Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2562 (since 2011-01-07 20:19:21)

Showing comments 2562 - 2501
Page:

  • 'Atlantic' editor says that Israel's 1948 expulsion of Palestinians was not 'a tragedy'
    • > the gop is firmly in the lap of israel

      The DNC is worse if anything under Clinton.

    • Spot-on snark. Goldberg will never stop being an ethnocentric bigot, but he is shrewd if anything. If he feels that dropping Israel will be beneficial for what he terms the Jewish interest(i.e. access to power, which is, politically speaking, essentially a permanent democratic majority henceforth), then he will do it. He understands deep down that Israel is not really threatened. It has a de facto alliance with many Sunni Arab states. If anything, not being as close to the US would moderate its worst impulses.

      Goldberg is always playing the influence game. Few if any has such a cynical approach to life. He is constantly trying to figure out where the wind blows.

      But as you noted, his ethnocentrism will never go away. It will just re-adapt to new circumstances. Phil has a habit of being wildly optimistic about Zionists. I remember him predicting that Beinart would become an anti-Zionist for many years. Still hasn't happened, and won't happen until the lights go out. Beinart, like Goldberg, know that Israel is an apartheid state. It doesn't bother them, which is why Goldberg went for Nakba denial.

  • Clinton aide called Netanyahu a ruthless 'wing nut' and Israel 'depressing'
    • Indeed, I'm surprised (not really) over how little the MSM has covered Hillary's blatant endorsement of a coup in the Palestinian territories.

      The good effect all these leaks have is to once and for all sink any remaining credibility she even attempts to build on the question. Palestinians can just point to this audio and ask how she can even attempt to try and be an honest broker.

      Once again, the shameful silence of the MSM underlines just how deeply embedded they are within the larger democratic party apparatus.

  • 'Personally I was glad to see the outpouring of anti-Semitism,' says Jewish journalist targeted by haters
    • Yeah those tweets were vicious. This is what genuine hatred looks like. Still, her gleeful cynical pleasure of being at the receiving end of those is pretty galling.

  • Cut from Clinton speech: Palestinians 'yearn for freedom... behind checkpoints and roadblocks'
    • It's been very eye-opening to see establishment media and the Clintonite liberals slam Assange as an agent for Putin etc. In 2012, when he went after Bush, there were no such noises. He was a hero then.

      The Wikileaks emails have also shown a very high degree of collusion between the campaign and the media, notably against Bernie in the primaries. You had Politico's editor in chief, Glenn Thrush, basically run articles by the campaign and asking for input.

      That's stenography, not journalism. This is why the rage against Assange must be understood. He is exposing the media just as much as he is exposing the campaign, and that removes their moral shroud and shows their corruption. They hate him for that.

      It also speaks a lot about how tribal a lot of liberals are.

  • Jeffrey Goldberg should come with a warning label
    • Doesn't say much. Goldberg is an ethnocentric bigot. Beinart is a split personality, he has a humanist core but his ethnocentrism usually wins the day. The result is that while he would never be caught making overt racist remarks about Europeans/Palestinians like Goldberg, the bar to cross is so low as to make the comparison meaningless.

      In the end, Beinart still supports Israel. Despite the fact that he almost certainly knows - deep down - that the occupation is permanent and it is a de facto one big state now. He still clings to Zionism. That tells you what matters to him most, in the end.

    • What do you think the favourability rating of muslims would be if you polled Israeli Jews? Do you think those two are completely independent? You're as popular to your neighbours as you behave.

      It's very soothing to indulge oneself into a fantasy of "nothing we do matters to how we are treated or perceived". It's also psychobabble fit for the neurotic, scared and paranoid.

  • Israel supporter refuses to share Bard stage with Dima Khalidi and cites stereotypes about Jews smelling bad
    • “Whether consciously or unconsciously, Europe’s leaders are treating Israel as the collective Jew, assailing its legitimacy in the same way that their ancestors challenged the legitimacy of the Jewish people.”

      I didn't know Marcus had the ability to conduct brainreading mindbeams.

      It's also noticable that he uses the whole ancestry card. That is a form of blood libel, the notion that some people are genetically/by blood bound by certain behaviours. Of course Marcus would be the first to protest if that sort of argument was used against his kin.

      I long for the day when people like him can be flushed from history. And he will. I felt dirty even reading this post. I hope we'll get less coverage on the paranoid fears of bigots like him. They don't matter.

  • B'Tselem calls on world to 'intervene' to stop 'more perfect occupation,' and Netanyahu goes ballistic
    • This will not change. Hillary means 8 more years of the status quo. In her Wikileaks email she has said that she prefers a Potemkim process to no process. She knows the game is up. She is simply protecting Israel because A) donors and B) her daughter's only husband is a Zionist. I basically view her no different than if the next president had been plucked out of AIPAC. Hillary essentially operates like a Jewish Zionist president on the question.

      El-Ad's point about the status quo not only being sustainable but indeed thriving for Israel is a key point. It is thriving because they face no consequences for their criminal Apartheid system. We all know the reasons why, this site writes about it weekly.

      During the DNC primaries I was attacked for being too pessimistic when I said that there will be no change and in fact even a regression. In the long run, I'm optimistic, but people underestimate the staying power of the Zionist establishment. Just look at Goldberg's recent appointment as editor in chief of the Atlantic. His publisher may be a Christian but he acts like a Zionist, too. NPR's coverage of I/P is laughable.

      We only have the students, but that process will still take decades. The next election will not be in 2020 but 2024, because the GOP is demographically finished. I suggest that instead of being carried away, we spend these next eight years organising the democratic/liberal base so that the next candidate cannot get away with being PEP anymore.

      And yes, it means a direct and frontal assault on the donor class, with all the cries of "anti-Semitism" as that entails, because the liberal Zionist donor base is the root cause of the inaction of the issue. Until and unless this becomes the broad concensus in the liberal base then NOTHING will happen.

  • Trump is losing the Israel vote almost as bad as he is losing in New York
    • This shouldn't be surprising. Clinton will be the most slavish president to Israel since.. well, Bush. The fact that it wasn't long ago speaks volumes of how spoiled they are(thanks to donors).

      Trump's instincts are more about making allies pay their share fair and so on. Even if he has carefully left out Israel out of that list, it nevertheless is something they are very sensitive about, not least because they know they are very dependent on American foreign aid.

      If Bernie had been the Democratic nominee, you can bet that Trump would have been coasting to a landslide now in their polls.

  • New ad campaign in college papers calls out Israeli leaders' bigotry against Palestinians
    • > UK government agrees that Jews should be the ones to decide what is antisemitic and not

      Yeah we ran that experiment, most notably in the attempt to silence all and any discourse around Israel.

      That mistake isn't going to be repeated.

  • Trump could be bumpy for Jews
    • What's ironic is that many Jews themselves are prominent in the WN movement. Paul Gottfrid is the grand master of the so-called alt right - he even invented the phrase. Robert Weissberg is another. Unz hosts what can only be called a plethora of alt-right writers like Steve Sailer, A. Karlin and others. Unz is Jewish, FYI.

      So I am a bit puzzled by this author's assertions. Are those Jews delusional? I doubt it.

      Second, that Jews in America are afraid of Trump(especially those on the left) is not surprising. Many Jews embraced liberalism in America for tribal reasons, not out of principle.

      If liberalism and humanism was inherent in Jewish culture, Israel wouldn't have been an Apartheid state. Israel is not synonymous with Jewish culture, as much as white-ruled South Africa was not synonymous with Dutch culture (or British culture).

      The point I'm making is that the tone of the author is a bit dated. It implicitly buys into the mythology of Jews as liberals. My contention is that this is very circumstancial. Look at the right-wing turn of British Jews for instance. Just 9% or so of them vote Labour. They are overwhelmingly Zionist(i.e. ethnic nationalists).

      I personally find it somewhat amusing that so many ethnic nationalists seem to think they are liberals, when they are afraid of the very same people who are just like them.

  • There's no room on campus to be progressive and pro-Israel
    • The entire piece has a stench of whining Jewish privilege. For too long, people like him could pretend to be liberals in the US because support Apartheid abroad.

      That moment has collapsed, and now he's crying. He is disgusting.

  • Months after saying he won't appear at Israeli foreign ministry events, Amos Oz will do just that in Paris
    • I’m also anti-BDS, and I am a liberal

      Pick one. You cannot be a liberal and support an Apartheid state.

    • She's an Israeli who prefers to live in Los Angeles and was brought up in the U.S. from the age 3.

      Do some more research, john.

    • Exactly. Note how she approves of Oz's equation all of Europe with the Nazis and the colonial authorities, which the average European had no say in. The Nazis didn't even get a supermajority in the 1933 German election before they abolished democracy. It shows her own bigotries.

      Hershlag(her real name) suffers from the same syndrome as Goldberg and many others. She genuinely thinks Jews are better. Her problem with reality is that Jews are not better(or worse), Jews are just like everyone else.

      And so she can't explain the racism of Zionism and the Apartheid that was intentionally created with the 67 ethnic cleansing and then (further) colonisation. So she has to blame Europe. It has to be someone's fault, but it can't be the Jews fault!

      This is "liberal" Zionism folks. It isn't really more sophisticated than this. It's why they are being crushed by the left, and for good reason.

  • Let's talk about Russian influence
  • A French, a Palestinian, and a black woman all wade into a pool
    • What a tsunami of nonsense. The burkini is driven by the same impulse as the one behind the niqab and the burqa. It's about creating taboos around women's bodies - and has Nida ever considered that it is ONLY women and never men?

      Yet she now wants us to believe that this is exactly the same as forbidding black people in a pool. Donning the burqa or the burkini is a voluntary choice. You don't choose to have black skin, its something you are born with.

      Shame on this site for publishing this drivel.

  • The politics of Jewish ethnocentrism
    • I take the long view. America does not need Jews to interfere, often brutually, in the domestic affairs of other nations. Ask any Caribbean nation about that, or South-East Asia, or any other place.

      That being said, it doesn't preclude the fact that in 2016, in this day and age, Jewish ethnocentrism, crystallised into Zionism, is a driving force in American Middle Eastern policy. I don't see any evidence for it in other parts of the world, possibly in some shades in Europe, but mostly just in the Middle East. Certainly not in Asia, Africa, Latin America etc.

      Fundamentally, there is a whole class of people out there who have been telling themselves that they are liberal. They are not. Beinart, Goldberg, Stephens(liberal maybe on gay rights, not liberal on ethnocentrism) even people like Krugman, who often shirks talking about Zionism and pretends that Israel lobby doesn't exist, instead he just bashes the Koch brothers and similar types. Nothing about Adelson's Israeli obsession.

      I/P has exposed these people. The neocon convergence around Hillary is based around the same premise. It isn't concentrated to one party or one organisation. It's a pathology within the upper echelons of the Jewish community, but it is also generational. You don't see young Jews act like this in nearly the same way.

  • Beinart calls anti-Zionists 'revolutionaries'
    • It is refreshing to see you finally seeing Beinart for the reactionary he is. He is only faking concern. His blurting out a couple of years ago that he would be "fine" with Palestinians not having full citizenship rights should have been the wake-up call for you.

      Better late than never. Beinart will block any progress on the occupation while feigning concern for the Palestinians as long as he can. It's time these "liberals" are called out on their bigotry and racism.

      As I said many times before and will say again: the true test of one's liberalism is not what you support when you're in the minority, but in the majority. Beinart's politics in America is utterly irrelevent. It's what he favours in a society where he is in the majority that matters.

  • Chosen indeed: all 7 letters run by 'NYT' on Mideast article are by Jews
  • Zionists and anti-Zionists march together for two hours in New York
    • Good piece. I've never personally believed that Zionism was required for Jewish tribalism. If that was the case, how does one explain the previous 2000 years before 1948?

      I guess the challenge is how to form a community where anti-Jewish animus cannot serve as the organising principle of tribalism. The answer to that, from the established Jewish groups, has been Zionism.

      I am fundamentally skeptical of the viability of diaspora Judaism where Zionism is not the central plank if you want to see the intermarriage rate come down etc, together with all the other tribal objectives.

      The only way to achieve that is the Haredi route, but what is the point of that. Israel is probably the only place where you can live a secular life and still live a life that is oozing with Jewishness, even if you don't try to do so actively! In the diaspora, you can live a fully Jewish life, but you have to make much more of an effort. It is simply passively part of the Israeli society in a way that cannot be true in the diaspora. So I get the allure for secular Jews in the US and elsewhere, why they'd romanticise it.

      Nevertheless, I'm fairly confident that these types of marches will be more normalised as even the NYT and other holdouts finally capitulate and get real with their readers, that Israel is a fascistic society which has no intention of ever emancipating the Palestinians and it is willing to endure interntional isolation because the settlers have now completely taken over the state. But then again, the founders were also settlers, so what is the difference?

      Israel will simply be an uncomfortable subject to be swept under the carpet, like any other dysfunctional family deals with its issues.

      I doubt the Israeli society will mourn anything at all.They've already moved on in many ways. Many American Jews have not.

  • White Jews and uppity blacks
    • I'm surprised how lightly the writer treats the ADL, casting it as the good guy against the bad ZOA. ADL only gave lip service to BLM, while it castigated it for standing up to Palestinian rights. That's why they turned on BLM in their latest attack.

      Truth is, there is no major daylight between ZOA and ADL. The only difference is that ADL is smoother and pretends to be a universal civil rights group when they are an ethnocentric lobby group only concerned with one group alone, like the ZOA.

      That cover worked fine as long as Palestine was not on the agenda. Now that it is, the cover is blown and the mask drops. Instead, the writer never mentions this and just passively describes them as "supporting" BLM when this isn't the case, at all. The latest salvo on BLM was hysterical and paranoid from their side.

      More generally, I'd say most of these "Jewish radicals" were not in many cases very radical. The same is true of these "liberals" who are only liberal in America, because it is in their ethnic interest.

      But being a liberal as an ethnic minority is not a sign of liberalism. It's just a sign you know your interests. The real test is how you act in situations where your group is in the majority. The vast majority of so-called "liberal" Jewish Zionists are not liberal at all when it comes to Israel.

      People overestimate just how much liberalism there is in American Jewry, at least for those above the age of 40.

  • Israeli settler leader, rejected by Brazil, gets warm welcome in New York
    • It's because the nerve center of the Israel lobby is in America. It's also why Israel has been able to avoid the same pressure as Apartheid South Africa. The Afrikaaner lobby, such as there even was one, doesn't even stand a chance against the Israel lobby.

      Shillary will be 8 golden years for these people. During these 8 years we have to consolidate the gains made during the Obama years. And we can't settle for a waffler like Bernie. I/P has to be made a major priority for every democrat, just like gun laws, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage is.

      The PEP people have to become purged. It's only an elite obsession anyway, concentrated on capitol hill and in the media. There is no major support structure within the liberal base, and it's long, long past time that those who support an Apartheid state get called what they are: racists.

  • Israel lobby panics about 'spoiled' next generation of American leaders turning against it
    • Part of the problem for the Israel lobby is that it has always been a top-down movement, just like the neocons in the GOP.

      It was never rooted in the grassroots. The only mass movement of people who loved Israel were evangelical Christians, who are held with contempt by the vast majority of leaders in the lobby, as they came from urban backgrounds and consider themselves "liberals"(lmao).

      Witness the support Bernie got among the young and educated liberals vs Clinton. She is the last stand of the lobby and they are right to be worried. They will get these last 8 years of a puppet president, but after her, le Deluge.

      The Bernie voters were never divided on Israel, they were fully supportive of Palestine. Dean voters became the Obama voters. The Bernie voters will have 8 years, not 4 years, but that will make it even more impactful once the next (real) election takes place, which is the democratic primary in 2024, as the GOP is terminally eliminated via demographics.

  • The 'New York Times' is dead set on marginalizing Jewish anti-Zionism
    • It's a generational issue. By the time the young Jews of today become 40-50, Israel will already be so far to the right that they won't need American support.

      The country has never been safer from outside aggressors and nobody in Israel believes the propaganda/bullshit/lies that Iran is the new Nazi Germany.

      I've always maintained that Israel's single biggest threat is not external, but internal. If they inevitably slide into isolationism, will they endure that? How will the state, founded by secular athetists for the most part, handle its transition into religious fundamentalism?

      These are the most foundational questions for Israel over the next 30 years.
      In a sense, even if American Jewry sours, Israel will no longer need them as much as it used to need them. It can handle its own.

  • Barak says Trump should name Rice or Gates v.p. to improve his chances from 30 percent
    • In what way did he speak the truth? He invoked Jabotinsky, the fascist, as a hero and Ben-Gurion, the ethnic cleanser, as a role-model.

      His criticisms are tactical, not ideological. It's amazing to me that Phil stenographed his entire talk without nary a critical comment. Maybe Barak can be that charming, but with distance, it is a hypocritical speech.

      He lectures the South Africans on living in a bubble, yet this guy thinks that Netanyahu has been "taken hostage" when everything points to the fact that he believes everything he does. Why shouldn't he? Barak spins this fairy tale because he needs a fairy tale Israel to believe in.

      He cannot fathom that the so-called 'extreme right' as smack in the middle of center in Israel today. Worse, he cannot admit that his ideological strain basically agrees with them on all the fundamental aspects of Apartheid and oppression. His only critique is that they should do it in a more nimble way.

  • Trump's America is fascist, says Bret Stephens, but Netanyahu's Israel smells like a rose
    • Stephens is not isolated.

      He is a good example of the fact that a lot so-called "liberal" Zionists(and neocons are essentially socially liberal) are only liberals in the USA because they are ethnic/religious minorities.

      In other words, they are liberals because it is in their ethnic interest to be so. That's why they oppose Trump(soft white nationalism) but strongly support Zionism(hardcore Jewish nationalism).

      Their problem is not with nationalism per se. Their opposition is simply conditional on whether they are in a majority or in the minority.

      You can find a lot of similar examples on the so-called center(Jeff Goldberg) or even Beinart, who may be anti-Netanyahu but is still an avowed ethnic nationalist.

      The crisis in Israel is bringing out all this hypocrisy for all to see.

  • Beinart's Jewish double-bind: Support oppression or you're out of the family
    • Beinart has always put the interests of tribe above principles. That doesn't make him the same kind of Zionist as a bigot like Foxman, but in the end, in the final analysis, he's on the side of Jewish Apartheid.

      It's been obvious from the start. The shoot-and-cry Zionism has long passed its date. They have no trick left to employ. Nobody is buying their BS anymore.

  • How Chris Van Hollen learned to love Israel
    • Van Hollen is the worst kind of human being. He's obviously smart enough to know what's happening but is willing to subsume the nation's interests in the favor of another in order to get elected. It is for reasons such as these that the American policy in the Middle East has been a failure.

  • 'Forward' columnist and Emily's List leader relate 'gigantic,' 'shocking' role of Jewish Democratic donors
    • Let's be honest: the reason why she felt compelled to say what she said is because of two major factors: Walt and Mearsheimer and the BDS movement. J Street is still Zionist with a long history of shutting out Palestinian voices. Emily still only tried to set this up as AIPAC vs J Street. Zionism vs Zionism. That's not good enough.

      Her comments are notable for someone on the inside, but they are still a result of grassroots efforts to expose the Israel lobby. And yes, it's mostly about money on the democratic side. That's where the big donors of the Jewish community comes from, to ensure support of Jewish Apartheid.

      The GOP are going to support Israel no matter what. It's because of Christian evangelicalism, it's because the Palestinians are muslims, and are therefore the automatic enemy in the eyes of the GOP.

      As the GOP withers and dies demographically, the spotlight will turn to the Democratic party. Why are its elites increasingly out of step with the base? The NYT wrote about "conservative Jewish influence" a few days ago when talking about Bernie's Israel heresy. Again: only in the context of Jewish dissent is this discussion ever broached. It was also written by a Jewish reporter in a newspaper owned by Jews. That's not good enough.

      True progress will be when the disucssion moves from "How are Jews feeling?" to "What can be done to end support of Jewish Apartheid, not because what some Jews feel like, but because it is the right thing to do for humanity".

  • Sanders's leftwing base made him take on Netanyahu
    • The chief fundraiser of Emily's list, who has a long history of seeking money from Jewish donors, spoke about this political glasnost here as well:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnJrYrBhR9s&feature=youtu.be&t=1h10m51s

      It's just 4-5 minutes, but it's worth a listen. She says, as the room falls silent, that the Orthodoxy on Israel was never about votes; it was about money. Though she stops at contrasting AIPAC to J Street, its another stepping stone to BDS.

      Soon every democrat will recoil at the sight of AIPAC like they are at the sight of the NRA. Then inevitably J Street will be exposed as the conservative organisation it is, working to support an Apartheid state, and the true democratic debate will come out.

      The Zionist organisations fear this, because they believe they will not win such a debate if it is conducted fairly and even-handedly. They're right.

  • The Jewish community must choose, between Sanders and AIPAC
    • Very good article, but you can tell the author isn't well versed in American politics.
      What I mean by that is that she invests all this power in the Jewish community to end the special relationship with the Jewish Apartheid state.

      In reality, the Jewish community matters, but increasingly less so, as the BDS movement is drawing strength from all communities, most of whom are non-Jewish.
      Yes, there are plenty Jews in it, but whether there is Jewish consent or not is frankly irrelevant. Time and patience have simply run out to wait on a sudden mass Jewish awakening when it hasn't been happning.

  • Jewish leaders' excommunication of Sanders aide over Israel will only alienate young Jews -- Open Hillel
    • To contrast it with the so-called "Arab lobby" which has been exposed as weak and irrelevant once again:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html

      Notice how open the discussion is about Saudi Arabia's role as a liability for the U.S.
      When will we have a discussion about the USS Liberty? When will we have a discussion about sending up to 5 billion dollars a year to an Apartheid state which never sends its troops to the wars that its lobby advocates for?

      Power is when you don't have to answer for your privilege and your leeching. The NYT is a thoroughly Zionist newspaper, as is most of the rest of the American media.

      But the day will come when this discussion will be had over Israel, too.

  • 'Israel will not have better friend in White House than Hillary' -- Clinton adviser assures NY
    • Interesting. Sanders feels he can go after Wall Street in an unrestrained manner, without apologising or amending anything.

      But look at this! Now his spox is coming out of the woodwork, in a nervous tone, assuring the supporters of Jewish apartheid that Sanders will, indeed, be a staunch supporter of their cause. Very disappointing.

      Yet also very telling. This goes to show what we've been saying. You can bash the NRA or Wall Street. But you can't bash the Israel lobby.

      Now which lobby/special interest group is the most powerful of them all? The one which nobody dares to criticise.

  • Shocker: 'NYT' forum on anti-Zionism tilts toward equating Zionism with racism
    • Remember 2009-2011? During those years, the NYT took bold steps towards saying what had to be said, only to retreat into bigoted Jewish supremacism. Jodi Rudoren's fawning portrayals of IDF generals ruling over a colonised population and her dismissals of Palestinians as "ho-hum" about the death of their children was the logical conclusion of the years that followed 2009-2011.

      We may now see the temporary reverse of shoot-and-cry Zionism, only for it to re-emerge as Clinton enters the WH and breaths life into the dead ghost of the 2SS. The puppetshow must then be re-enacted, and the NYT knows what role it has to play in order to defend Jewish Apartheid.

      Watch for the NYT to denounce any truthteller as a bigoted extremist for failing to be sufficienctly supportive of the Jewish Apartheid project in Israel.

      In the long run, I am an optimist. But let us not exonerate the NYT for its staunch and consistent support of Zionism, even when it was obvious to everyone of the deep racism and brutal colonialism that was apparent to anyone on the ground. The NYT wasn't oblivious, it was actively covering up the crime out of ideological reasons, it's a heavily Jewish paper and Zionism is seeped in American-Jewish culture.

      That institutional failure to rid itself of its racism has to be remembered and the NYT has to be held accountable. It never wavered on civil rights. It never trembled on Christian Apartheid in South Africa. So why did it defend Jewish Apartheid until the bitter end?

      These questions are uncomfortable, yet they need to be asked, over and over again, until they come clean. It has blood on its hands and it must be held accountable for supporting a historical crime.

  • Sanders is in Jewish tradition that rejected exceptionalist nationalism of Zionism
    • It is an appropriate critique of Sanders’ habit of omitting his Jewishness altogether

      lol

      as he routinely does by referring to himself as the child of Polish immigrants, without mentioning the fact of his Jewishness.

      What a crime! You never fail to amuse with your idiocy, hop.

    • I didn't like the piece. It was reflective of an Ashkenazi cultural domination. Just as Jesse accuses Zionists, and rightly so, of taking Judaism hostage, he is guilty of the same by talking of a general "Jewish tradition" and then only refers to Ashkenazi history.

  • As NY primary approaches, Clinton and Sanders separate, somewhat, on Israel
    • Morning Joe has actually been one of the few media outlets that has not treated Bernie with outright hostility. Props to Joe and Mika.

    • Yet notice how Bernie will not mention her slavishness to the Israel lobby, which pushed for the Iraq war and pushes for regime change in the Middle East today.

      He slams her on Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry, but he stays shamefully silent on the Israel lobby and its disastrious effects on American foreign policy.

      Now tell me, which lobby is the most powerful in Washington? It's not even close.

  • Liberal Zionists are losing control of US discourse, and they know it
    • The liberal Jewish establishment is part and parcel of the Clinton Coalition. The young liberals are all for Bernie, which is ironic since you'd expect the Jews to be with the Jewish candidate, but nope.

      Anyway, their decline in influence must be traced alongside the decline of Clintonism among the young. Clintonism, support for Wall Street and being slavish to the Israel lobby, isn't winning a lot of future votes.

      They should be scared, because the writing is on the wall.

  • Eric Alterman contradicts himself about anti-Semitism on campus
  • Senior advisor to Clinton calls Obama's rationale for withdrawal from Mideast 'strange, bizarre, illogical, odd'
    • Her freakout is similar to that of other Israel lobbyists, they fear American withdrawal. That's also why neocons support higher military budgets. If they feel so strongly about Israel that their view of American security is distorted, then they should pack their bags and make aliyah.

  • Obama said in Cuba what he couldn't say in Palestine
    • Agreed, but Phil has a history of making wildly optimistic predictions. He kept saying BDS would become an issue in the campaign; never happened.

      Obama was always a political creature that was created out of liberal Jewish donors' domain. He literally described them, half-jokingly, as his "cabal".

      He has told Axelrod that he considers himself the closest thing to the first Jewish president. I've said for a while now that Obama identifies closer to the Jews than to black people or white people. But it's a specific Jewish community, the Remnick shoot-and-cry Zionists who are very liberal on domestic policy but turn into Israel stalwarts whenever someone non-Jewish criticizes Israel.

      That's Obama's background, that is his formation. Phil just skips past it.

    • He will stay silent on Jewish Apartheid. He needs those donors/connections after his presidency.

      He will likely talk more about BLM/police violence because the cops don't have a lobby in the U.S. beside the WSJ editorial board, who have always hated Obama anyway.

      So, in other words, pick the low-hanging fruit, but he will continue to defend Jewish Apartheid.

  • A 'longtime activist for social justice,' Booker worries his anti-BDS stance will 'rankle' and 'upset' people
    • I don't think you've been following campus politics lately. The community leaders in the Latin@/black student movements have been solidly pro-Palestinian.

      Remember a few years ago when AIPAC and the other groups in the lobby tried to buy off students on key campuses? They abandoned that, because it didn't work.

      So what they are doing now is plan B: go and try to outright ban BDS activism. It is a high-stakes game, a rear-guard action, one which will inevitably end in a loss.

      In a sense, they are raising the profile on BDS activism by several notches, free PR.

      While its true that the average black/brown voter isn't very well aware, guess what, neither is the average white voter. In fact, I'd place more faith in the young black/brown leadership of America than the white, progressive leadership, which is often made up of spineless WASPs.

      The future is already seen on campuses, and the Israel lobby are engaged in a fight-and-retreat.

  • Garland nomination is moment of humble reflection for US Jews
    • The reason Obama chose Garland is because he should be a “shoe in” for confirmation.

      It was telling that during Totenberg's interview, she referred to him as "another white guy". This is the melding of the establishment. It's why Lena Dunham caught hell in 2010 over Girls, because her explanation that half her staff was Jewish(as in, they are minority) didn't satisfy anyone. It was a telling moment.

      It's why Friends, the sitcom, is now being attacked as being too white and romantic about it when it is re-running, even if it had a mostly Jewish writing staff and several Jews as actors.

      You don't get to these positions in the establishment without significant assimilation. Garland's nomination may be a big moment for older Jews, those closer to 60 and above, but for the rest of America, the younger and more diverse America, they ask: what is the difference?

      I was reading through a lot of legal philosophy lately and of course there are plenty of Jews represented in those rankings of who is most cited etc. When I read their jurisprudence, the Posner/Dworkin/Eisenstein and the others, we're dealing with a moderate technocratic elite. Yes, they are different from a firebreather like Scalia, but there was precious little on race and issues such as those.

      It was mostly about the environment, the proper role of government and more arcane technicalities. That relaxed approach also suggests that a community is assimilated, else more pressing concerns would resurface.

  • Sanders will not attend AIPAC, offers to share remarks
    • Disappointing. It conveys the message that the main obstacle was the delivery of his remarks. Sanders shouldn't even be negotiating with these alien lobbyists.

      He decries the influence of special interests in domestic policy, but its suddenly good or at least acceptable in foreign policy? This is one area where the grassroots progressives who support Sanders simply must improve on. We can't be impartial to Apartheid.

  • Goldberg on Obama's Syria credibility 'crisis'
    • BTW this is an awesome piece of commentary/news analysis, annie.

    • I don't get this meme. He's not mysterious, he's merely rational.

      Obama has always been a foreign policy rationalist. He cites Brent Snowcroft as a role model for foreign policy.

      Goldberg's hysteria is merely the latest sign of the decline of the neocons.

  • As Trump heads to AIPAC, Netanyahu stands to benefit
  • 'New York Times' whitewashes poll showing Israeli support for expelling Palestinians
    • Haaretz and NYT are engaged in a pointless pursuit: to engage in wordfeuding when the stark reality of a Jim Crow state is staring them in the face, a fact both have tried to undercut and/or hide from their readers for years(esp. NYT).

      This latest shameful shilling for Jewish Apartheid should surprise absolutely nobody.

  • 'NYT' columnist says Hillary Clinton is not pro-Israel enough!
    • Exactly.

      Remember Ya'alon just a few days ago begging about "moral support"(and more cash, of course)?

      For all the talk about how Israel supposedly 'doesn't need' America, its highest officials and hasbara journalists constantly reference the need for support.
      We were told just a few years ago how India and China represent a new chapter in Israeli diplomatic relations.

      I said back then: Israel has no choice but America because neither India nor China are stupid enough to have a "special relationship" with an isolated Apartheid state, which is an outcome from a alien interest lobby, the Israel lobby.

      Its all bluster. Without America, Israel is worth shit.

  • Rubio's defeat means the downfall of neoconservatives
    • So pointing out that Trump has wrecked the neocons(temporarily) is now the same as actively supporting or even promoting?

      Even for the low standards of an internet troll, you still manage to sink lower. You've never been intelligent, but at least you weren't so outright stupid in your trolling.

    • One more thing: Ted Cruz is not as belligerent as the neocons want, but he's obviously not a realist in foreign policy. He's a favorite of Adelson's wife, which should tell you a lot. The neocons are not yet finished, you're making a pre-celebratory victory lap here.

      Frankly, I still think, long-term, they have an easier stay in the GOP than in the democratic party. The base of the GOP by and large likes Israel, while the progressive base, especially the younger part, is starting to seriously hate Israel.

      Neocons are basically Jewish nationalists. So their primary concern is Israel. They can't trust a democratic party long-term whose base is hostile to their core interest, Israel(not America).

    • Trump will not call out Hillary on the neocons, because he is a bully and a bully typically goes after people he perceives as weaker targets. That's why Trump went after mexicans & muslims but not jews, blacks or Asians. He instictively knows which groups have cultural power in the US and which don't.

      He has also tried to woo Adelson in the past (but failed). He's going to AIPAC. No, he's not going to invade countries in the Middle East but he isn't actively going to call out the neocons.

  • Sayed Kashua doesn't want to write in Hebrew for 'Haaretz' anymore
    • Thanks for the report. Don't forget that 97%(!) of Jewish Israelis are against intermarriage.

      This is why all the talk about "if only Labor gets to power, things will work out alright" is BS.

Showing comments 2562 - 2501
Page: