and just talked about Russia. The pol in him came out in front there, but what was said was said.

      Overall, it was also striking seeing the GOP field being MUCH more diverse in terms of foreign policy this year. If you remember 2012 it was basically Ron Paul vs the world. Today, not so much. Much more choice and the non-interventionists are leading! The leading two candidates, Trump and Cruz, are both non-interventionists. Trump more than any other GOP nominee with the possible exception of Rand Paul. That's quite a turnaround from 2012 and 2008, 2004 and so on.

      What we're seeing is a significant shift away from interventionism, away from the regime change crowd. It seems to be in both parties and a secular shift.

      If Bernie and Trump both win their primaries, we'll have a unique situation in which no major presidential candidate is an interventionist or an ardent pro-regime change supporter for the first time in probably well over a century.

      The GOP candidate will likely either be Cruz or Trump. If Trump stumbles then Cruz will crush Rubio. I hope for Sanders but Hillary's looking stronger than she did in 2008.

      Even so, even Hillary has toned down her rhetoric, even going as far as saying no ground troops to her plan. You can never quite trust her, especially with the neocons heaping praise on her. Still, it's a signal if any that she understands the terrain has shifted and as a poll-driven candidate who has no real convictions, she's better at that than anyone else.

  • Fascinating Barbara Walters shilled for racially-discriminatory organization
    • This is a sidenote, but in reference to Phil's continued observation how coverage of Adelson has obscured his core interest: Israel.

      Well, Reuters for one doesn't duck the issue:
      link to

      Also interesting that even if my guess is that Adelson prefers Rubio, he also wants to back a winner. In a sense, he and Trump share more similarities. Both are socially liberal casino moguls with a deep streak of militarism.

      Adelson probably only hesitates to back Trump because he won't be a puppet in the way Rubio clearly already is.

  • 'NYT' and 'Washington Post' run professor's articles defending settlements without stating he is a settler
    • Cofman Wittes and the others in the democratic part of the 1% know they are on board a sinking ship. Sure, Israel will never lose the GOP base but it's the democratic base that matters. It's the democrats who have a permanent lock on the WH from here on out due to demographics.

      We've all read the polls from Brookings showing how Israel has massively lost the democratic base, how Netanyahu is hated by the liberal base and so on.

      And after the Iran deal there isn't any issue to obscure Jewish apartheid anymore. Netanyahu has lost his shield to deflect all attention away from Jewish apartheid. It isn't coming back any time soon.

      Phil, these people will turtle to the very end. They are the core of what Mearsheimer termed the "New Afrikaaners" in his seminal 2010 speech to the Jerusalem fund. Abe Foxman, Goldberg, Ben-Ami, Cofman Wittes, Jane Eisner... they will fight any attempt to end Jewish apartheid 'til the bitter end. There will be no redemption for them. Just continue to expose them, but don't expect them to stop being racists. It's their core belief system.

    • The bias is ingrained. NPR is often even worse than WaPo.
      And NPR is supposed to be the liberal establishment's main source. They do great on domestic racism. But as always a massive pass on Jewish Apartheid.

      You may not remember WaPo under the previous owners, but I do, and it was worse. Today it's still not even-handed, but you can at least see flashes of liberalism on the issue. People today can post Op-Eds on I/P in WaPo in a way they can't currently do in the NYT after their far-right turn as the 2SS all but collapsed.

  • Why did Brookings Institution hold a secret panel countering BDS?
    • Goldberg then said that sentiment toward Israel in the American Jewish comunity was “radically shifting,” and asked Lieberman if he cared. Lieberman said, “To speak frankly, I don’t care.”

      I'm not really sure why this answer would shock anyone. Israeli Zionist Jews have long seen diaspora Jews as weaklings, look up what galut actually means.

      Lest we also forget that the Zionist leadership, under Ben-Gurion, double-dealed with Nazi Germany in the pre-war years as they passively looked on even as increasing anti-Jewish sentiment became unavoidable to deny.

      The most disturbing thing to me is this whole secrecy business. What is Saban so afraid of? Doesn't he understand that people in the age of widespread internet are more informed than ever before. If the NYT doesn't write about it, people will still find out about it. Case in point.

      What was the point of his "secret" BDS panel which leaked right away?
      It's a joke!

      The entire affair just smells desperation. Also, hasn't Goldberg been warning about "radically shifting" terms of debate for over five years now? Yet he has fought tooth and nail at every turn to prevent it. Even now, he's smearing JVP. I remember when he used to laugh them off as a bunch of losers who couldn't even all fit in a single minyan.

      Now he's shitting his pants, sweating as his daughter relays one horror story after another of young Jews rejecting his racism.

      The times have changed.

  • Netanyahu feels complete impunity because all US politicians need 'support of Jewish community' -- former Israeli diplomat
    • I've long said that the ultimate price to Israel will be cultural isolation. I'm skeptical if they can be defeated economically, and militarily they are very strong.

      In the end, it's the same thing that brought white-ruled SA down: the cutting of all ties. Israel may fare better, because while they see themselves as part of the West, there are still more differentiating factors than the case of the white Christians of SA, who were mirror-images of the general public in the West. It was literally like family turning on you, so Apartheid simply had to end.

      Nevertheless, Israel has no other cultural sphere to turn to. What do the average Israeli share in common with the average Chinese or the average Indian other than empty bromides of "we value education"? Do they have significant overlap in their cultural history, their current references, their philosophy and language? No. Israel has no other place than the West to turn to for kinship.

      And if they lose that, will they endure the isolation it entails? SA didn't. But Israel just might. It's hard to say, because they haven't really paid any price. That's why Avital is so scared of cultural BDS. It's why she brings up the visa issue. It's all touching this third rail.

    • All of your points are valid, but she also stated she's a Zionist. Zionism dictates permanent expulsion and expansion. Such an ideology will never rest until it has ALL of the land. That has been the mantra from the beginning.

      I don't think Avital is dishonest here - she's delusional. She doesn't want to face what the problem is: Zionism. She thinks she can square the round hole, just like J Street will forever insist that "time is running out" on the 2SS but never admitting that it's been long dead.

      These people's entire identities are built up on Israel and Zionism. If they lose that, to a large extent, they lose themselves.

    • It's funny, she talks about forcing the people to pay a price but when her people(Israeli liberal establishment) get impacted, all of the sudden she's against that. Can you spell hypocrite?

  • Terrorism is an understandable response to west's wars in Middle East, realist and left writers say
    • The line of "don't give ISIS what they want" is a dumb one. It's like saying, neo-Nazis don't like income inequality(I've heard this line from the anti-Occupy Wall St crowd), thus everyone who embraces that language is implicitly doing their bidding. Sometimes Nazis were swapped out for some fringe communist group.

      What ISIS wants or does not want is irrelevant and it's only use as a blocking tactic to prevent a real discussion of what needs to be done.

      U.S. intel agencies commissioned a report in recent weeks on ISIS. You can read the leaked conclusions here:

      link to

      I'll jump right to the point: if ISIS isn't destroyed, there's a very real chance that they will devour even more territory. Al-Qaida didn't pose this kind of threat. ISIS is not really a "terrorist group". It's a de facto state as this point and I'm amazed how few are starting to understand this. Thus, comparing ISIS to Al-Qaida is daft, because the scale is vastly bigger and so are the ambitions in terms of what ISIS wants to be. Bin Ladin always saw his role as a guerilla fighter, who lured in great powers to greatly expend their resources(an efficient tactic) but it was always predicated on having a limited direct influence. ISIS is a far different beast.

      Further, if we are to take seriously the notion that muslim grievance is in part rooted in Western dominance of the Middle East(a notion I agree with), then there is no realistic way that will ever happen. The close alliance of the Gulf/Saudi monarchies with the West will persist simply because of oil. It doesn't matter if Sanders goes into the WH. These things are of a strategic priority and will not change for many decades to come.

      Thus the entire discussion is in a way quite moot.

      Lastly, the radicalisation of the muslim world didn't begin with Western intervention, even if said intervention has fanned the flames. The reactionary bigots like Qutb and the like do hate America for what it stands for. Go read his texts, I have. It's pretty clear that this is not some misguided soul who just wanted freedom but is prevented to do so by the West.

      The Islamist uprising which has been taking place in the Middle East is rooted well over a hundred years ago. Western intervention has deepened it, but it has no caused it. Pulling out would never happen because of the oil interests, but even if it theoretically happened, the demonisation of the West would continue unabated. Perhaps less in less intensive forms, but the root hatred would persist. Bush was wrong to say that 9/11 happened because "they hate us for who we are". No, it was for what you did. But the general hostility which became before that - and which is underlining this hatred - is traced back to the reactionaries like Qutb and his contemporaries almost a century ago and even before that. There's been a general decline of intellectual and spiritual openess within the Islamic world, something most serious Islamic scholars (who are liberal) openly admit.

      That doesn't mean we shouldn't intervene less, we should, but I get tired of the un-nuanced analysis which places 100% of the blame on external forces and refuses to see the dramatic reactionary developments within the Islamic world itself.

  • Trump and Netanyahu call it off
    • Logic on the internet? What is this voodoo?

    • Bibi made two calculations. The first is that Trump is never going to win, hence offending him means paying no practical price. Secondly, Trump is a fleeting phenomenom. That Israel stabbed him in the back will not mean that the GOP base that they so cherish will turn against them.

      And finally, you're correct to say that this was probably "payback" for Trump's even-handedness and his implicit suggestions that Israel doesn't really want peace, which of course is correct.

      The interesting thing from a U.S. perspective is if the "liberal" media will call out Bibi on his hypocrisy. I doubt it. The illusion of Israel as a democracy must persist!

  • 'Untenable one-state reality' is taking hold, Kerry tells Israel supporters
    • We seem to be moving in two directions at the same time:

      The American public, and especially the liberal base, is leaving Israel and Zionism behind.

      The old rear-guard establishment, personified by Clinton, are clutching their pearls more tightly than ever.

      In the short run the latter will make it seem worse than it is, over the long run, no more than 1-2 decades, the former will establish its primacy and dominance over the other.

  • 'Absolute scum' -- Trump's frightening speech
    • I've been saying since this circus started that the entire contest is a sideshow. Demography has already decided it a long time ago. Even if the GOP nominates Rubio, the perfect Hispanic puppet of the donor class, it won't matter.

      The presidential election is already taking place, and it's inside the Democratic primary. Whoever wins there, wins the WH. California showed the path already and America is now following.

      Really, I know the analysis is overdone and tired at this point, but I see Trump as white angst. I remember reading polls on the Tea Party and basically what was very obvious in the data was strong racial fear. Loss of control. Yes, about 40% of whites vote Democratic so we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking all white people are voting for the GOP, clearly that's incorrect, but a majority are and many of them are fearful for the first time in America's history when they are no longer calling the shots as to who's president. Even if the next president is almost certainly going to be white(either Bernie or Hillary).

      A sidenote: Trump only goes after "soft" targets. Hispanics are/were soft to attack. Blacks and Jews are not soft, so he stays clear of them. Muslims are soft.

      If you want to know which groups are the most vulnerable in the U.S., watch who he goes after. Blacks may be economically disadvantaged but Trump's staying clear of them shows that their concerns are not marginalised anymore. Jews, the same, except that we don't have the economic disadvantages or the criminal injustice problems that the black community has.

      The Trump problem will not go away until and unless the liberal establishment finds a way to re-integrate white Americans, most of whom are conservative. Frankly, most of the time I just read low-level racism ("hicks", "rednecks" etc) and you'd be a fool if you don't think they pick up that venomous hostility. The result is a Trump. Last thing we should do is double down. Ultimately, the nation has to heal and it has to come together.

      That means sidelining bigots like Trump, but it also means providing an alternative to real concerns. In the same way we can only fight violent Jihad by going after groups like ISIS, but we must also provide a compelling answer to legitimate concerns.

      The left is usually a lot better on that understanding when it comes to poor brown people but for some reason it all falls apart when it comes to poor white people. I see the solution as similar in both cases.

  • Bragging that she and Israel were born within months, Hillary Clinton wants to take relationship to 'next level'
    • Not to blow my own horn too much but I've been saying for well over a year now that Clinton is an extremist on Israel.

      She will make Obama look like a PLO official in comparison, and Obama basically threw the Palestinians under the bus in favor of the Iran deal.

      But Clinton is also the last politician of that generation. In 2024, the democratic base will be wildly different than today. Not just indifferent to Israel, but hostile.

      Phil's "2016 will be the year that I/P becomes a campaign issue" was always too optimistic. It will be post-Clinton. In a sense, it has to be. People have to understand that they can't blame the GOP for the endless American support for Apartheid.

      The power of the lobby resides in both parties, it resides in events such as the Saban forum. Until and unless liberal activists are willing and capable of dealing with that harsh truth, nothing will be done of substance. You can't blame the GOP neocons forever. Neocons exist in both parties, and they are to a large extent driven by tribal interests on behalf of Zionism.

  • Kristof's conditional empathy
    • Maybe I am a bit cruel, bit if Israel is a land of refugees, how come it has taken in zero Syrians?

      I guess Adler's unreconstructed racism blinds her to her own blatant hypocrisy.

  • Elliott Abrams wants John Kerry to STFU about Palestine
    • To those who deny that neoconservative influence exists as a major force within the democratic party(in particular the donor class) should ask themselves why the WH and the State department feel compelled to back down in the face of attacks from this guy yet someone like Cheney is an open target.

      Cheney doesn't represent clan/tribal interests in the same way that Abrams does. Cheney is an idiot and a warmonger, but he believes in the American empire. He attempts to speak on behalf of the nation.

      Abrams doesn't believe in the American empire in the same sense. He pragmatically supports it, but only because he sees that as beneficial to his favorite state, Israel. He doesn't care as much whether it hurts or helps America, except to the extent that America will be able to carry out its hegemonic role in the Middle East to further cement Israel's position.

      Why is Abrams being taken seriously, even having been disastrously wrong on every major foreign policy issue in the last two decades? Money and power, basically. It's why Obama is sycophantic to someone like Jeff Goldberg, who has the ears of the machers in the Zionist-Jewish community, who in turn have the purse strings to decide candidates.

      It's not just the democratic party, look at how the Singer/Adelson types make supposed mainstream candidates like Rubio, Cruz and Bush dance in circles. People who say we shouldn't talk about this because it invokes stereotypes about Jews, I say, we've tried that approach. It was part of the reason why there was no real opposition to Iraq.

      It's why the Iran deal wasn't killed, because this issue was being talked about much more openly(which led to hysteric attacks about "anti-Semitism" if you remember). These things matter. We have to be open about the fact that American policy in the Middle East is to a large extent driven by clannish/tribal interests rather than a dispassionate approach.

      This recent grovelling is yet another item on a long list of evidence to support that.

  • Trump at the rightwing Jewish conference
    • Very interesting. By the time the next president takes office, the so-called "bipartisan" consensus will be officially annihilated. It might still live on in an ossified state in Congress, but then it will only be held together by the cold logic of money.

      The democratic base is moving away from Israel with near-incredible speed.

    • So Trump is literally Hitler because he's more evenhanded than any other candidate on the issue? Right.

  • LSE chills Palestinian students' speech on 'intifada' under pressure from Israel lobby
    • This reminds me of Gerry Gable, the Jewish(maternal side) founder of Searchlight, the formerly leading anti-fascist magazine in Britain.

      Gable is all about combating neo-Nazis and fascists - but wants to protect Jewish apartheid at all costs. I don't think Gable is unique in his hypocrisy.

      Tony Greenstein(a true liberal, who opposes all forms of Apartheid, Jewish or non-Jewish) wrote about it eloquently a few years ago:

      link to

      We have to understand that bigots like Arkush don't get elected without broad support even from supposed "liberals" like Gable - who only subscribe to liberalism because it protects them as minorities. Ergo, they do so out of racial/ethnic self-interest in a diaspora, not because they are principled people like you or Tony. The true test is *always* how they respond in situations where they are the majority. In this case, that's Zionism.

      That's when the mask falls and you see who they truly are.

      The Gable's of the world are not alone. We see the same thing in America with Susan Talve or the editor of the supposedly "liberal" the Forward, Jane Eisner, who supports settlements in the West Bank and approves an ethnic cleansing campaign in the same territories as "pragmatic"(her endorsement of the Bennett-inspired annexation of large parts of the WB).

      This is why I always smile when I hear about the supposed Jewish liberalism. Sure, on social issues you can make a case for it. But the democrats have long been ultra-right wing on the super wealthy and even the just mildly wealthy in this country. What was the Clinton presidency if not a long march to the right on every economic issue? Obama has fixed the most pressing problems but the Democratic party remains one which heavily favours the rich.

      In the UK, Labor is much more radical and we see Jews voting 64% or more for the conservatives(via the Jewish Chronicle in their pre-election poll). Same story in France.

      And that's just on economic issues. If Jews are so liberal, why have we created an Apartheid state in the Middle East? I don't believe in determinism, political or otherwise. Jews were heavily liberal not long ago, but in the postwar era that has slowly but steadily eroded. Arkush is a logical conclusion of such an evolution.

  • Coming Monday on Mondoweiss — Advertisements
    • Well, that's hair-splitting. They are craving for money, but they aren't doing it for greed but for a social purpose.

      By and large, I approve of this change. If ads can be introduced as a revenue source it's well-worth doing as long as it's done with finesse. Why not?

  • NYT's Rudoren says Mondoweiss critique of her recent article is 'nuts'
    • Maybe, but the idea isn't as crazy as Rudoren's "defence".

      The NYT and Rudoren are openly pro-Jewish Apartheid. Why is this not a bigger deal among the American left? It's amazing to me and continues to amaze me.

  • San Jose State University becomes first California State University to pass student government BDS resolution
  • 'New York Times' uncorks laughable Israeli propaganda
  • David Grossman's love letter to Israel, warts and all
  • 'NYT' and 'Newsweek' need to fact-check their propagandists
    • Comments on the internet only really work on niche blogs like these - and even then it's a hassle. We've had our fair share of cranks through the years, including those who blantantly denied the Shoah of ever taking place to those who trafficked in 9/11 da jooz dun did it conspiracy theories.

      They got banned, of course, but it just goes to show how easily comments spiral out of control unless it's a very specific audience and a very well-kept blog - and even then there are no guarantees. A general website like Newsweek isn't a good indication. If you want to lose faith in humanity, read the comments in those big yahoo news stories whenever there is something about Islam or muslims. It's pure genocidal filth.

      That's why I'm fairly creeped out by someone like Trump, not because the man himself is impressive, he isn't, but because his candidacy has exposed a deep strain of fascism in American life.

  • In the 'NYT,' fear of Trump's police state
    • Trump is absolutely a man of fascistic tendencies. Please understand that I've been a person who has rolled his eyes when liberals have described the Christian right as neo-Nazis with a cross. That was and is a laughable and pathetic line of "attack". Trump is different. The man has no democratic understanding of liberal polity whatsoever.

      That all being said, Bovy's whining about "let's only think about the Jews" is horrible and, yes, racist. It's essentially saying Jewish suffering matters more, which is what she thinks. It's also what Schulman thinks, by refusing to mentioning the Apartheid that Palestinians live under.

      Finally, Roth, who I think you destroyed quite efficiently. The entire book just screamed of the worst kind of Jewish paranoia and self-induced neurosis when the man and his generation has de facto lived a hyperprivileged life. It's yet another reminder of how his generation of Jews have essentially refused to become adults their entire lives and take responsibility for the power that the community has acquired, instead preferring eternal victimhood as a cozy blanket.

      I mean even to this day we get outraged attacks from Jewish centrist publications like Tablet for even discussing Jewish privilege. Since when did we become a community of petulant and hyper-privileged crybabies? That's a rhetorical question of course, but seriously, I miss the Jewish philanthropists of old. The people who built thousands of black schools, helped fund the NAACP and were the backbone of the U.S. labor movement. Where did these people go? Now we have casino overlords and racist media moguls(whether it's Saban or Sulzberger). Ugh. Progress faster!

      (I'm impressed by Jews in Silicon Valley but they aren't very interested in Jewish affairs from what I can tell. Which is a shame, because I often miss their liberal influence. They could serve as a counter-weight to the endless racists, whether democrat or republican, that are dominating the conversation in the communal fold. Not to mention a donor-class equivalency which could effectively challenge the dominance of the bigoted cash. I mean can you imagine how amazing it would be to see Larry Page essentially destroy Adelson or Saban? I'd pay to watch that.)

  • 'NYT' announces Rudoren's return to NY
    • People don't like tribal explanations because it reduces the amount of intellectual flourishes you're able to go out on.

      But that's exactly the reason for why Rudoren acted the way she acted. It's why the NYT will only appoint Zionists(Jewish or not) to the post. Baker is married to a Jewish Zionist. When the TNR changed mast, he was tweeting in support of the older crew. That should be telling you where he falls in the liberal spectrum. For me, the TNR regime change was a watershed moment.

      It signalled the beginning of the end of the PEP crowd, who so often traficked in anti-Arab and anti-black racism and never shied away from running with their neocon fellow travellers in boosting wars in the Middle East(and motivated by what, exactly, again tribalism).

      Yet Baker went out of his way to bash the new understanding how the old liberal elites were too racist and too warmongering. If you expect any miracles from this guy, you're delusional.

      We have to be honest with the fact that "reform from within" is dead and finished. It will be forced from the outside and the Jewish institutions, of which I count the NYT as one, will never change until their door is slammed down and they are dragged kicking and screaming to a place which isn't enabling and enforcing a culture of racism against Palestinians.

      It's not what you want to hear, Phil, you believe in the Jewish redemption story, but this is what is happening before our eyes. The anti-Zionist Jews are growing in number but if your base is zero any growth at all looks amazing. It's still a highly marginal element.

  • 'Foreign Policy' says 'Israel lobby' donors are making 'pro-Israel the new circumcision'
    • Note that it is the Israel lobby, too, not "pro-Israel" lobby. Even the NYT isn't that bold.

      Really, it wouldn't surprise me if the U.S. became more progressive on Palestine than Europe, which to this day has been ahead of America on the issue. Maybe the settler Aryeh King is right, maybe the increasing power of nationalism in Europe will lead it to view Israel in a much more favourable light while in America the political center keeps being pushed to the left, not only on economics, but especially on cultural/social issues.

      Zionism has really become a cancer among academic liberals in America today. It will become like gun rights or abortion.There will always be a strong contingent of people in America for or against it, but the monolithic consensus is dead and decaying before our eyes.

      AIPAC is all but a Republican organisation at this stage, especially if you look at their youth groups which are heavily orthodox. The center will not hold.

  • Protesters stage citizen's arrest of Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely at West Coast Ha'aretz conference
    • Impressive and forceful.

      Also just sigh to Haaretz. Still engaged in whitewashing Apartheid?
      Such liberals!

  • Kagan pushed regime change in Iraq, now says US must get over 'trauma' and do Syria
    • Perhaps there are Europeans today wishing that the U.S. will not compound its error of commission in Iraq by making an equally unfortunate error of omission in Syria.

      Maybe we should ask the Europeans. Not their leaders, the people themselves.

      Quite astoundingly arrogant to speak on behalf of other people, to push the interests of Israel. Yet Kagan isn't the problem; he is the symptom of the problem. Today there is no counter-balance to the neocons/liberal interventionists. Two sides of the same coin.

      The only force I can think of is really Barack H. Obama, who's been getting persistently wiser and more cautious as his presidency has gone on. Clinton will undo this.

      After Samantha Power, and her disgusting prostrating for Jewish Apartheid, I've lost even the semblance of faith in the liberal interventionists and their "morality". It's like the "liberal" Zionists. When it comes down to it, they're always on board on the program.

      Thus, I don't believe in "reform from within". But I do believe in power balance of hegemonic powers. The U.S. may not produce an intellectual insurrection, which is what we need now, but China, Russia and even India will force the U.S. into more modest postures.

      Kagan will move from being a Serious person whose council is sought to someone whose primary purpose is to cheer people up by giving them false hopes of potency when everyone knows the U.S. is slowly becoming less powerful by the day. The cheerleader over a slowly declining former superpower.

      I am under no illusion that the cheerleader will from time to time succeed in his propaganda, but the critical point is that the U.S. no longer calls the shots so that becomes irrelevant and Kagan by logical extension becomes irrelevant as well. The fact that Russia is even a player in Syria is proof of that. And the Chinese hegemony over East Asia has just begun. What else is there for the U.S? Even the UK is moving away from Uncle Sam. Sad.

  • Leading anthropologists group overwhelmingly passes BDS resolution at Denver conference
    • Oh it will pass.

      It's becoming increasingly clear that the major question is not which academic institutions in the humanities that are going to sign up for BDS, but rather which are left.

      The Zionists have fundamentally lost the American left. It's not even arguable at this stage. Now the focus turns to practical implementation. What do we do with this momentum? There has to be more than resolutions and conferences. Zionists have to pay a steep social price in liberal milieus, as would any supporter of Apartheid. Jewish Apartheid is not nobler than any other Apartheid.

  • Hillary Clinton equates ISIS and Hamas
    • She is not ignorant, she's anything but ignorant. She knows these are seperate issues but she's also running for president and the way the donor network is setup in the U.S. you have to conflate whichever enemy Israel has as of now with each other.

      On the recent rebellions on Syrian refugees, I do think it's noteworthy that we've seen several top democratic Jewish powerbrokers essentially break lines with liberals here. Schumer is the most notable one, who has indicated he might break with Obama but only after being briefed first.

      In the house just now, Steve Israel was among the rebels. This is no mere backbencher, he's one of the most important democrats in the house of representatives.

      I was pleased to see Nadler take a strong principled line(which isn't surprising given what he voted for on the Iran deal). Still, quite telling that this group of people, who surely must know the refugee history of the Jews, would slam the door in such a way. How removed they are from their own history - and the liberal pulse of the young of this nation.

  • How rightwing settlers and a wealthy Aussie Zionist used Facebook to control Netanyahu gov't
    • Quality reporting. Thank you for being the oasis in the MSM desert.

      This should be something I'm reading in the NYT. And where is the Australian media? There's a billionare Australian who is bankrolling Apartheid - yet no outrage or any serious coverage.

      This is why this is allowed to go on. There are no social consequences to any of this.

  • To the next 'NYT' Jerusalem chief -- Here is your job description
    • Well written, Phil and James. There's not much to add than to add a perhaps somewhat skeptical comment, which is to say, the coverage of I/P reflects the racism of the ownership first and foremost.

      Any journalist going into that job will know what the limits are. Also, Baker being intermarried to a Jewish woman is not irrelevant, even if we can all try and pretend it is.
      Let's say he was married to an anti-Zionist Palestinian woman. Do you think he would have gotten the job? Of course not.

      So the tribal politics are still here, even if the journalist himself isn't Jewish, who he sleeps with is certainly not beyond approach, as direct as that sounds, that's how it is. This is how high the stakes are.

    • How many Jewish zionists who support all the efforts of Israel to wipe out the Palestinians

      I think that's a caricature, to put it mildly. Even most hard-right Zionists don't want to "wipe out" Palestininans. But Zionists do share a common belief in the importance of ethnically cleansing Palestininans(and preventing them from returning to their homes, see RoR).

  • West's war against terrorism is Israel's war, Chuck Schumer says
    • Exactly.

      But of course these statements expose the total ethnocentrism of these bigots. For them, only Jewish lives matter and nobody else's.

    • That's an ignorant comment. Most Jews in Israel are not Ashkenazi. Your quotation marks around white is more reflecting of your own views on whiteness than any informed view of Jews in Israel.

      Actually, one of my running themes is that aside from looking at the conflict in Jewish/non-Jewish terms, a smarter way would be to look at it from a Ashkenazi/non-Ashkenazi view. If you take all of Greater Israel/Palestine into account, the Ashkenazi Jews account for about 10-15% of the total population. Ruling over a vast sea of Arabs, some of whom are muslim, some of whom are Christian and some of whom are Jews.

  • Theocratic Israel
    • And yet, the Glen Weyl and other "liberals" who are far-left in domestic American politics nevertheless show up in full armor and ready to defend this theocracy.

      After all, he even admits he cares far more for them than for the people living in the land of his birth. He's not alone.

  • Netanyahu brings neocons and liberal Zionists together again
    • This is why I've been reading increasingly fewer "liberal" Zionists these days. It's the hypocrisy that is nauseating.

      The right-wing are in the exact same camp, but you don't have to cut through a thick bush of lies to get plain sight of what they want. Because in the end, they all want the same thing, the only difference is methods.

      The right-wing is correct in saying that if Ariel is a settlement, then so is Tel Aviv(indeed it is).
      I know I keep coming back to it like a broken record, but the whole Sodastream affair, for me, solidified the feeling that there is nothing left to prove when it comes to the "liberal" Zionists moral bankruptcy and wholesale investment in the Jewish Apartheid project.

      These were all so-called progressives, who all rushed to the defence of an illegal settler-colonial business in the name of peace. So why would anyone be surprised that they are now praising Bibi?

      We need to freeze these people out of the democratic party. We need to be ruthless. If you support endless Apartheid you are not liberal. And you are not progressive. You're a racist.

  • Rigged Netanyahu 'conversation' at Center for American Progress shows it's twilight of the Israel lobby
    • "Middle America" doesn't exist.

      If you look at the numbers, Israel is a massive hit among whites and particularly older whites.

      If you look at the direction America is going, young PoC in particular, it's a massive stink bomb. This is similar to the issue of gun control. Demographics is what prevents it. Over time, it will be fixed. What we should worry about is educated, young liberals. That is the future base from which America's media, academia and politics will be drawn from as the U.S. turns into California with permanent liberal control due to demographics.

      And how are we doing there? Just fine, but we could be doing even better. This awkard event at CAP was a massive fail. Blumenthal is correct that Tanden audtioned for her job. It was a sad sight to see her. But the base has since long moved on and the comic nature of this Soviet Union staged-interview clownfest is just too obvious for everyone not to notice: it's over for the Israel lobby.

  • Dana Bash and David Gregory are warmup acts for Netanyahu at pro-Israel conference
    • At this stage I'm just sitting with my mouth wide open, trying to comprehend what's happening in front of me. These people are self-described liberals, for the most part.

      They are warm-up acts for a man who, just a few months ago, warned that "Arabs are coming to vote in droves". This is straight out of Jim Crow Alabama.

      It's funny how tribalism reveals people for who they truly are. And how money corrupts so-called "progressive" organisations like CAP.

  • Netanyahu flips the bird to Obama -- 2200 more settlement units!
    • I've always viewed Obama as a creature of liberal Zionists. His entire political career was funded by them - and he admitted as much a few years ago when he talked to a room full of them when he half-joked that they were his "cabal".

      Obama came at this issue with energy in his early years in part because of the new-found energy of J Street and the social forces behind its rise. He never cared for Palestinians, but tried to embrace a Laborite Zionism, something he bemoaned in his book when he talked about the necessity to move away from the "Likudnik interpretation". He genuinely thought there was a difference, because his "liberal" Zionist friends kept insisting there was.

      Obama miscalculated. He didn't understand the deep roots of the "liberal" Zionists' racism. When the chips were down, they were no different from the Likudniks. We saw that with the Sodastream/West Bank affair. All the major "liberal" Zionist figures went to bat for settlements.

      And the NYT itself, the house organ of "liberal" Zionism, has been demonizing Palestinians nonstop for years now. It flirted with Obama's attacks on Bibi in 2009-2011, but once it was clear that Netanyahu wasn't going to fold, the NYT folded instead - into the communal fold.

      So Obama, who stood naked in the dark, threw the Palestinians under the bus because he was always a political animal who needed his Zionist base. Just like Clinton. The difference is that Clinton played fairly well with both sides, Obama just did it with one. Neither gives a shit about Palestinians and both embrace Jewish apartheid.

      Finally, I want to underline that Obama has an eye on the post-presidency. He understands that he can't have a successful and lucrative post-WH career without being in the good graces of the "liberal" Zionist power structure. In the same way you can't run for office in the Democratic party, which he understood all those years ago.

      That's just how politics and the media looks like in the U.S. and Obama is willing to embrace Apartheid if that is the price for it.

  • 'New York Times' to Palestinians: Drop dead
    • When the history of this conflict is written, and the chapter inevitably turns to domestic US politics(of which the media is a crucial part), the toxic racism of the NYT will be a cancerous standout.

      I no longer believe that these crimes will go on unreported forever. Just like there were a series of books dedicated to how the NYT downplayed the Shoah in the 1930s, several decades from now, young and smart people will read about the virulent racism of the supposed "liberal" NYT and how they continually shilled for Jewish apartheid.

      The tribal loyalty of the Sulzberger family will be an unrelenting - and painful - motif in that story. And it will shame the self-concept of many Establishment Jews as "liberals". For they are not alone.

  • Hillary Clinton promises to invite Netanyahu to White House in her first month
    • I remember Phil covering her "secret" letter to Saban - which he promptly leaked to the press - where she was basically pleading personal loyalty to Zionism.

      While I agree with Phil about the role of Zionist donors and/or press barons, I continue to maintain that we shouldn't underestimate the twin factors of assimiliation and islamophobia.

      Clinton's only child is married to a Jew. If you look at the other side, the frontrunner's daughter(as of now) is also married to a Jew. Trump also has several extremely close Jewish aides. Ditto Clinton.

      The white establishment has merged. There's no longer any Jewish/non-Jewish split. Phil's wife's "anti-anti-Semitism" remarks, nonwithstanding.

      And then there's the islamophobic factor. If something like 9/11 happened today, I'm not so sure if America would respond as non-violently (domestically) as it did back then. Palestinians can't escape this larger trend. The black South Africans were easier to sympathise with because they were Christians. That's a harsh statement, and I wish it wasn't true, but it is and we have to deal with that.

      Clinton's letter reflect the realpolitik you mentioned, but it also reflects the underlying social dynamics that has transpired in America over the last few decades.

  • Glen Weyl's agonizing journey to boycott the country he loves
    • As I read on, I get more and more cynical. Maybe I'm jaded. But I've read too many "shoot and cry" Zionist accounts by now to even pretend not to see the hypocrisy at play.

      The man just never stops backtracking. I'm disarmed by his honestness - that's an admirable character trait - but he is still embracing the mythology that everything went wrong with Likud. Very convenient. Very Zionist.

      The settlements, the colonisation project - all began by Labor and his beloved Ben-Gurion. The right-wing in Israel is correct about one thing: if Ariel is a settlement then so is Tel-Aviv. All of it was stolen from the native population. All of it. Are you going to make arbitrary categorisations based on a few decades apart? People have been living there for thousands.

      One final question: if he cares so much more about Israel, then why not move there? I don't wish to be rude but if he is in America only for economic opportunities, then what is the point? Does America need someone who openly admits he cares far less for the American people than for the Jewish-Israeli people(which isn't the same as Israeli people, because that includes Arabs. And as much as he'd like to pretend, when he talks about "my people", he doesn't talk about Arab critizens in Israel, even if he probably wants to delude himself that he does).

      I don't think "saving Israel from itself" works. But at least it would be more consistent from his PoV. I'm of the old-fashioned opinion that the duty of citizenship cannot be reduced to taxes and being lawful. In the end, it's about loyalty and sentiment. It's about affection. If America isn't that country for you, then take that to its logical conclusion and save all of us the hassle.

  • Marco Rubio wins another neoconservative cash primary
    • When people ask why there has been such a rise in alternative media on the internet: point them to this story.

      This is huge. One of the major contenders for the party which represents the majority in Congress is essentially bought and paid for by billionaires whose agenda is shaped to a large extent by loyalty to a foreign nation - a nation which has conflicting national interests to that of the U.S.(as we saw with the Iran deal).

      Yet the MSM will not touch this with a ten foot pole. We know why; Jewish sociology. Yet it's still sad, in a way. This is what we mean when we talk about "third rails" in American politics.

      I believe that we will one day talk openly about this - but only when the death grip of Zionism over American Jewish life has subsided. And that ideology is itself rooted in a fundamental unease and insecurity about diaspora life. An "insurance policy" for a people who don't need one and whose main challenge in the 21st century is maintaining ethnic roots rather than discrimination.

      What a clown show.

  • Park Slope Food Coop censors letters on BDS
    • If you want a sure-fire way to get depressed, just read these kinds of stories. It's shocking to me how supposedly "liberal" places such as this still can't deal with Jewish Apartheid. And it also shows how many supposedly "liberal" Jews are only liberals when they are in the minority among a large Christian majority. The true test of liberalism is when ethnic nationalism concerns you.

      And as we can see, plenty of "liberal" Jews are anything but. It's sad, but at least it's a forcing function which reveals people's true character.

      At the same time, I have to believe that New York will lag the rest of the nation. California, for instance, is far ahead of New York. You don't see those kinds of "Israel day parades" in other parts of the nation except New York and that's not a coincidence. So appearances can deceive you.

    • Don't make us laugh.

  • Netanyahu's having a better week in the Democratic Party than Hillary Clinton!
    • Much faster. The change is already in full transformation at the elite student level.

      As for Palestinians, people have been counting them out for decades. There are many millions of them. Are you seriously suggesting genocide in our day and age? Just look how massively negatively the Gaza war affected Israel. That was in the high hundreds. If you think Israel will get away with murdering millions you're not just delusional, but stupid. Also, Israel doesn't want to commit mass murder. It does want to ethnically cleanse Palestine.

      Yet, it has wanted to do that for over 65 years now, even longer if you go back to the early beginnings. Palestinians are about 50% of the population in Greater Israel/Palestine, counting the WB and Gaza. That's the true measurement to have here. They are going to be the majority any moment now.

      That being said, they can't win on their own from the inside, but the outside pressure must increase. Which is why it's important we go after the lobby in the democratic party. There's no need for a lobby in the GOP, the Christian evangelicals are too big of a component of the GOP base for that to ever be an issue.

  • As Congress heeds Israel lobbyists, press blacks out Abunimah, Munayyer and Blumenthal
    • I view the contemporary events as de facto setbacks for Palestinians. Knifing civilians is never good if you want to gather international support. Of course, most victims have been settlers or soldiers, but not all.

      It doesn't matter if the underlying reason for this violence is a rebellion against the occupation: most people are not that educated on these issues and only believe the media narrative, which is inherently anti-Arab and Islamophobic and goes to enormous lengths to highlight Jewish suffering while dismissing any Palestinian victims.

      The good news is that I do not think affects the long-term trend. Palestinian solidarity work on American campuses is by now so strong that the juggernaut cannot be overturned. What we are seeing is the repetition of what we already know: the Israel lobby is at its strongest in Congress. That is the last bastion to storm.

      The media is still in flux. WaPo is moving to the center, the NYT continues in its far-right drift into open racism against Palestininans. NPR has an undiminished Zionist bias, while many progressive publications are veering in all directions.

      The universities are ours. Over time, only the neocon rags will defend Israel, and possibly the NYT.

  • Netanyahu: 'We need to control all of the territory for the foreseeable future'
    • Netanyahu could shout this from the rooftop of the Knesset but Israel's "liberal" supporters would still find a way to "save" Israel.

      And of course, as they insist that The Real Israel wants something else, except that the Labor Likudniks were the ones who started the whole enterprise.

    • Segregation now, segregation forever!*

      *Reference to an obscure Alabama politician from the 1960s.

  • 'Most-read' article at Washington Post calls Israel 'savage, unrepairable society'
    • Phil, he doesn't call Israel an unrepearable society, he calls it:

      We seem to be in a fast and alarming downward swirl into a savage, unrepairable society

      Seem to, going in the direction.

      He ends his piece with the typical "end the occupation" claptrap. It's not going to end now. If you don't call for a democratic state at this stage, you're supporting Apartheid by extension. Enough with the Labor/J Street "liberals" for whom Israel is always "in danger" or "seem to" becomming something which it already is, and whose remedies are always curiously ignoring issues like RoR. These are not liberals. Never have been, never will be.

      On a metapolitical note, isn't it weird that the former neocon rag is now in the center while the supposedly "liberal" NYT is now hard-right on Israel/Palestine?

      WaPo is not left. It's merely centrist and for us to think that there has been some huge shift, while in reality WaPo just stopped being crazy racist, is very indicitative of just how far the discourse has been pushed to the racist far-right on this topic. I don't know what happened to the Sulzberger family but they turned out to be a bunch of a bigoted racists. Maybe it was always like that, only that there was no pressure beforehand to reveal this as truth.

  • Two establishment Jews (Harvard and Microsoft) endorse boycott of Israel and 'single state' in Washington Post
    • Yeah, I touched on this in my comment, too. I do think that ownership matters. We're told "follow the money", but we can't follow the money on media ownership because that goes into Jewish stereotypes.

      But, of course, we should follow the money and understand that whoever owns the paper matters far more than who the current editor is. Bezos strikes me as a relatively apolitical(in foreign policy) libertarian who probably has a mild, latent pro-Israel bias but whose bias is shaped more by the fact that he has far more Jews in his close circles, whether at work or at home, than he has Palestinians.

      And when some of these Jews express grief with Israel, he's not shocked to read these Op-Eds in his paper the next day. There's no tribal shaming mechanism in place here.

      Think about the attacks on Richard Goldberg after his UN report. Or how you get viciously attacked as a Jewish journalist(Rudoren). There is a lot of tribal pressure that a guy like Bezos simply escapes by virtue of his ethnicity. I don't think that plays a marginal role in what we're seeing here.

Showing comments 2516 - 2501