Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1133 (since 2011-01-07 20:19:21)

Showing comments 200 - 101
Page:

  • 'Contractually obligated' to say the peace process is alive, Aslan told Americans to get ready for one state
    • Unpopular comments, which is why the coverage of this has been so quiet. I can't say that I've followed his career extensively, but I have seen him in the news with regular frequency and not all related to his books. Yet I've missed this part, despite the fact that this conflict is of great personal interest to me.

      So I'm guessing its the usual hatchet job of burying anything that contradicts the status quo. Good find, nonetheless. Let's hope more people have the guts to call out the naked Emperor(always such a weird saying, which is why I enjoy saying it).

  • Journalistic malpractice: Washington Post suggests Abbas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist
    • The Washington Post is the epicenter of conventional wisdom in the beltway. These people are by nature reactionary and by that I mean they reflect the opinions of the past, because of their age, because they rose in such a value system.

      Will the students of America, especially at liberal universities, accept this blindly the way they did 10-15 years ago after the Clinton initiative failed?

  • 'The clash of civilizations’ theory is absolutely and completely dead
    • Walid:

      Krauss, I have no urge to amuse you or to draw a list of your generalizations. Your second “ugh” post is full of them.

      You should give direct and concrete evidence of your acusations.

      What you are doing is a hit and run: you acuse me of something but refuse to give specific examples. Maybe because we both know you can't find anything. You're just projecting, Walid. Check your own intellectual biases.
      And re-read the portions where I, in considerate detail, outline where and how Huntington was wrong.

      PS. Don't know why people keep bringing up Bernie Lewis, or actually, I do know. It's a pavlovian reaction.

      Sean McBride:

      I didn’t see anything remotely prejudicial towards Arabs or Arab culture in your words — that’s an odd interpretation.

      I think it's a Pavlovian reaction. Whenever people see the words "culture" and "Arab" bound together, some people just stop thinking and just start to assume things, even if they were never written.

      And if you go through what I wrote, you can't find a single generalization of Arabs á la "this is how Arabs are". All I am writing about is the importance of culture to explain the rise of Islamism etc, I don't define what/how that culture is.

      Back to Walid:

      I was simply disagreeing with your observations and not in any way conducting a personal attack on you.

      Most of my comment was aimed at the fallacies of Lewis, Huntingdon and Patai that approached the understanding of the Arab mentality from a cultural perspective, hence the wounded pride and deep feelings of inadequacy, shame and humility mumbo-jumbo that gave rise to Abu Ghraib abuses, and I remarked that you were falling into the same trap. You compounded the error by adding a religious angle to it.

      Well, you claim you don't make a personal attack, but you kind of are but then you refuse to give examples of said accusations/attacks. As I said, Walid, that's a cowardly hit and run and you should be able to do better.

      And as far as Lewis and Patai goes, I never mentioned them, nor did/have I embraced their theories. You seem to think that even talking about the role of culture in the rise of Islamism is a sin in of itself somehow.

      I'm guessing because you, quite correctly, noted that using the guise of "culture" has been an excuse to say some pretty racist things about Arabs.

      Which is precisely why I didn't make sweeping statements about Arabs á la "this is how Arabs are". I'm telling you, you have to read what I wrote carefully and check your impulses. You'll notice that more or less all of what you accuse me of doesn't even exist.

      If you don't want to include culture in an analysis of the trends in the Arab world, then how are you different from a Chomsky type in talking about Zionism? And I'm urging you; just because people have mismanaged the culture card, allowed it to be a trampoline to racism, doesn't mean the importance has gone away, even if we may wish it has.

      It hasn't.

      P.S. I don't mean to say that you can explain everything with culture. I don't believe in mono-causal explanations. But I am saying it has to have a seat at the table, at the very least. And if you disagree with this, you should be able to give an argument of why not, instead of making baseless attacks and then not being able to back them up.

    • Castellio, the CoC theory never had widespread support, in large part because most people understood that it failed to explain the entire world or at least the primary events of the world.

    • James,

      I agree and disagree. I agree with you concerning Huntington's statement that Islam has bloody borders and this implication that it will become a world wide menace has largely been proved incorrect. The vast majority of Islamist terror is targeted at other muslims.

      But this is also consistent with what I wrote. Huntington's theory was ambitious; it aimed to explain the primary force in the post-Cold War world. It failed to do that. (Of course, his defenders would say that it was indeed the case that he was correct, but only for the first 15 years or so).

      As for your final statement, I think you're misguided.
      The Arab spring was an internal response, but the political forces that rose were by and large Islamists. Remember the secular hope of Egypt? Even Tunisia, long the Western hope for Arab secularism, has gone Islamist.

      My argument, in brief, is that Huntington's thesis was wrongly named. It shouldn't have been called the Clash of Civlizations. It should have been called the Clash Within Civilizations.

      It asserted that “Islam” exists as a unified force

      No, it never did that. Although if someone would want to be lenient towards you, that person could concede that Huntington, while acknowledging the deep rifts within Islam, still believed that the hatred of the West - as he saw it - would paper over these differences.
      This too has been proved wrong.

      But that is also consistent with what I wrote. Huntington was wrong in how he thought Islam vs the West would play out. He simply overestimated the Islamic countries, their coherency, but also their capabilities.

      But if you look at the Middle East now, how can you explain the inexorable rise of Islamism across the region? As I wrote previously:

      People say, yes but what about the U.S. support for the military dictators! Then why isn’t the opposition secular? Are you telling me that the U.S. is forcing people to become Islamists?

      The old left has no real answer to this, just like Chomsky is worthless in trying to explain Zionism within the stale "capitalism/imperialism" framework. Culture matters.

    • The Americans made their military officers take his courses in the “Arab mind” before sending them off to Iraq and they ended up with prize boners like Abu Ghraib. You are falling in the same generalizing trap.

      Walid, again a total misreading of what I wrote. It seems you read what you'd like to read instead of what I actually wrote. I didn't generalize over the "Arab mind". Give concrete examples of how I did that, I'll be amused to see you try.

      What I wrote, instead, is that to see what is happening in the Middle East cannot be explained by the old explanation models of capitalism or imperialism alone. They have their place, but just like Zionism, you have to include a much broader group theories, where culture plays a part.

      How is this, in your mind, somehow morphed into "this is how Arabs work"? I'm genuinely curious about this one, because I think this debate is important.

    • Just a quick comment before I get to the more substantive parts.

      You underestimate the Arab intellect, especially that you include “every Arab intellectual” in your equally hasty re-think.

      your persistent, stiff refusal to rubbish “every Arab intellectual”

      Now let's review what I wrote:

      I don’t think anyone can hope to completely understand what’s happening in the Arab world, including every Arab intellectual

      I don't see this as an all-out attack on Arab intellectuals. I'm saying, nobody can completely understand what is happening in the Arab world, including Arab intellectuals. At least from my point of view, the way the sentence is phrased is that Arab intellectuals are best positioned of all of us to understand the region, and they understand it better than anyone, but even they don't understand it completely.

      That's the key word. I first thought that I was unclear in my language but when I reviewed it, nope, it's pretty clear language to me. It's not an attack on Arab intellectuals, and if you're reading it that way you're reading it wrong.

      P.S. aiman, I'm particularly pleased that a defender of a Holocaust denier like yourself is attacking me. I'm doing something right.
      (Reference. link to mondoweiss.net)

    • Ugh, that was a fast affirmation. Usually it is much slower( allowing me time to edit stuff)!

      My basic point is that the theory isn't useless; its only of limited use in specific circumstances/regions. This differs from the grand ambitions he had as the overarching frame of reference when thinking about the world.

      The left generally has an aversion of cultural explanations, for understandable reasons. But we should not shy away from them in these circumstances.

      Remember, Chomsky tried to explain what's happening in I/P through a Marxist/economic model. As if the conflict was all about money!

      Zionism isn't driven by money, there is a deep-rooted cultural driving force.

      Similarily, to explain the Arab world today by only using the old and worn models of imperialism and capitalism isn't enough. Are attacks on Shia minorities based on a capitalistic framework? Are attacks on Christians in Iraq/Syria/Egypt the wishes of the U.S. military-industrial complex?
      Does the rise of Islamists in Iraq or Syria prove that oil is fueling the conflict? What about the rise of Islamism in Egypt these past few decades, which has no oil?
      People say, yes but what about the U.S. support for the military dictators! Then why isn't the opposition secular? Are you telling me that the U.S. is forcing people to become Islamists?

      I don't think anyone can hope to completely understand what's happening in the Arab world, including every Arab intellectual, but I don't think the case is strong for saying Islam/culture is not a very strong, indeed the primary, reason for the events recently. And in that sense, Huntington's theory, while it has its flaws, can at least provide a different frame that is more useful than trying to explain it all than through capitalism or some other default explanation.

    • Nope, it isn't dead for the reasons you cited.

      It is dead because the Arab world is largely devouring itself. The Arab world =/= muslim/Islamic world, of course, but it is the cultural heart of the Islamic world. Islam is, after all, the Arabic people's religion.

      However, they are devouring themselves in large part because of religious differences(Sunni vs Shia) - and in this sense - Huntington's thesis that the primary forces in the post-Cold War era would be religious, applies at the very least in the Arab world in this day. So it is correct in viewing the Arab world but not from a Western/world point of view, where Islam is not a threat and basically irrelevant/weak.

      So in that sense his thesis has been proved correct. But, of course, his thesis was a thesis which was supposed to cover the world, not the Arab world. Which is why, if you view it from the world wide perspective, it failed.

      For a world wide perspective, does anyone think China or the Latin American countries are obsessed with Islam? You can't explain what is going on in Asia or Latin America using a fundamental cultural clash. Latin America isn't really an influencer of culture in any real shape, anyway, nor do they have a special economic model that isn't available elsewhere(and usually working better, such as China).

      The main challenge to the West is not the Arab world, which is incredibly weak and getting weaker by the day. The main challenge is China, basically.
      (India is essentially one giant Switzerland in terms of foreign relations).

      However, China's not an ideological opponent the way the FSU was. It's an economic, and within time, military, juggernaut which will force the post-war Western economic/political system to be changed.

      But Huntington dropped the ball on China, which Mearsheimer has not.
      (Then again, Mearsheimer came out relatively late with his analysis on China with his "China can't rise peacefully" thesis. If he had come out in the early 90s with it, it would have been much more impressive).

  • Saudis don't care about Palestinians, say American commentators
    • The reason why the MSM never asks is because they are comfortable with the same Arab autocratic status quo like most Western foreign policy folks.

      And in addition, for someone like Siegel, who is an avowed Zionist, it would also give even more pressure on Israel to do something if he reported about the Arab street.

      For the MSM media, its as if the Arab spring never happened. And they want it to stay that way, less more focus comes on Israel.

      (P.S. Note that Haass is very keen on trying to decouple the conflict's importance.
      And his wiki says his religion is Judaism, so I am assuming he is a Zionist because of his advanced age. So he has a vested interest too, in trying to downplay this angle. And of course, Siegel, on the same page as Haass, is all too eager to cooperate).

    • Well said, he is constantly doing this.

    • Except that we have an exceptional prescence in the American media, without parallel. Also, I don't think most Jews have a problem in talking about ourselves in terms of "we" in most situations.

      You just protest now because the topic makes you uncomfortable.

  • Liberal Zionists are the new front line against BDS
    • We have to be careful with our words, Meridius.

      You're correct that descent is a better phrase than "ethnicity", but this just proves my point that you can be 11/12ths non-Irish and still get a passport because of some old great-grandma somewhere back in your ancestral line.

      But I think you missed my point, the point is that people of Irish descent get to skip the line, but there is nothing stopping you from getting Irish citizenship if you really want it as a non-Irish(if you have no descent whatsoever).

      Furthermore, and this is critical, once you do have citizenship, you are all truly equal before the law. That's not the case in Israel, where only Jews can serve in the senior positions of the military.

      And since the military is the primary institution to get a good job after university, if you are academically inclined, that creates a strong disincentive to hire non-Jews in the upper echelons of society(and even further down). And it's not just jobs.

      It's housing policy(remember the "small communities act" that allows Jewish settlements to discriminate against non-Jews on the basis of their "cultural character"?), who you can marry, etc etc.

      Every fabric of society is governed by who is a Jew and who isn't, even if you have citizenship. And again, even getting a citizenship as a non-Jew is a nightmare. Haaretz did a report on this some months back where people who have married Jews in Israel were stalled for years, in an effort to "starve them out" and make them give up. And these are mostly white Europeans. If you're Arab, you're creamed. And if you married another Arab from Israel, who does have Israeli citizenship, forget about it.

      That is far away from the Irish experience, once you have citizenship, you are de jure and de facto equal with everyone else.

      And Ireland takes refugees, for example, which Israel doesn't. Why does Ireland take refugees? Because it isn't for exlusively Irish people, like Israel is exclusively for Jews. The non-Jews in Israel are under pressure to move away. And Israel's PM is on record for wishing to do mass ethnic cleansing(he did this in a speech in the late 80s during the Tiananmen Square protests).

      Is Ireland's PM on record for wishing to ethnically cleanse all non-Irish people of Ireland(especially, but not exclusively, the growing minority of non-whites in Ireland)?

      I don't think so.

    • As for MJ Rosenberg, that guy has long lost his sanity.
      He more or less accused Abuminah of being an anti-Semite.

      Now he's turning into a raging Likudnik. I'm just waiting for him to line up for Scarlett.

      It's funny how "liberal" Zionists become remarkably similar to Likudniks once sufficient pressure is applied and they can no longer afford to play their kabuki theater.

      I used to follow his Twitter a year ago or so. He spoke very aggressively about white supremacists, yet he is essentially a Jewish supremacist himself. Would he defend a white nationalist turning the U.S. into a white Christian nation? As a Jew, I don't think neither he nor I would be on board with that.

      But MJ is making exceptions when it comes to countries where he is in the majority. His "liberalism" is one giant fucking hoax. He only embraces it because he has to, as a minority. Once he gets out of that, he reveals his true colors.

      He's an ethno-nationalist racist.

    • Yael Aronoff's dicthomy will never win. She says "both sides contributed to the conflict".

      That's a really weird way of phrasing it.

      Who came into whose land started to colonize, bulldozer and raze entire villages(and then either shoot or force the villagers themselves to flee in mass ethnic cleansing)?

      Maybe Aronoff thinks Palestinians didn't contribute to peace but not being servile enough into accomodating their own dispossession?

      She mentioned the native American genocide etc. Who defends this today? Secondly, this is the 21th century. Not the 19th.
      As for the tired trope of "privileged ethnicity of countries like Ireland or Germany" that is BS. Germany got rid of its ethnically-bound citizenship in 1999(it was de facto toothless before that, non-ethnic germans had the same rights but didn't have the official papers, it was more of a technicality than a practice. And anyway, they DID get rid of it, so what's her defence?)

      As for Ireland, its true that they give favors based to people of Irish ethnicity who want to immigrate, but not once you gain actual citizenship.

      But anyone can immigrate relatively freely and get citizenship, you just won't get citizenship right away. That's not even closely the same with Israel, where non-Jews who have even married Jews are stalled citizenship for years on end to dissuade them from getting one. And once you get citizenship, there are a range of policies that discriminate you on your basis as a non-Jew.

      After that, she quotes the pro-Cast Lead Amos Oz and her rant just continues to dwindle down into nothing. It's almost shocking how easy it is to pierce her BS.

      Finally, her "Third Narrative" is the Oslo Peace Process all over again. She has no solution than permanent negotiations, forever. We've tried this for the last 20 years - it has been a disaster. Yet Aronoff's solution is to try even more of the same? Maybe she can apply for a job on Kerry's team with the other hand-picked AIPAC people!

  • Shira Robinson speaks on 'Citizen strangers' at Palestine Center
    • I just ordered the book after listening to her full talk, all 61:06 minutes.
      She has an enormous amount of knowledge and she specializes in the period right after the state was born, when all the important institutional changes were made.

      Unlike Ari Shavit, who relies on semi-mystic tropes and little to no facts, Shira Robinson is a studiously serious academic, and you can tell from her talk.

      It's an enormously productive time to be reading about Israel/Palestine now.
      So many books are coming out like hers that have original scholarship.

  • Obama's European message-- self-determination, equality, dignity-- is null and void in Palestine
    • Obama is all for decolonization after the fact. He shills for Israeli Apartheid because of money.

      This isn't news.

      What is still astounding me is that such a large portion of the Western public actually takes his hollow moral posturing seriously.

  • Right-wing news outlets attack U. Mich's divestment drive
  • JJ Goldberg says Adelson's influence fulfills anti-Semitic belief
    • Adleson and Friends are doing the same, looking out for Israel and it’s illegal occupation.
      Billionaires will always game the system for their whims.

      Speaking of which, I chuckled as I was reading Romney's moralizing morass in the WSJ these past few weeks. He was accusing Obama was being weak and servile, yet he allowed his entire campaign to get co-opted by Adelson.

      Phew, we dodged that bullet.

    • There's something to that.

      He's very open and unashamed about his corruption. Which is also a sign that the system is so corrupt that you don't have to pretend anymore. At the same time, it also helps people fight it.

      The corporate media will have a hard time dismissing "conspiracy theories" when it's out in the open.

    • There has been glaromization of prostituion? What are you yapping about?

      Porn was never "organized crime". In many ways, the post-WWII America, at the height of its power, was very moralistic in domestic politics. Kennedy's dad was a bootlegger and a Nazi. The Bush family built its fortune on smuggling drugs.

      All that happened before WWII, after that, it became indecent, which is why both families abandoned that trade and moved into politics.

      Now, what the US did abroad is another story, but there was no such cultural glamorization inside America as the nation's power increased. Get your facts right.

    • Didn't Wall Street Journal do a piece a year or so back that stated that 60-70% of all political money donated to the GOP was Jewish? The figure for Democrats was in the 50-60% range. It induced the same kind of handwringing.

      I mean, journalists always learn to "follow the money" but this issue has been unexplored for such a long time because it was sensitive due to Jewish history.

      Still, I think Adelson is an outlier in terms of Jewish megadonors. Most Jewish megadonors have some degree of dual loyalty - Zionism forces you to - while Adelson doesn't have any dual loyalty. He has one loyalty: that to Israel.

      At same time, what should people be doing? Target Jewish donors? That sounds pretty anti-Semitic to me, if those are the only people you are targeting. The system is broken and Jews are just very political people; it's enough for me to look in my own family for that, even if I see it every day in other Jews.

      The best way is to reform the entire political process, which everyone says will happen but is very unlikely to happen, because you have to take on every single special interest group at once. Has there ever been a president powerful enough to do that? Not even FDR managed to do it, but Teddy Roosevelt came close.

  • BDS' big night: Loyola student government passes divestment, U. Mich votes it down
    • Thanks for the head up, I just watched it. Very powerful, easily one of the best and most impassioned I've seen him. He really cares for justice.

      It's such a shame that the student council whimped out in such a spectacular manner as well as it was weird to have 66% of the speeches done by committed Zionists. And judging from the talks, the "objective" speaker was actually a lot more militarist than the first Zionist.

      The students and the next generation will be back each year in the coming decade. Sooner or later; they will prevail.

  • Liberal Zionists turn on media darling Ari Shavit for promoting Netanyahu's bluff
    • Yeah, I also didn't know Finkelstein's book was out. I might read it.

      I saw a very powerful talk he did late last year. It's long, but worth it(although I downloaded the .flv file, converted it to .mp3 and then listened to it as a podcast on my commute).

      He begins around 2:00

      I was familliar with Finkelstein's thinking earlier, I've read some of his books and I've read his running commentary on the conflict. Nevertheless, he seems to have understood that some of the criticism of him was valid. I still disagree with some of his conclusions; I think he is missing the boat on how quickly the situation has changed in America.

      But he's correct that the situation in Palestine has deterioated. Blumenthal, Finkelstein and now recently Abuminah have all admitted this. Only external pressure seems to be the option in the short run.

      But another thing that he misses is the generational shift within Palestinian society; Abbas' own son is for a 1 state solution. He gives too much power to the elderly and the corrupt.

      Even if Abbas tried to sell out his own people, they would rise up against him. No way it would be accepted because everyone knows the deal they'd get is a total sellout.

      Finkelstein also seems to glaze over this. Nevertheless, I learned a lot of new things when listening to him. And I can't say that happens a lot to me anymore, at least in generalist talks on the topic.

  • Wash Post story on Adelson as Republican kingmaker leaves out his nuke-Iran agenda
    • The two candidates who got far and away the highest poll results in the CPAC straw poll, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, are not going to see him and kiss the ring.

      This tells me that the GOP base has gotten much better political instincts than a decade ago. Bush did a lot more damage to the conservative movement than originally thought. Because it seems that damage was great not just to non-conservatives like me, but apparently also to the GOP base's perception of what the movement had become and what it stood for.

      I would never vote for either Paul or Cruz, but I still respect them both a lot more for daring to challenge the toxic GOP establishment, than I respect craven cronies like Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. Rubio is basically the Hispanic version of Mark Kirk.

      And I'm pleased to see the GOP base hasn't given up on the questioning spirit since 2010.

      Now all I hope is that the liberal base follows suit and throws Hillary Clinton on the trash heap of history and selects a genuine liberal, a Warren-style candidate. (Unlikely to happen, our side has a lot to learn in political warfare, especially rooting out the neoliberals/neocon lite candidates like Clinton).

  • U of Michigan student gov't meets tonight, amid anticipation of divestment vote
    • I watched the last 15 mins of the livestream by accident, I wasn't planning on following it but clicked the link because I thought "hey I'll just watch the archived video and skip to the end". Turns out they had a meeting going on for 6 hours(!).

      In the end, they lost the vote 25-9 or something. It was a pretty stacked panel, Zionist after Zionist spoke up and denounced it. The audience was overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian.

    • I know Abuminah will be there. He is tireless.
      I hope to read some updates how it all went down tomorrow or later today!

      I'm also guessing a lot of the Zionists will try to provoke a fight, then film it all with a camera, put it on Youtube and claim that anti-Semitic violence is reaching record highs and that a pogrom is near etc. If this sounds too strange, then you haven't been paying attention.

      Charles Jacob's lobby outfit has claimed that BDS supporters are planning a massive genocide. These people are genuinely crazy, fanatical bigots.

  • A movement grows in a Georgia church basement
    • Yonah, you don't have to lie to us. We know how you really feel.

    • Great article, well written.
      Reubner's predictions are probably a bit too optimistic, but I don't think he is far off. I think a lot of us are seriously underestimating how far the BDS movement has come. Even the FT editorial page is taking our side against Scarlett's shameful actions.

      But the FT is a British publication. Once the NYT openly criticizes her, instead of merely reporting on it in an aloof manner or the New Yorker dismissing the criticism as "comical" and then praising her in a glowing profile, then we know we have serious progress.

  • Columbia debate on Israeli policies features 3 Zionists, no Palestinians
    • Woody you are on a fucking roll('scuse the French).

      Why are they staging such an imbalanced debate?

      I know this is the typical rhetorical question you already know the answer to, but I can't contain myself(as usual): because they are downright scared.

      By the way, is it just me or is Beinart moving rightwards in the debate?
      Or maybe - and hopefully - the center of the debate has shifted and thus exposed him as less of a peacenik than he always pretended to be.

      I'm leaning towards the latter.

  • D.C. scribes party with red wine, vinyl, and image of a terrorist
    • Phil you will live forever. What's your secret?

    • Sean,

      Who should we believe? Albert Einstein or Hophmi the Jewish racist who defends one of his own(in Begin)?

      Seafoid: It’s like having Charlie Manson or Jeff Dahmer on a tshirt

      No, Begin's crimes are on many times worse and bloodier. Plus, Manson was a psyhopath but he picked his victims by random.

      Begin was not only a much more brutal murderer, he was also a racist in his selection of his victims. Race for him was a central aspect of life, and those of an "inferior" race are targets for mass murders.

      No wonder why Albert Einstein compared him and his party to the Nazi party. Same mindset, even if the crimes pales in comparison. Racial dominance is the mission and violence is the primary mechanism to achieve this aim.

      Also, just to re-reemphasize the shocking aspect... a MSM journalist celebrates one of the leaders of this murderously racist ideology and gets away with it?

    • To have Begin on your T-shirt is like to having David Duke on your T-shirt.

      Actually, scratch that. That's an unfair comparison to Duke, who, to my knowledge, has not carried out mass atrocities(not that I doubt that he would if given the chance like Begin).

      But once again, the real shock is how a prominent MSM journalist can get away with a T-shirt like this. It proves, once more, that there is an enormous amount of slack given to Jewish racists within our establishment the way there isn't for any other ethnic group.

      Even blacks, whom white liberals agonize over a great deal(sometimes with genuine affection, sometimes for show), aren't allowed to celebrate people like Jeremiah Wright, who is hardly free of racism, but doesn't even come close to Begin's murderous rampages.

      Zionism is breaking out these hidden reservoirs of racism inside the American establishment that for a long time were forbidden to trespass, because the only critics in the elites who were capable of doing so were whites, who had their own magnitude of racial baggage and thus bigots inside my community could shield themselves by playing this domestic aspect up(and if need be, just invoke the Holocaust, which was pretty effective for way too long in the post-war era).

      In our new multi-ethnic era, these reservoirs are becoming visible and bigots like Lake or Pollak are finally held accountable.

      But we should also ask ourselves, how would the reaction be if Lake came with that T-shirt to an establishment party filled with "liberal" Zionists? Would they really protest? Maybe arch their eyebrow at most but most likely not react in horror, which they would if the neocon had come with a picture of Duke or Rev. Wright or Farrakhan on it.

  • Iymen Chehade fights Chicago school's cancellation of his class
    • This is getting pretty bad for the Zionists.

      At this moment, the question of Israel is becomming an issue that basically revolves around money/donations.

      That's not a healthy long-term position to have.

  • Democrats have no problem with Israeli envoy addressing GOP group opposed to Obama
    • Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in 2008 by running to her left on foreign policy. Rand Paul might follow the same strategy.

      Two things.

      1. Obama didn't really run to her left. He reminded everyone she supported the Iraq war, but if you look at their foreign policy positions in 2008, Hillary tacked to the left to a large extent.

      Also, Obama would likely have voted for the Iraq war to go through in 2002 had he been elected to the Senate in 2000 instead of running a failed House campaign. He had good political timing, he was elected in 2004 but was actually sworn in 2005, which means that by that time, it was obvious to everyone that the whole thing was going haywire. It was easy to distance yourself and pay zero in political price.

      2. Rand Paul has no shot at being president. No Republican nominee has.

      The demographics in this country means that unless the GOP does a TOTAL reversal on hispanics and Asians, they are going to get creamed in 2016. The country is becomming like California and the GOP's main role is now to mainly act as a minority party until it becomes so insignificant that it can be overridden on a routine basis. And if amnesty goes through, all of this gets accelerated.

      Finally, people vote on economics. His only positions that can resonate are on civil liberties and foreign policy(where he has tacked to the right to appease the slimy neocons, so that's less of a factor).
      Hispanics don't vote for the GOP because they don't push amnesty, it's because they are economic liberals. They have to be; they are poor people.

      And Asians vote for the left for much the same reasons why Jews vote for the left; cultural reasons. The GOP is the white Christian man's party.

    • This just underscores that Hillary Clinton will likely be the worst president on Israel/Palestine in many generations. Obama was bad but at least he tried during his first year in office, even if what he sought was doomed from the start. And Obama's positions have actually been to the right of Dubya, if you look carefully of what positions his administration has adopted. So Hillary looks to be even worse than both of them.

      Clinton is basically running to his right just like her husband did with Bush I. She has been hawkish on Iran until she couldn't get away with it without being accused of rank opportunism(which is why she was silent for such a long time on the Iran diplomacy deal until her hand was forced). She has compared Putin with Hitler - at a girl's scout conference! - thereby directly putting pressure on Obama and helping the neocons pile on.

      And now she is cozying up with the lobby. That's why she is their favourite, they know it's a dependable card to the neoconservative/Zionist agenda(the two are not the same but they significantly overlap). And it's a pretty safe bet, her candidacy will benefit as the first woman president.

      I still hold out for Elizabeth Warren. Her positions on I/P are AIPAC-worded, but from what I've read she has little interest in being a tool of the neocons. She might be a little disinterested now but once she reads up on the topics, she'll mouth the propaganda but do what Obama did in his 2nd term.

      But it's depressive, de Blasio is falling under the truck of Wall Street financiers on charter schools. His approval ratings tanked after they blitzed him with ads, forcing him to backtrack. In a fight on higher taxes, Albany holds the cards and Wall Street likes Cuomo better and will support him if de Blasio gets too public, which is why he has refrained thus far.

      As Mearsheimer likes to say; the debate has shifted in the U.S. but the policy hasn't, and that's because of the massive money gap between the two sides. Over time, this won't matter(Obama was outspent in 2012 yet won handsomely), but it could take a long time.

  • 'NYT Book Review' owes readers an apology for printing blatant racism about Palestinians
    • The obvious defence here is something like: "we do not endorse but we merely reflect the positions in the debate".

      The problem with this position is that there are some really ugly positions in some debates, especially in ethnic conflicts, where the NYRB would never print some racist opinions of non-whites if the person holding it was non-Jewish white, but a Jewish white person can hold them and gets his or her opinion printed.

    • Hi, troll!

  • US Jewish leaders blast Harvard students on pro-Israel trip for taking photo at Arafat's tomb (Update)
    • Yet, once you get to explore the issue in a balanced way

      This is the quote from the Turkish student.

      You get to "explore the issue" in a "balanced way" by going on an Israel lobby-funded junket? And he talks about the conflict in an equal equivalence manner. As if there is any moral relativity here. One population is being under siege of Apartheid. The other has the whip hand.

      To even talk about equivalence here is a symptom of moral rot.

      Again, just proves my point about "this kind of trip requires a special kind of person". People who are devoid of morality and basically want a free trip to a sunny place.

    • An update to Annie's update. Here is the part she left out of Edward de Fouchier's blogpost(it's MUCH worse than it seems in the original post)

      He concluded with the apparently popular yet improbable theory that Israeli spies had poisoned Arafat.

      This is "improbable"? Large parts of the Israeli press has already more or less conceded that this was likely. Ariel Sharon spoke loudly about this.

      He not only painted a simplified version of his movement but also trivialized the pain that every Israeli organizer was working through to engage and reach out to his perspective.

      This quote was Fouchier slamming the Fatah interlocutor for not "understanding the pain" of Hasbara activists. Is this guy for real?

      The smooth diplomat had casually dismissed years of pain, comparing many Israelis’ belief in a state for a Jewish nation to a scenario wherein Americans insisted on designating themselves a WASP nation.

      Here Fouchier is attacking the Palestininan as "smooth", while slamming the diplomat for being so casually dismissive of the Israeli Jewish need to be recognized as an ethnocracy, and being unable(or unwilling) to draw comparisons to America the way the Palestinian did.

      The modern image that Fatah sought to convey was trumped by its impermeability to the humans on the other side, who had brought fifty Americans to meet them and were engaging with their own claims and pain.

      This was his closing statement. Fatah is a paid agent of Israel, the US and the EU. Yet he still slams them as being "impermable to humans on the other side".

      Fouchier just proves my point earlier about the moral carcass that these students, at least the majority of them, have to be to take a trip like this.

    • Call me cynical but I don't think most of these students are "gullible". I think they're opportunistic and devoid of morality.

      If you're an undergrad at a liberal univeristy like Harvard in 2014, you are aware of what's happening in Israel/Palestine. You may not feel 100% confident about the situation, but you are aware of the fact that Israel is being seen as an Apartheid state. And if you're at Harvard, you have no excuse of being an idiot(not that it has stopped people before).

      For them, a free trip to Israel is a free vacation. Free food, nice weather away from cold Boston. Plus, they can always find a few internships in the Beltway touting their pro-Israel bondafides. Did Scarlett Johanssen's career tank after she came out - strongly - in favor of apartheid?

      There's a special kind of person who goes on these trips. 30-40 years ago, you could excuse them of being ignorant. A Harvard undergrad in 2014, sorry, there's no excuse to make for them.

      They knew what they went into. That they treated Arafat's grave as a tourist attraction is not because they sympathize with the victims of Apartheid, but rather as a fun and token photograph.

      It's also for these same reasons why I think Phil's mistaken in his analysis, as well as the lobby itself for thinking crude opportunists like them can somehow "defend Israel". They'll abandon Israel the moment they can get a nice trip to Dubai and play in the Red sea even if gay-hanging, women-oppressing Saudi Arabia is underwriting the trip if the condition for going on the trip is to oppose Israel.

      The only thing this episode has done is to highlight human corruption and moral rot among some people of this world. Let the lobby fall over itself throwing money at these people. It deserves no better.

  • Israeli embassy pressured Amnesty to cancel launch of 'apartheid' book -- Ben White
    • Why would anyone be surprised? If Israel's lobbyists are going after universities and SJP chapters then why would Amnesty be off limits?

      But notice the pattern: they never really want to discuss or debate anything; only shutting it down. They know they can't win, because you can't defend apartheid, so the tactic is to prevent anyone from talking and learning about it.

      It's a sign of desperation.

  • Obama doesn't talk to Jimmy Carter -- because of Israel
    • Obama likes to say that leaders will not do anything unless pushed to action.

      Lincoln could have settled for something far less than total abolition if he wanted to. There was plenty of support for total deportation, something he was also in favor of for a long time.

      But he didn't.

      And Obama's constant refrains that he needs to be pushed to do something is just a round-about way of admitting that he has no spine.

  • The battle over Palestine is raging--and Israel is losing: Ali Abunimah on his new book
    • Judaism =/= Zionism, even if a lot of people seem to think so(Jewish and otherwise).

      It is interesting that there's such a divergence between the fortunes of Palestinians inside the occupied territories and in the wider Western world.

      It highlights the need for a diaspora. You could say it's the same lesson that early Zionists learned and the edge that they had over the Palestinians 100 years ago. There were no prominent Western Palestinians who could counter the hasbara of Weizmann and Herzl among Western leaders or on universities or in the press.

      That has changed. No matter what happens, I think it's important for Palestinians to keep having a diaspora for precisely this reason, even in the future if we do see a one state for all its citizens, where there is no official racial discrimination like there is now.

  • Israeli teens dressed as KKK and in 'black face' for mock lynching at school Purim party
    • The KKK costumes are appropriate. Even though we today we understand that the people in those kind of robes are low-class, the KKK was once a society for judges, politicians and businessmen. It was, in effect, the establishment.

      And the kids are just training for their eventual roles in the IDF where they are to subjugate the Palestinians.

  • Now the US is trying to 'delegitimize' Israel's defense minister
    • It already is; see the negotiations with Iran. Israel hates it.
      Can't do anything about it.

      I mean they tried, via AIPAC, but they got humiliated.
      And I think this is also driving Yaalon's outrage. He and his boss can't use AIPAC like they used to, as the covert warfare against the sitting U.S. president is no longer as effective as it used to be and as such, they respond with outrage. It just accelerates the situation.

      The drama queens in Jerusalem.

    • The notion that EU is going to go to war against 30% of their energy supply is madness. It's not weakness, its realpolitik. And anyway, Russia may have gained Crimea but the West got Ukraine. So who won in the end? Yaalon doesn't seem to realize this. Then again he has a settler mindset. He believes in colonization and apartheid and any deviation from this is "weakness". It's the only trick he knows.

    • This kind of passive-agressive response is hilarious. It just illustrates what all of us already know: the only thing keeping the so-called "special relationship" together is money and lots of it.

      Also, the fact that Bibi merely slaps Yaalon on the wrist but never fires him is also a humiliation to the US. But what can Obama do? He doesn't have any real leverage or all his donors(or rather, most of the democratic donors his party needs in the midterms) will be breathing down the neck, not to mention the shitstorm in the pro-Israel media, such as the NYT, WaPo, WSJ etc.

    • The disturbing part is that you have so many images of her in your brain. Have you stalked her online?

  • Randi Zuckerberg to headline event for new AIPAC 'technology division'
    • Marc, you're funny and I always like your comments(including this one!), but in defence of Mackenzie Bezos, she did win an award for her first book!
      (Was it politeness from the scared book establishment? Feed the alligator so it will not eat you at all, a vain attempt to appease Bezos? You tell me).

    • I actually think she can sing well. And I also happen to think that she is beautiful in a very classically Jewish way, very Semitic. But of course, I am biased.

      I also think she's pretty opportunistic(the whole TV show covering silicon valley is a good example, which was just a craven effort to cash in).

      But I wouldn't say it was so far out of mind. Plus it was just a guest appearance.

    • Forget non-Jews, AIPAC has been joining up not just with the non-Jews but with the anti-Semitic gentiles. Case in point: Pat Hagee. So this has already happened for decades now and is far more normal than a black person joining the KKK, which would be much more bizarre than something that has been normalized for generations.

  • Ululating at Vassar: the Israel/Palestine conflict comes to America
    • I agree, this is brilliant writing. But it is also great sociological writing.

      It's not just about about the conflict, it's also Jewish sociological writing.
      I've seen it in my family. The older generation have trouble calling themselves white. In their minds, there are three types of people in America. Whites(WASPs, really), Jews and "others"(who are invisible and unknown, except when they get attacked by whites, then it is our job to stand up for them. Then we forget about them).

      The younger generation understand very well that we are white. We are ethnically Jewish, just like some whites are ethnically Irish, and our religion isn't Christian, which sets us apart. But our American(as opposed to Jewish) cultural identity is very white, it is our cultural reference. There's no WASP/Jewish divide in our minds, not least because half of us are children of intermarriages and most of those intermarriages are to whites(not necessarily just WASPs but also Catholic Irish, Italian etc).

      What Phil saw was not just a demonstration of this, but also the undercurrent of racial resentment in America. Beneath our flowery rhetoric, there's a red river of hatred, to paraphrase Jeffrey Goldberg.

      And it is ironic. Phil probably felt what older WASPs under siege felt during the 1960s, when young Jews were radicals. They probably felt the deep racial animus as an undercurrent coming from Jewish radical students. It wasn't just Vietnam, or Nixon or the attacks on the civil rights movement. It was also a racial undercurrent, which was later confirmed in the attacks on the "WASP establishment" we've seen since(largely a fiction and a ghost by now).

      The roles are not reversed but rather merged; WASP and Jewish into one white overclass. And the radicals are now non-whites, and while the issues may be I/P instead of Vietnam and economic inequality and gun culture etc, there's also a racial animus underneath it all. And that's what Phil felt, only this time, he understood we were the privileged class under siege, supporting something that has to go, but the sheer agression and hatred was unmistakable. And uncomfortable, understandbly.

      I just wish Phil would write more things like this.

  • In Abbas meeting, Obama dropped formula about recognizing Israel as Jewish state
    • Good catch. You get so used to fact that the Palestinian narrative has been pushed aside that you don't react when it is happening. But then and now, it's good to be reminded that this is indeed the case and that the ones who should about security are the Palestinians.

      If you look at the number of civilians killed by the IDF or the settlers as opposed to the other way around, it's an enormous gap. Yet, you never read about this in the NYT(of course).

  • U. Mich student government move to table divestment resolution sparks uproar
    • So this is the new tactic of the Israel lobby.

      At Northeastern they are outright banning anyone who dares to protest Apartheid and support divestment. At Michigan they are instead doing the old political classic of "indefinitely tabling"(i.e. removing it).

      Did Mr. Lin come to this conclusion on his own? I doubt it. There was likely massive donor pressure. All universities in America are very craven to money, and the fact is, money isn't in Palestinian causes. But it is massively in Zionist causes.

      In the recent Israel lobby conference that went ahead at the National Press Club in D.C. a few weeks ago, I was stunned to hear that an academic who studies political money for a living told the audience that Zionist donors outnumber Arab(not even Palestinian) donors by a factor of 120 to 1.

      She used the 2012 general election as a test case. I'm not even talking about people who are Zionists and have it as their 2nd or 3rd agenda item. I'm talking about political lobby organizations whose sole mission it is to fund campaigns on behalf of Israel. Nothing else.

      In Michigan, it's likely a case of donors who don't have Israel as their #1 agenda item, but in a situation like this become "activated". Much like a guy like Leslie Crown or Katzenberg of Dreamworks(and AIPAC). They are first and foremost liberals(but only in the US) but as soon as Israel comes up, they become these raging right-wing racists.

      Also, on a adjacent note, it is sad to see how racial stereotypes get confirmed. Mr. Lin, an Asian, hews to the establishment. And it shouldn't need to be like this. The Asian-American Studies Association was the first major academic body to support a boycott. But that's because those Asians are keenly aware of the "model minority" stereotype and as such can work around it. Not so Mr. Lin, but he still has room to improve and cast off his slavishness to the Zionist establishment and allow the BDS supporters a vote.

      After all, if they didn't think the BDS supporters could have won, why would they have tried to kill the motion? If they were confident it would have lost, they'd allowed the vote and then publicize it, to say "see, BDS is dead!". But they couldn't do that, so they tried to kill it.

      Another day, another attempt by hard-right Zionist donors and their organizations to destroy free speech and democracy. And sadly, another day of spineless university establishments that bend over backwards in return for money.

  • Israel wages war on universities because it's lost control of the narrative -- Hedges
    • While Hedges writes more or less what I agree with, I was surprised by how weak his column was. He is usually much more direct and forceful. I'm guessing he is nervous of talking about the issue without going deep into the weeds of the financiers of the Israel lobby(the Seth Klarman's etc) and thus expose himself to attacks of anti-Semitism.

      Still, as he writes, this will happen regardless.

      As for the war on campus, money can never win you any fight over the long term.
      And it speaks volumes about where we are, that Israel's lobbies are now using raw money and nothing else to try to destroy the opposition. They are the enemies of free speech.

  • Johansson got career boost from 'comic farrago' over SodaStream -- 'New Yorker'
    • This is what Roger Waters meant when he said that the entertainment industry is deeply Zionist, which he got a lot of flack for, but he's being proven correct time and again.

      Scarlett's career is being boosted by fronting for Apartheid.

      This is actually quite sick, beyond outrage, it is deeply sick.

  • 'Forward' lives up to its name, bashing denial of Palestinian narrative and donors' control of Hillel
    • I’m all for organizing inside the rightwing of American life, with Rand Paul and the National Summit to Reassess the Special Relationship. But that just gets us back to a traditional opposition of the 40s and 50s, Harry Truman versus the State Department.

      Except that we don't live in the 1950s, the Holocaust isn't something a recent event and Israel is today a regional superpower. The Nakba had taken place, but from afar it looked a lot like refugees switching places. Of course, that's not how it was, but it was the 40s and the 50s.

      I also think the Truman vs State dept analogy is misguided. But I do agree with you that you need a break within the progressive Jewish community, which is why I am here and I think a lot of readers are on this site. It's not like we can organize from this place, but it is a keystone of information, of where the current battles are at.

      Nevertheless, I think a better analogy is opposition to the drug war/war on drugs.
      Both establishments of both parties were for it a long time, Clinton was actually the worst on it, but the grassroots of both parties organized away from their establishment cores and we're already seeing the beginning of the end of 20-year sentences of marijuana possession.

      I have a personal interest in reforming the progressive Jewish community, and I can see progress every day. But like you said, this community is deeply embedded within the Democratic establishment. And establishments can be defeated when they are doing foolish policy, whether domestic or otherwise(and on Israel, I'd say it's as much, if not more, a domestic issue in a sense, since Zionism is so tightly linked to Jewish identity).

      So I don't share your deterministic assessment, nor your historical analogy. But I'd lie if I said that reforming the progressive Jewish community wasn't a key goal for me, because Zionism isn't just a foreign policy issue, it's deeply intertwined with Judaism in America and in the wider Western world. Even if you're an anti/non-Zionist, you have to grapple with it as a Jew, or else you are hiding from reality. But that doesn't mean that if we won't get reforms fast enough, that we should tie our hands. That's an essentially Norman Finkelstein-esque argument.

  • BDS supporting rock star Roger Waters hits back against vicious smears
    • Waters is too much of an English gentleman in these disputes. He is constantly on the defensive, which is precisely why these tactics persist.

      The problem, of course, is that if he goes on the offensive, as he did late last year, they attack him even more. So it's a double punishment; no matter what he does they will go after him. Nevertheless, being reckless is a mistake.

      There are shades of this debate to that of the debate over the "Israel lobby" term. Mearsheimer, in particular, was subjected to frenzied smear campaigns for years on end. After 5 years, he endorsed the notorious anti-Semitic book "The Wandering Jew". I've stated repeatedly that I don't think Mearsheimer is an anti-Semite, but when you are constantly attacked like that you'd have to be a masochist to just lie down and take it. Neither Mearsheimer nor Waters are one.

      But we shouldn't forget that Mearsheimer won the debate, and so is Waters.
      Today the Israel lobby thesis is mainstream and support for BDS is not quite yet mainstream but it is quickly gaining ground.

      We live in a sick cultural environment where Scarlett Johansson's embrace of Apartheid is celebrated and rewarded while Waters' oppositition to systematic racism is attacked and denigrated.

      But what is life worth living for, if not to improve the world, bit by bit, step by step?
      It won't heal itself, and nobody said it was an easy task.
      Yet it must be done.

  • Johansson sees greater wrong in Oxfam than Israeli settlement
    • It's bizarre how the journalist keeps throwing her lifelines. Scarlett went out of her way to reject them out of hand. In the end, Johansson forced the Guardian to write the title they wrote.

      But the key question is this: given that she has now gone out of her way to endorse illegal settlements, will her career in Hollywood suffer because of her naked support of Apartheid?

      Of course not.

      She has plenty of company in Tinseltown, where fundraising for the IDF is a rite of passage, for that kind of racism, all the while they take their liberal masks as long as it is America, Africa or Europe.

      When it is Palestine, all of the sudden, the game changes. We've seen this movie before.

  • PBS and CBS air Netanyahu 'documentary' footage sponsored by Robert Kraft
    • This is a shocking indictment of the corruption of the American media.

      The reason why Israel has such high approval ratings in the U.S. is because of this kind of non-stop propaganda. The U.S. media never even gave 1% of the massive whitewashing to the South African Apartheid regime which is gives to the Israeli Apartheid regime.

      I mean, the "documentary" is one giant long infomercial and cultural programming. It's a 90+ minute advertisement.

      This is just surreal. I keep saying: someone should write a book about the way the American media is writing about Israel. It is not normal. It has a strain of desperation; we must protect its image at all costs.

  • Kerry tries to get out of Jewish-state trap set by Netanyahu and the lobby
    • Then what lobby controls our China policy? That with Germany?

      Hyperbole shouldn't substitute careful analysis.

    • You can already map out the post-fiasco hasbara on this one.

      1. Kerry made tactical blunders by accepting this demand!
      (ignoring that the Jewish lobby pushed for it, as a way to back up Likduniks in Israel who don't want a Palestinian state that is actually viable and not a Bantustan)

      2. He & Obama was pressuring Bibi too much, backing him into a corner and failing to work his opposition so that he could have felt politically safe!
      (ignoring the complete dominance of Bibi as the solar star in the Israeli political galaxy)

      Aaron David Miller, who is sometimes portrayed as a "peacenik", basically did the argument no.2 as he must surely smell where this disaster is heading.

      Unsurprisingly, he takes Bibi's side vs Obama's under the guise of analysis:

      link to foreignpolicy.com

      Key quotes:

      The timing for any real pressure is misplaced.

      This is a remarkable quote in of itself, even with all his caveats(some of which I'll quote further down).

      Miller is essentially arguing the Likudnik line here, not even the "liberal" Zionist one. ANY pressure on Israel is misplaced. Because if you do, it will retreat etc etc. The same zombie arguments are ressurected time and again for decades. They never seem to die because their purpose is always the same: bury the process if Israel can't hold all the cards.

      Moreover, it's not as if there are tons of options at Obama's disposal. Would he sanction Israel? Do so at the United Nations? Threaten to support Palestinian statehood outside the peace process? Cut back on military aid? Wage a P.R. war? None of these are good choices -- and they're never going to happen.

      Cut back on military aid is a mistake? It's one of the few choices Obama could use, but Miller doesn't want to see any real pressure happening. The real question isn't if it is a good idea - it is - but whether Obama could get away with it politically.

      That a U.S. president, confronted by so much skepticism and straight-out opposition in Congress and facing so many tough decisions when it comes to a comprehensive nuclear deal with Tehran, would jam the Israelis on two fronts at the same time strains credulity to the breaking point.

      Here he is trying to again argue against any real pressure on Israel by using Iran as a smokescreen.

      Is it just me, or do all "liberal" Zionists morph into Dennis Ross at a sufficiently crucial stage in any real negotitation? Miller, after all, is very good at doing the "shoot and cry" after the fact, but admitted himself that he and Dennis Ross acted as "Israel's lawyers" during the Clinton negotiations.

      In his latest piece, we can understand why. But the key fact is while Miller admits to all his biases, he is remorseless in keeping them.

      Just like the Sodastream debacle: whenever there is any *real* pressure, all Zionists come into one tent. So now the so-called "peacenik" Zionists are acting like Bibi's lawyer.

      As I said: once the Kerry mission is declared dead, a lot of so-called "peaceniks" will attack Obama but with a few fig leafs of token criticisms of Bibi to maintain credibility. This is how peace is buried, time after time, because Bibi knows he can fundamentally count on Zionists within the democratic establishment to whitewash his hatchet job and turn it into tactical criticism of Obama which is designed to disguise the unease of actually giving the Palestinians a decent state of their own.

  • Northeastern U administrator: SJP's suspension is 'not [issue] of free speech or the exchange of disparate ideas'
    • When someone retorts to these kinds of tactics, you know that they are in essence desperate.

      They can't win the argument on facts, so they just try ban the discussion.
      In the long run, it never works as long as the people on the right side of history keep at it relentlessly.

  • Journalist David Sheen delivers blistering indictment on Israel's racist war on African migrants
    • And it’s so ironic because here in the United States, these mainstream Jewish groups, there’s wall-to-wall support for immigration reform.

      It shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

      A lot of these chieftains pretend to be liberal but in actuality they are ethnic nationalists.

      And if you're a minority in America, it is in your racial self-interest to align your lot with the left. And these people, since they are not genuine liberals, let go of all the pretexts as soon as the country changes from America to Israel where they'd be in the demographic majority. And thus, consistent with their ethno-nationalism, their atittude on immigration changes radically.

      It's no different than a Gentile right-wing Christians in Israel. He or she would align him/herself with the left, it is in his/her racial/religious self-interest, but in a country where they're in the majority, the loyalty would rapidly change to the right-wing.

      The left is still not good at this discussion. A lot of non-white Christian fellow-travellers make do with the left not because they share the ideology at a core level, but because it helps them from a racial/religious standpoint. Zionism is weeding these people out of the left - such as Eric Alterman - and the people who remain are the true universalists.

  • A War on Campus: 'Democracy Now' covers the Northeastern SJP suspension (Updated)
    • It's a noteworthy comment when Max Geller, the chairperson of SJP-Northeastern, says that the are unauthorized flyers on campus all the time but only when it is Palestinian solidarity work, then it is shut down.

      Charles Jabobs, the founder of "Americans for Peace and Tolerance" and "The David Project" has even produced several entire mini-documentary about Northeastern, where they attack the university for having a professor that includes Walt & Mearsheimer's book on the lobby as 'anti-Semitic'.

      So Mr. Jacobs seems to be doing his personal Jihad against Northeastern, and he probably gets a lot of donors to pressure the university.

      As always, the roots of the anti-BDS movement is about rich bigots á la Adelson and the hapless university administration bending over backwards because they want that money at all costs.

  • Shira Robinson explains the DNA of Israel
    • Great interview. The subtitle is wonderfully ironic. "Liberal" Settler state.
      Just like "liberal" Zionist.

      There's some pretty awesome scholarship here, too.

  • Northeastern University SJP chapter suspended as members are subjected to police interrogation
    • This is somewhat related. Here is Mr. Jacobs' group's recent Youtube video:

      link to youtube.com

      They are attacking J Street from the right. It's also interesting to note that a supposed centrist like Josh Block is attacking J Street.
      Even Richard Landes features in the video.

      Their name, "Americans for Peace and Tolerance", is perhaps the most Orwellian name I've seen in a long, long time.

    • Great reporting. Unlike so many journalists who cover the surface politics - who said what, when - of the current drama, Blumenthal reveals the characters and the organizations who are deeply engaged in a long-term battle against any peace activism and opposition to Apartheid. It's also shocking to see the ADL - even if we all know their "civil liberties" facade is just that - to join hands with far-right, neo-fascist Zionist Organization of America.

      And even more shocking is the fact that the university bends over backwards to appease these venomous racists. Concerns over donations?
      There are plenty of small-time Sheldon Adelsons out there who rarely get into the news.

      A second important fact is that the people who have planned these campaigns of intimidation and attacks for years, rarely if never get their often outrageously racist statements exposed. These people almost never get called out, which is why they can continue to operate freely and attack people without any reprimands, which again underscores why this reporting is so important

      The recent incident gets put into a much broader context. I follow the news on Israel/Palestine pretty closely, including the debate here in America, and yet I learned a ton of new things which I haven't read anywhere else in such a systematic way.
      That speaks volumes to the quality of the reporting here.

  • Michael Ratner's journey away from Zionism
    • One of the most interesting things he says in the interview is that by 1967, he started to understand intellectually where Israel was headed. He had previously been taken in with romanticism, as his first contact with the country was for a few months when he was 13, and you could say it was Birthright before the term was invented.

      Yet at the same time, he explains, he couldn't separate himself emotionally and he calls this being "disabled from speaking about Israel". I think he's correct when he says a lot of Jews are like this, especially older Jews.

      This also explains the state of the Jewish debate surrounding Israel within our community, which is characterized by silence and censorship more than anything else.

    • Great interview. I recommend viewing the 1st part, too. I have not yet viewed the rest but I will soon.

      the idea that the Iraq war and support for Israeli occupation flow not from imperial ambition but from neoconservative hubris

      Aren't they the same? The main difference is that neoconservatism has Zionism, an ethnic and tribal underpinning, at its core. While American imperialism is more about political power. But this isn't necessarily spelled out in your question, and it suggests, in your assumptions.

  • Israel is now attempting to 'de-Arabize' Palestinian Christians, but in the 1950s it was Jews from the Middle East
    • One critical comment, though.

      the Arab-Muslim world over many centuries held to an inclusive process that, though certainly favoring Islam, sought to include non-Muslims in the larger body politic.

      This is a remarkable understatement. If the Holocaust is your yardstick, then sure, anything in the Islamic world and beyond will look flowery. But the Holocaust was a one-off event even in Europe. Most European nationalisms didn't go that route but we don't remember it because German nationalism overpowered all other nationalisms in Europe.

      Still, the jizya tax in the Islamic world is only the beginning. Non-muslims were incorporated only as servants with the ultimate aim of conversion over the longer time horizon. And today, the region is more intolerant than ever of ethnic and religious minorities.

      And not just non-muslims, but increasingly minority sects within Islam. It's like the 17th century Europe and its 30 year war with the overtly religious overtones.
      The difference is that that war was almost 400 years ago, but the Middle East is starting to look like it today.

      While I make no apologies about my previous comment about the necessity to disperse the Ashkenazi fog of Jewish identity, to allow a more diverse and varied identity to take shape, we do nobody a favor by writing outright delusional claims about the Arab muslim world, which is going backwards in time if anything judging by the rise of the Islamists over any other major faction in the Middle East.

    • Thank you, David, for writing this.

      The Ashkenazi fog of Jewish and especially Israeli Jewish identity needs to be dispersed.

      The attempts to de-arabize Mizrahi and now Palestinian Christians of their Arab identity is far, far to rarely discussed.

  • US Homeland Security investigates Israeli arms deal to Iran
    • Israel has been taking money/arms from the US and spitting in its face for decades.

      The simple reason why they continue without punishment is this: because they can get away with it. No politican dares touch the issue or get creamed in primaries as AIPAC funds their opponent to the hilt.

      Israel tried to sell advanced U.S. military technology to China a few years back, too. It already got caught doing so in the mid-2000s. And U.S. intelligence estimates that Israel is one of the top five(!) "hostile foreign governments" when it comes to spying on U.S. soil.

      It's amazing what money can buy.

  • Marty Peretz's message to Chris Hughes: Keep 'The New Republic' on Israel's side
    • No, his god has always been questioned. That isn't the problem.

      His problem is he sold the paper by thinking that past is prologue, but now he ended up understanding that Israel's legitimacy is inherently tied up in the American debate, this is the only place left to turn to rightousness. And he sold his only way to influence that debate.

    • It's a sign of the times when the racist Likudnik former editor of the TNR pleads with Chris Hughes - in public, no less - to maintain the Zionist lockdown inside the magazine. Why public? Does he want to put pressure on him? There are no Abe Rosenthal's and Bill Safire's to bail him out now. The neocons are discredited even within the GOP. Rich Lowrie, of the National Review, is unlikely to embrace anti-Zionism any time soon, but he is also much more tolerant of realists and even has a whiff of disdain towards the neocons.

      In short, the Zionist/Neocon axis is weaker than ever. The mainstream media, incredibly increasingly the centrist publications, are becomming very fractured on this.

      I mean, TNR, folks, TNR. This is a magazine which has run articles slamming Howard Zinn and the ASA(way back in 2003, before it was popular with the Zionists) for being "anti-American".

      TNR is occupying a pretty strong centrist/Clintonite position among the left-liberal magazine/newspaper spectrum in America.

      It won't be long before the entire left is divided, not just the grassroots.
      The Atlantic's think tank hosted Max Blumenthal late last year. Now this, TNR of all places. Anti-Zionism is reaching deep within the mainstream now.

      Just wait until Kerry officially fails, which he will.

    • Donald, why do you even seriously engage a known troll?

      Hophmi only has one mode: denial.
      That the Nation is notoriously centrist/cautious is well-known, it's often been taking flack for it. That's why websites like alternet or firedoglake exist.

  • Evangelicals who dissent from Christian Zionism wear 'stain of indelible infamy,' Israel says
    • Israel's MFA ministry understand that if they lose the evangelicals, their base of support in the GOP is finished. The younger, Ron Paul/Rand Paul libertarian types aren't in love with Israel and understand that Israel/Zionism is at the center of the neoconservative agenda, which claimed so many lives of white working class men, who make up the bulk of the military and the GOP and many of those younger GOP activists know them, they are lost brothers and cousins.

      If Israel loses the evangelicals, well, the GOP becomes fractured as well.
      They are rapidly losing young progressives, too.

      And what then? Europe? Turn to China - which is funding and arming Iran, washing their oil money? India, the noninterventionist?

      Primal fear.

  • Grindr in Hebron: A dispatch from the last debate
    • I mean, I know there was video, but what was their rationale for not allowing it to go online? Could you talk to them about it, I think it's really valuable.

    • But few of these figures have ever dared to expose their ideas to the interrogation of a Palestinian or an anti-Zionist Jew. Instead, liberal and Likudnik Zionists stage one mock debate after another, aiming to conceal their fundamentally anti-Palestinian ideological alignment behind a smokescreen of rancorous dispute.

      This is such a beautiful quote. In part because it is true, of course, but also because of its intellectual deft and how summed up it is.

      We saw the same thing happen over the Sodastream/Scarlett debacle.
      When it really counted, the "liberals" joined hands with the Likudniks.
      Fundamentally, there is little to nothing that separates them.
      All the flowery rhetoric was pushed aside when the fundamental legitimacy of the settler-colonial ideology was at stake, when it was at risk.

      As you wrote, only the size of the cage is their actual quarrel.

      Still, the Sodastream debacle and the BDS campaign in general is exposing these things. That's the beauty of what is happening now.

    • Gender identity is fluid for everyone. But homosexuality is a biological fact. These two things are not contradictory, much less than a woman might identity as queer but still be interested in heterosexual relationships, among other kinds of relationships.

      The problem with giving the myth that ALL homosexuality is basically a choice and/or a product of culture is like giving fodder to religious bigots who want to institutionalize homophobia and force gay teens into "gay reprogramming centers".

      You shouldn't lend your sexual preferences as a shield to this kind of monstrous bigotry.

    • It's really too bad there was no video of the debate. Were you given an explanation?

    • I think it's quite sad, yet not surprising, that Charles Jacobs used to march in civil rights demonstrations.

      This underscores a fundamental reality: don't judge non-white Christians on their liberal credentials when we are in the minority - liberal values are in our racial self-interest then.

      Judge us when we are in the majority or at least in a hypothetical situation where we'd be in the majority(Zionism from afar).

      Mr. Jacobs may be extreme, but there are plenty of people who proclaim to be liberals in the Jewish community, and for the most part actually are when it comes to American politics, but who completely transform as soon as you reach the border.

      The reason? They go, mentally and intellectually, from being minorities to being in the majority. That's what happened to Jacobs and countless others.

  • Conservatives for Palestine
    • Phil, since when did a bunch of Holocaust deniers or people obviously sympathetic to that kind of ideology like our friend, above, come to this site? It hasn't been like this and last time we had these people flocking, there were mass bans. Is it time again?

    • Of course she is a Holocaust denier, Alison.

      Please do not damage your credibility like this. I've watched her entire question. She starts shouting hysterically when she is challenged on her denial. She laments the "Holocaust narrative". Do you want me to provide you with the exact transcript? I can go back and do that.

      And I also think it was a massive mistake to bring a guy like Blankfort, who entertains bigots like that woman, by indulging in the same kind of arguments.

      It was long overdue when he got banned from this site, no bigots or anti-Semites(the genuine kind) should be allowed in. Would anyone who espoused an ideology of denying the Armenian genocide or the Nakba be allowed to your panel if you ever organized an event surrounding those communities, Alison? Or maybe someone who denied that the native Americans were systematically murdered would be allowed to speak on American history? (unfortunately, we do not have to speculate here on this last point, there are plenty of examples of this to this day)

    • What Pat Buchanan wrote 20 years ago is mainstream today. He had the temerity to write it before anyone else in the mainstream media and he refused to back down.

      My view of Pat Buchanan is similar to my view on Ron Paul. On anything except foreign policy I am either vehemently against or disgusted, but on foreign policy I am in large part in agreement.

    • I just got to the panel after Phil's speech. What a batshit crazy Holocaust denier, right off the bat. The second question was bizarre, completely off-topic about the Jewish virtual library. I was also disgusted seeing Jeff Blankfort defending that Holocaust denier.

      I really liked McConnell's speech, as I thought, but was disappointed at how the painted over Sobran's darker sides. Not just about Jews but on many other issues. He did say, however, that after he was fired he was writing "indefensible things", but that was a qualified statement at best.

      But as a speech, he gave a much better one than Raimondo who was stuttering incoherently and giving really bizarre statements(again, the Christian Zionist stuff). McConnell's rendition was much more nuanced and you can tell he is much deeper in the weeds with the conservative movement, even to this day, despite his convassing for Obama in 2012.
      Raimondo's conservatism(really, libertarianism) is much more superficial and he gave a horrible talk.

      As for Phil's speech, honestly I thought it was forgettable. Maybe because I read this site every day. But even so, I was really looking forward the Q&A because I wanted Phil to expand on his thoughts, because I really like the personal reflections he writes on this site, so I was disappointed that his speech was really quite brief and in some ways very formal. But of course, the Q&A was cut down and hijacked by crazies, so that recourse went out of the window. If the Q&A had been much better, I'm guessing Phil would have had the space needed to really add depth to the conversation and the much-needed Jewish angle which frankly was often lacking. (There was sometimes an undertone which was a bit unpleasant against Jews when a few select speakers spoke, but far from the majority).

    • I've skipped to Raimondo's talk after viewing Walt and Wawra(both of those were great), but had to skip past him too after he, hilariously, tried to suggest that CUFI is somehow much more powerful than AIPAC.

      I doubt he is stupid or ignorant. Most likely cowardly.

      Now onto McConnell, who seems like a great and knowledgable speaker. Then Phil's speech.

    • By the way, I think that Phil should interview Buchanan.
      Still, I see the incredible hurdles to do that. A lot of Jews in their 50s, 60s and 70s still believe that Buchanan is this rabid anti-Semite who hates all things Jewish.
      A lot of them think Walt/Mearsheimer are anti-Semites too.
      (disclosure: half my extended family does).

      Well, a lot of older Jews probably think Max Blumenthal is an anti-Semite as well. After all, he's on the "top 10 anti-Semites list" of the SWC.

      What I am trying to say is: people's beliefs are not always rational. And it's hard to change something that is so ingrained. But interviewing Buchanan about the neocons, about Zionism etc should be a must-read, because he could probably say a lot about how the neocons worked from inside the administration to get us where we got, he can probably shed light on the Jewish neocon/white gentile realist conflict. But of course, if Phil or anyone else from this site does that interview, as fascinating as it would be to read, it would inevitably invite attacks from breaking the omertá and I'm guessing that it may not be worth it in the long run if you're still in the influence game.

      An interview would set back the site into the margins of respectable society, but then again, if that's what we were concerned about, shouldn't we have all just stuck with the classical liberal Zionist narrative and pretended nothing was happening as the 2SS died before our eyes? That's what a lot of people are doing in the media these days and I don't think that's been a winning strategy or frankly any enlightening either.

    • Tokyobk is interesting. He's not a rabid troll like hophmi but his world view is very old. I recognize it very clearly in my parent's generation. I'm guessing he is probably over 60 or so. Certainly not under 50. He's carrying all the myths of my parents' generation in one umbrella. It's almost amusing to see it.

    • I agree on Joe Sobran. I've read some of his things on Jews. He's a gifted writer but he believed in a White Christian America, let's not pull any punches on this one. There was no place for Jews in his America, or hardly anyone else for that matter either.

      As for Pat Buchnan, I think he is a much different animal.
      I view him the same way as I view John Mearsheimer. I don't think Mearsheimer cared much about Jews for most of his life, but he had to, he was forced to, because he could see who were the driving force for war against Iraq; neocons.

      Let's just face the facts: if you were a realist the last 30-40 years as American got more and more involved in the Middle East, you had to be deaf, blind and dumb not to see the central role Zionism had in those considerations. Neoconservatism is flowing from the same fauna. Israel is their central issue.

      The neocons have always essentially been a Jewish club with gentile fellow-travellers, but the core power structure has always been in the hands of the Podhoretzes and the Kristols and their friends. They've always been able to count for help from people like Chait, Goldbeg and the folks at TNR whenever they had to attack white conservatives critical of neoconservatism.

      But going back to Mearsheimer. I think he couldn't believe why there is even such a debate about attacking Iraq. He understood it as clearly against America's national interest and he must have seen a lot of neocons carrying dual loyalty. I think Buchanan is the same. He's essentially a realist.

      Now, Mearsheimer did endorse an anti-Semitic book("the wandering jew"). My theory is that after years of attacks and essentially character assassinations by almost only Jews, he probably did develop a hostility towards Jews which probably wasn't there before. As for now, I think that hostility has largely faded as he has essentially won the argument.

      Buchanan? I've read an interview with him where he said he knew all the neocons in the Reagan and the Nixon administrations. He said he never had an issue with them on any issue, including on gay or racial issues.

      This is like the neocons attacking Hagel on gay issues. It's a diversion. The issue is always Israel, nothing else, but they use liberal attacks and can in that way draw in their liberal Zionist friends to attack someone on the right in order to maintain the Zionist concensus.

      And when Buchanan basically called them on it, he was attacked as an anti-Semite. He saw the pattern. Remember, even talking about Jewish power makes some Jews - including yourself tokyobk - very antsy and go into self-denial.

      Sobran is not much different from a guy like Bret Stephens, a conservative racial nationalist. Not my cup of tea, but there is no question there's a strange approval or even celebration of the kind of ethno-nationalism that Stephens espouses while Sobran's a no-go.

      Buchanan, on the other hand, is a bigot on homosexual and racial matters. (He's also over 70 years old). But does he hate Jews? I don't think so. I was always told he was an anti-Semite when I grew up, but when I read him, his "anti-Semitism" was mostly an opposition to neoconservatism.

      He made the forbidden connection - Zionism, neoconservatism and Jewish media power - the kind of connection that we do every day these days because we have to. You can't understand why any opposition to the occupation inside the Beltway could have been suppressed for as long as it has if you don't broach these subjects.

      Buchanan's bigotry in other matters made him an easy target, but his fundamental analysis is actually remarkably intelligent on Israel/Palestine and the neoconservative agenda, which is why there's been such a strong attempt to blacklist him from the right.(With the usual help from their liberal Zionist friends on the left whenever they had to).

      The difference between then and now is that these links are much weaker. Abe Rosenthal of the NYT was a fanatic Zionist - despite growing up as a Marxist. Bill Safire was also a racist Likudnik of the Martin Peretz variety.

      Even more "mild-mannered" Zionists like Michael Walzer could be dependend upon to keep the ranks closed on Zionism.

      These people were the folks that the neocons could count upon 20-30 years ago. Either to actively help them, like Abe Rosenthal, Safire etc, or at least to keep the left silent(like Walzer). This isn't the case anymore.

      If you want to accuse Buchanan of being an anti-Semite, I've love for you to provide a link with a collection of the worst you can find and not just hearsay.
      It's time to put that myth to rest. (We don't disagree on Sobran).

  • Robert Caro, Nakba-denier
    • I'm thinking of his private letters when he was a young man, which weren't published until many decades later.

      And those were his own.

      Nice try, lysias ;)

    • I've read some of the things JFK wrote when he was in his early 20s. He was a more gifted writer as a neophyte than Caro, a celebrated writer in his own right, is after half a century of practice. And Caro's not a bad writer. I've read a few of his books, but he doesn't approach the intellectual gifts of Kennedy, especially as a writer, which must surely sting deeply to a vain man like Caro. Which could also explain the bitterness that is apparent whenever he writes about Kennedy.

  • 'Daily Beast' labels Abbas 'stubborn' for refusing to recognize Israel as Jewish state
    • 2014 is not 2000.

      The situation is vastly different. Daily Beast is living in the past.
      Even a semi-Likudnik(on Israel matters) paper like the NYT is questioning Bibi's will to peace.

      Still, when it comes down to it, the NYT will likely try to blame both sides(and the Palestinians a bit extra). The problem is that most people by now, at least most smart people, understand that Israel basically wants a Greater Israel.

      The bellweather will be the Financial Times and the Economist. The archpublications of the Western conventional wisdom.

  • Following criticism, 'NYT' quotes Barghouti, Vilkomerson and Ashrawi on BDS
    • I can only add to Annie's praise by giving my own thanks to your yeoman's work on this issue.

      But I share your pessimism/realism that we've seen positive trends in the past and then see them abruptly end. The Times' Israel coverage has in the past 6-12 months been more Likudnik than "liberal" Zionist, frankly. The BDS = Nazis article from Rudoren could have been pulled out of a settler newspaper. And even before that, she had racked up one Likudnik article after the other.

      So while some change is welcome, you're right to warn us about overinterpreting any of these developments.

  • 'NYT' provides frank descriptions of lobby's power in review of Truman book
    • What planet are you on? Barely a few weeks ago it was comparing BDS to Nazis.
      Their editorial on Bibi asked him if he has any alternatives to the 2SS, but it didn't fundamentally question the assumption that he is willing to get to a 2SS, instead coyly taking the side that he might merely be hesitant due to internal constraints. That the NYT is still even acting as if the 2SS is possible is an immoral act.

      That they think that Bibi can be prodded to make it happen - implicitly assuming that he is serious about it on some level but perhaps merely cowardly - is pure disinformation. This is why Americans are misinformed.

      As I've said many times in the past, the NYT is struggling to keep relevance with the left. They allow relatively harmless people like Judis and his book to pass through, because his book doesn't fundamentally question the role of Zionism. The review acts as a way to keep the left engaged, in order to prevent it to dismiss the paper's coverage on Israel completely as hopelessly biased, which is increasingly happening.

      Apparently it works on Phil and you, which is precisely the point and why they do it.

      Judis' book is critical of Zionism, severely so, but Judis stops short of actually calling what it is: colonialism. Thereby, he could pass for a liberal Zionist in Haaretz, which is why the NYT picked up his book.

      Come back to me when they review Ali Abunimah's new book.

    • The review is still all about Jewish privilege.
      Max Blumenthal said that a non-Jew couldn't have written his book, and that's true.

      John Judis' book was picked up by the Times in large part because it is coming from the Jewish left and Judis is not necessarily an anti-Zionist but rather a non-Zionist. Of course, Max's book was beyond the pale for the Times' but if he wasn't Jewish he'd be compared to Nazis, instead they "only" accused of him being an anti-Semite and a self-hating Jew instead of directly comparing him to David Duke.

      And it's unlikely the Nation would have even bothered to allow him to write anything about the subject if he hadn't been Jewish; too sensitive.

      There is still a strong racial barrier surrounding Israel, heavily favouring those of us with J-positive blood.

      And we see how a multi-ethnic democracy worked out in Iraq and Lebanon, Dorman says

      This is actually quite an extraordinary quote. He is essentially no different than a White Gentile who slams multi-ethnic democracy in America by comparing to the former Yugoslavia, people like Pat Buchanan.

      Yet would Pat Buchanan be welcome in the pages of the Times' with his White Nationalism?

      It's easy to become so used to the situation that you don't react anymore, but it's actually quite amazing that a liberal newspaper like the Times' is running reviews where the author critical of multi-ethnic democracy as an American paper. It would never give that space to people who are uncomfortable with everyone except white Christians, for natural reasons, because then a lot of Jews in the masthead would have to be deported if that vision ever came to fruition.

      But it does give space, without any criticism, to someone who attacks the concept, so long as it is about Jews, or rather, where anyone who isn't Jewish is affected.

      I'm anxious to see a book review in the Times where someone from VDARE reviews a book about multiculturalism!

  • State Dept to 'check out' vicious attack on Palestinian athletes
    • Jen Psaki is a fucking scumbag too, notice how she cuts the reporter off and just basically flees the press conference.

  • House delivers for AIPAC, 410-1, passing Israel as 'strategic partner' bill
    • AIPAC should remember one thing:

      The Arab autocracies also had excellent relations with Israel, but the people did not.
      The U.S. is different in the regard that support for Israel - broadly defined - is widespread, but it is not deep.

      When asked in polls which side Americans should take in the conflict, a majority say we should be neutral, even if 65% or so give Israel an approval rating.
      In addition, if the 2SS collapses, a majority of Americans favor a 1SS, is this what AIPAC has in mind?

      AIPAC is very strong in the political corridoors of Washington. But if you ask most Americans, which ally is closest to you Canada, UK or Israel, I seriously doubt that Israel would get a majority, or even a plularity. Congress can pass as many laws as it wants. It doesn't change the fact that the support for Israel seriously erodes if you look at young, educated Americans, especially young liberal Americans.

      It is already a partisan issue for those under the age of 30, and that process is accelerating.

Showing comments 200 - 101
Page: