Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 619 (since 2010-05-02 23:41:10)

lobewyper

Mondoweiss.net supporter

Age 69, white male, gentile, politically independent, US citizen,graduate degree.

Showing comments 619 - 601
Page:

  • Feeling the hate in Long Island
    • lobewyper May 21, 2012 at 6:15 am with 1 replies

      "He comes from Chicago, from a very confusing background... It's still not known."

      I always wondered what was wrong with me--good to know it's just my Chicago background!

  • The awakening: Missouri paper runs a Jew's call for equal rights for all
    • lobewyper May 21, 2012 at 6:00 am

      Thanks, George. Succinct and wonderful article. The tide is turning and we are gonna win this!

    • lobewyper May 20, 2012 at 7:32 pm with 3 replies

      This piece and others like it are so encouraging to me as an older man. It is very easy to become cynical and hopeless in times like ours. We need people who will speak truth to power like George here and Phil and Adam and the rest of the Mondoweissers and Walt/Mearsheimer, Beinart, etc. to give us the strength to fight on for peace and justice until those battles are won.

  • WaPo's Walter Pincus says US is 'going above and beyond for Israel'
    • lobewyper May 18, 2012 at 7:16 pm

      The same WaPo that permitted hundreds of comments about Tiger Woods's latest temper tantrum a few weeks ago closed comments after 9 had been posted to this important piece. Is there something wrong with this picture? BTW, Congrats, Mr. Pincus, for speaking truth to power!

  • More 'magnet than a mallet': RAND Corporation warns against striking Iran
    • lobewyper May 19, 2012 at 5:45 pm

      Annie, it's in your response to my initial post, where you suggest the RAND position may have "impacted this amendment."

    • lobewyper May 19, 2012 at 4:36 pm

      The link to jta.org

    • lobewyper May 19, 2012 at 3:37 pm with 1 replies

      Annie, I can't get to your link, above. Is it my computer or the link? Thanks!

    • lobewyper May 19, 2012 at 2:35 pm with 1 replies

      This statement by RAND is hugely important, in case those of us distracted so completely by Oleg haven't noticed...

    • lobewyper May 16, 2012 at 7:41 pm

      "It is really pitiful when you have to have some big name think tank explain something that common sense would tell anyone with an IQ of 100."

      Well, half the population has to have an IQ less than 100, right? Why not the members of the US Congress?

  • At Ohio State, a week of events on the Nakba and apartheid
  • Foxman says Google and Facebook are on his team to combat 'internet hate'
    • lobewyper May 13, 2012 at 10:56 am

      I like Foxman's approach, and am going to start using it in my daily dealings with others. If I do something to hurt or offend someone else and am called on it, I'm going to call them a hater and brush that hate right off my shoulders!

  • Thousands march across the West Bank in support of the prisoners' hunger strike
  • Michael Scheuer says Israeli lobby has tied American gov't down like Gulliver
    • lobewyper May 10, 2012 at 5:55 pm

      Pixel,

      Thanks for the Edmunds website. I will check it out!

    • lobewyper May 10, 2012 at 3:41 am

      Robert,

      This position of yours that Bin Laden died in Dec., 2001 implies that many individuals in the US government (not to mention Bin Laden's own family)as well as Al Quada itself conspired for now 11 years maintain the "fiction" that he didn't die until last year. (The CIA station chief's July, 2001 visit, if true, took place of course BEFORE 9-11.) While I have no doubt our current government is capable of essentially any falsehood, it defies belief that such as conspiracy could be maintained in these "information age" times. The scenario you outline would make Bin Laden a complete traitor to his fellow Muslims (all of them), and according to Scheuer and others, the man took his faith pretty seriously. So, show us the evidence you're right about this, please.

    • lobewyper May 9, 2012 at 8:59 pm

      O.K., I'm going to try this again. Scheuer's point is that UNLESS the US mends its ways (i.e., attacking Muslim countries, supporting repressive pro-US Muslim regimes (e.g., Saudis). supporting Israeli repression of Palestinians, etc., etc.), there will eventually be a major bloodbath in the course of which we will have to kill a lot of Muslims (including innnocents who often cannot be distinguished from asymmetrical combatants). He is convinced that the US is a target for Muslim radicals primarily of our foreign policies, and that they need to change, but won't in time due mainly to our dependence on cheap oil and our being the Lobby's servant. I don't see him as deserving of all the criticism that has been levelled at him here. My $.02.

    • lobewyper May 9, 2012 at 6:42 pm with 5 replies

      I think there's a whole lot of confusion here about Scheuer's position. As I understand it from his book Imperial Hubris, he seriously criticizes US policies toward the Muslim world (support for Arab dictators, exploitation of Arab oil resources, suppression of Arab dissent in friendly-to-us regimes, unqualified support for Israel, etc.). He argues that from a Muslim perspective, the preceding amount to an attack upon Islam generally, and thus justify a defensive jihad against the US.

      He goes on to say that because US leaders have no discernible intention of mending their ways, our only remaining choice is to fight it out. In this fight, we will have to be ruthless and kill many innocents simply because it is often hard to distinguish non-combatants from combatants. And all this will be sad but necessary for our ultimate security.

      The implication of all this is not that Scheuer wants to satisfy some blood-lust he harbors toward Muslims. He would prefer that we change those of our policies that are viewed as hostile to Muslims to keep the bloodshed to a minimum. He just doesn't expect the US to be able to recognize the need for changes.

      Scheuer is not a crazy, nor do I suspect he is in the misinformation biz. He is rather blunt-spoken, and may not have been totally consistent at all times since he began publishing. But to suggest that he was "a dupe" at the CIA seems extreme. (I post this with confidence that any errors I have expressed here will be swiftly and surely corrected by my fellow Mondoweissers!)

  • 'Death of a Salesman' came out of an intermarriage
  • Secrecy pact over Israel's nukes, reached by Nixon and Meir, serves policy of 'nuclear coercion' to avoid peace deal
  • Shmully and guilt
    • lobewyper April 26, 2012 at 7:49 pm with 1 replies

      For me, Phil's story is at heart a statement about the difficulty of swimming against the tribe (pardon the pun). I'm thrilled that these people invited you to share your thoughts with them. You (Phil) had to be much more knowledgeable about the historical facts than any one of them, and they knew in advance your general views. (Hence, it took just as much guts for them to invite you as it did for you to accept.)

      Most if not all their arguments were baseless hasbara, but you were outnumbered and wanted to be polite. You respected these folks in many respects as human beings and with reason, and wanted to influence them toward the truth of the situation in a reasoned way.

      Yes, some were calling you a traitor to your race (someday, you'll come to your senses and act like a real Jew). And you felt guilty for a while afterwards, because the pull of one's tribe when it is as collectively focused as Jews as a group are, has tremendous power--even when we consciously attempt to free ourselves from this sort of thinking. Personally, I think it's instinctive and very, very difficult to fully overcome when it is also essentially bred into you from birth (although I'd say you have struggled against this idea that the tribe's politics should never be challenged with considerable success).

      Thanks for sharing these deeply personal reflections.

    • Page: 6
  • The five assaults of Lt Col Shalom Eisner
  • Remembering Matthew Phillips
    • lobewyper April 4, 2012 at 11:00 am

      Phil and Adam,

      Thanks very much for this remembrance. Matthew was enormously gifted and his passing was most tragic.

  • The 'folly' of the 'war lobby'-- What if NYT's top-pick comments reflect popular opinion?
  • Pentagon fears Israeli strike on Iran would drag US in
    • lobewyper March 20, 2012 at 8:28 pm

      Good point, Les.

    • lobewyper March 20, 2012 at 7:47 pm with 1 replies

      General Mattis's article is another warning to Netanyahu. Note that it appeared in the NYT. Maybe Obama can't warn (at least publicly) without paying a huge political price electionwise. But the military seem to be the mouthpiece for the administration (just as Panetta was). Obama wants anyone but himself to take the blame for not joining in an Israeli attack. Also consider: bluffing can be carried out up to the final line of departure of attacking forces--they can be staged, etc. without actually attacking. This is a war of nerves IMHO.

  • Afghan parliamentary team says many Americans were involved in massacre in which army accuses one
    • lobewyper March 18, 2012 at 5:44 pm

      CigarGod,

      I think you're on the right track. He is an older and more experienced soldier who should have known better, and perhaps decided to shoulder all the guilt for not having kept this massacre from happening. But I don't think the ballistics evidence is going confirm his story.

    • lobewyper March 18, 2012 at 9:13 am

      Whether others were involved in the shootings can be determined from analysis of the bullets recovered from the bodies. Every gun leaves unique markings on the bullets it fires.

  • Mark Perry: Israel and Iran's 'low-level war' is 'dangerous stuff'
    • lobewyper February 17, 2012 at 8:32 am with 11 replies

      Alex Kane wrote:

      "But the elephant in the room, the story that no one is really talking about and that is there to be talked about and ought to be, publicly, is, it is a good idea for the United States to have a strategic ally that is recruiting terrorist groups to conduct terrorism? The United States’ answer to this question is we do not do this. We do not hire terrorists to conduct terrorism. It undermines every single principle of the war on terror."

      Absolutely kee-rect, Alex. The US of A has always prided itself on its self-sufficiency to terrify others whenever it has been deemed necessary. :)

  • MSNBC: Israel trains Iranian terror group to kill nuclear scientists
    • lobewyper February 12, 2012 at 8:30 am

      I continue to think that this Israeli talk about attacking Iran is bluff. The US realizes that such could initiate a world of trouble for us and for our "best friend." The leak about the Israel-MEK connection without the slightest attempt (so far) at denial represents in my view yet another warning to Israel by the US government to back off. I think the tide is turning against Israeli and US war-mongers.

      This whole business of "extra-judicial" killings (pre-meditated murder, as jimmy noted) goes very much against the value systems of most Americans, who do not trust government much and love to watch movies about heroic resistance to/exposure of government duplicity. These same Americans also suspect that they themselves could become targets of their own government--given the right circumstances.

      I agree with those who consider this leak another step in the process of opening daylight between ourselves and the Israelis, as well as a warning to the latter.

    • lobewyper February 11, 2012 at 7:18 am with 2 replies

      C & D,
      I totally agree about the need for Walt to monitor his comments. The problem of hasbara trolls has always been an issue, but the levels of childish vituperation reached in the past few weeks really discourage me from reading/responding to his Comments sections. A shame, because it doesn't have to be like this, and because Walt is one of the leading discussants of American foreign policy. (I'm glad I'm not the only one concerned about this.)

  • 'NYT' carries water on 'Israeli offer' (but there's a hole in the bucket dear Ethan dear Ethan)
    • lobewyper January 29, 2012 at 7:05 am

      Just as I've said more than once before, I'm glad we're on the same side in all of this, Annie. Nice analysis!

  • Report: Israel to give US only 12-hour warning before attacking Iran because Netanyahu doesn't trust Obama
    • lobewyper January 23, 2012 at 7:10 am

      Seafoid's quote from Panetta:

      “If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that’s what we’d be concerned about.”

      This statement by Panetta to me is clearly pointing out that an Israeli attack upon Iran would place US forces at risk. Since this would not be in our interests (to say the least), it unmistakably underlines the contention of Mearsheimer, Walt and many others that US and Israeli interests are not identical.
      It is fair to assume that the American people would be very unhappy with Israel were this to happen, and support for Israel would take a huge hit.
      There does not seem to be much discussion of whether an attack on Iranian nuclear sites could release damaging radiation, a possibility HarryLaw notes below. Such could affect our friends in the region as well as perhaps our own troops.
      My continued take: talk of an Israeli attack is simply that--talk. Talk designed to encourage the US to get tougher on Iran short of military action.

  • Community Radio: Media opportunity of a lifetime to build the Palestine solidarity movement
  • 'NYT' and 'Haaretz' and world opinion are now greatest threat to Israel, Netanyahu reportedly said
  • 'Washington Post' piece mocks lefties who criticize Israel
    • lobewyper January 21, 2012 at 9:14 pm

      Look, nobody seems to feel the author's pain. Imagine how frustrated you would feel if your liberal friends laughed when you tried to point out how the Israeli government has helped the WB Palestinians learn more efficient ways to conserve water.

  • Iran accuses CIA & Israel, US warns Israel to back off
    • lobewyper January 14, 2012 at 3:36 pm with 2 replies

      Israel has historically talked/acted very tough--so long as they could count on US support (even military) if needed. The US now appears clearly to have drawn a line in the sand with the Israelis re: Iran. If so, the present behavior of the Israeli government is most consistent with bluffing. Thankfully, our leaders appear to have come to their senses. I think that there now is absolutely ZERO possibility that Israel will attack Iran against our wishes. (The US isn't going to attack Iran, either.) Being intelligent people, the Iranians also know this.

  • Rick Santorum says murder of Iranian scientist was 'wonderful thing'
  • Israel is trying to hook us into a war with Iran-- Matthews and Baer speculate
    • lobewyper January 13, 2012 at 8:17 pm

      This acknowledgement is potentially very explosive stuff. Why is the MSM putting it out there that Israel is trying to drag us into war??? A possibility: both Repubs and Democrats realize that a US attack/war with Iran (at least before the pres. election) would cause many of their own to defect to Paul, and possibly, permit him to mount a realistic challenge to each of them. If the Israelis attack alone, there is still considerable risk of shifting US popular support toward Paul in a major way. Libertarian congressional candidates could potentially get elected or at least make a respectable showing in several races--which would give the anti-war, anti-interventionists a major platform they don't currently possess. The fates are aligning visibly now against Israel...

    • lobewyper January 13, 2012 at 6:39 pm with 8 replies

      I agree Phil, this is a tremendous story and the wall of silence doggedly maintained by our MSM is falling--partly due to the huge gathering Ron Paul has already acquired. The MSM has perhaps been told privately by govt. officials that there is no way the US is going to attack Iran and Israel will suffer severe consequences (up to a cut-off of all military aid) if it does so alone.

      I disagree with Dan that the rational US response is to threaten an attack on Tel Aviv, which wouldn't be supported by the US people at this point, anyway. However, if the Israelis are truly serious about attacking Iran without us, then a rational response would be to privately tell Netanyahu that if he attacks, we will not intervene militarily in any way, nor we we ever sell weapons to them again.

  • Killing of nuclear scientist in Tehran heightens threat to American's life -- says 'Washington Post' Iran bureau chief
    • lobewyper January 12, 2012 at 7:04 am

      Yours truly and others,

      I totally agree. Let's call it by its proper name, which is premediated murder. Acts of this sort conducted by nations against each other are totally illegal and immoral, and open the door to unlimited future savagery and endless hostility and resentment. This scientist was only 32 years old and probably had a young family who is now fatherless for the rest of its days on this earth. The US may "technically" oppose such actions, but it certainly condones them by its friends--not to mention that it does the same against members of enemy nations (except North Korea). These acts must be investigated impartially and punished severely.

  • Throwaway line in 'NYT' story suggests that Israel is pressuring U.S. on war with Iran
    • lobewyper January 11, 2012 at 8:06 am with 1 replies

      Teta mother me,

      I have realized for many years that I am not as smart and informed as I would like to be--but it is unquestionably salutory periodically to be reminded of these flaws.

      A large part of my question stems from my ignorance of exactly what the deal is with Iran. Like Tuyzenfloot says above, the issue sometimes is explained as preventing an Iranian bomb, and sometimes, preventing the level of enrichment needed to make one. I thought we had inspectors on the ground in Iran to monitor enrichment levels. Then again, I thought Iran had agreed to obtain nuclear fuel rods from other countries instead of making their own.

      Further, I don't know exactly why sanctions are being applied, and why Russia and China (among others) have agreed to same. So this is why I asked what Iran needs to do to stop the sanctions. I suspect they would have to do something, and was merely asking what that "something" is.

      So far as the suffering of innocent Iranians as a result of sanctions is concerned, this is partly the choice of the Iranian government--so we are back to the question of why the sanctions are being applied.

      Re: anti-Semitism, I am aware of its definition. However, many Jews who are either neutral toward or in opposition to current US/Israeli policy toward Iran will suffer from anti-Semitism in the event of an attack upon Iran, and this would also be an injustice.

      Although I agree that those opposed to an attack upon Iran as individuals have the responsibility to actively oppose such, we need to find the most effective ways to do so. A few voices crying in the wilderness is not going to bring AIPAC and its US minions to its knees.

      Finally, your response above suggests an absence of consideration of real-politiks. Countries act in their perceived self-interests, and not always in line with their stated principles. This applies to Iran as well as the US and Israel. What I would like is more information, because many of us are still seeing the situation "through a glass darkly."

    • lobewyper January 10, 2012 at 7:16 pm

      Check out these recent photos of Iran (not a machine gun in sight):

      link to theatlantic.com

    • lobewyper January 10, 2012 at 5:18 pm with 3 replies

      I've suggested that an Israeli only or Israeli/US Iran strike would unleash anti-Semitism on a massive and totally unpredictable scale. The US is not in a position economically to risk setting the Gulf "aflame" (Panetta's word from his Saban Symposium talk). Sooo, I still think it's all a bluff. What I'd like to know is what Iran can do to get the sanctions lifted. Teta mother me, any ideas on this?

  • Spouse of 'NYT' correspondent calls on Israeli gov't to wage 'war' on int'l threat to its image
    • lobewyper January 6, 2012 at 7:39 pm

      How much of the "real message" is, "We want your land for ourselves, and we're going to keep taking it until/unless we're forced to stop." (Please don't interpret this as personal disrespect for you as fellow humans.)

  • Preparing for 'Internet terror to strike'
    • lobewyper January 6, 2012 at 2:27 pm

      If MW suddenly starts getting thousands of dollars in donations from settlers in a certain country, don't say you weren't warned!

  • In humble apology to neighbor he harassed, rabbi acknowledges that 'many Jews' have opposed Zionism
    • lobewyper January 5, 2012 at 10:59 am

      Rabbi Schwartz did the right thing. He acknowledged the wrongness of his own behavior, apologized for it, and called for others to do the same. What he did initially that got him sued was just human nature, but as Rose Sayer says to Charlie Allnut in the African Queen (different context): "Human nature is what we were put on this earth to overcome."

  • Santorum is a one-stater-- he says all of West Bank is Israel
    • lobewyper January 4, 2012 at 9:27 am

      Has Santorum ever heard of UN Resolution 242? Does Santorum eschew international law? Sounds like it...

  • Israeli Supreme Court: Israeli companies are entitled to West Bank natural resources; international law must adapt to long-term occupation
    • lobewyper January 3, 2012 at 6:32 pm with 1 replies

      "Israel demands that those countries pay reparations for Jewish property dating back to 600 AD — in the case of Saudi Arabia — around the time of the prophet Muhammad."

      I'd say those are pretty generous terms. They could have dated them back to Pharaonic times--and asked Egypt for slavery reparations. :)

  • Mossad Chief: Stop calling Iran an 'existential threat'
    • lobewyper January 3, 2012 at 5:43 pm with 1 replies

      "The danger today, I believe, is less that Israel will act unilaterally, but that the U.S. will launch a preemptive war on Iran because Obama will be convinced he has no other choice because of the mounting pressure from both conservative and liberal hawks (not to mention neocons) over his Israel and Iran policies in an election year."

      Time for a little reality check. Let's see what a competent poll of US voters would say about this. My guess: if we attacked Iran, that would END any chance of Obama's being re-elected.

  • Arendt: Born in conflict, Israel will degenerate into Sparta, and American Jews will need to back away
    • lobewyper January 1, 2012 at 1:42 pm with 24 replies

      "The actual result was a return of the new movement to the traditional methods of shtadlonus [court Jews], which the Zionists once had so bitterly despised and violently denounced. Now Zionists too knew no better place politically than the lobbies of the powerful, and no sounder basis for agreements than their good services as agents of foreign interests..."

      Why does this sound so familiar?

  • AIPAC-championed amendment pushes Obama into a corner on Iran
    • lobewyper December 29, 2011 at 6:01 pm with 1 replies

      "There is one silver lining in this largely dark cloud — the political backlash would be so severe we should be able to say good-bye to the lobby."

      Agree, but I sure hope you aren't also suggesting America's loyal Israeli supporters would change sides merely over a few dollars more in the price of gas... :)

  • VIDEO: An Israeli soldier recounts the Nakba
    • lobewyper December 30, 2011 at 8:47 am

      This man was 18 or 19 years old, and had been told he was fighting for the survival of his people. Yes, he did bad things, but so do many other young fighters of all ethnic groups when placed in combat roles. When you're that age, most of us do what we're ordered to do. I agree with those who feel this man's public words are courageous. (They certainly cannot be welcome to the Israeli government!) They also represent an attempt at atonement and plea for forgiveness, and (I suspect) a wish to now "do the right thing" vis a vis the Palestinians. I commend this man for now speaking the truth many others have not (yet) spoken.

    • lobewyper December 30, 2011 at 8:05 am

      An excellent suggestion, anonymous--thanks!

  • Thank you!
    • lobewyper December 29, 2011 at 10:16 am with 1 replies

      "2011 was another banner year in the life of this site. As the year comes to a close, we have had nearly 6.6 million page views and over 3.7 million unique visitors to Mondoweiss.net. Both of those numbers represent marked increases from last year. These visitors read over 4,250 posts in 2011, and left over 136,200 comments. Wow."

      Some day, the world will be owned and operated by Comcast, Exxon, Apple, and MW. :) Congrats, everyone!

  • 'This is awful,' Bush said, coming into Bethlehem
    • lobewyper December 23, 2011 at 2:25 pm with 9 replies

      "On a presidential visit to Israel in 2008, Bush travels to Bethlehem by car rather than helicopter against the wishes of the Israelis because Rice wants him to see “the ugliness of the occupation, including the checkpoints and the security wall…for himself and [because] it would have been an insult to the Palestinians if he didn’t.”

      OMG--and all these years I've been dissing Rice...

  • We've almost reached our fundraising goal--please kick in!
  • Israel says it's 'disgusting' for world to take stand on 'domestic affair' --settlers
    • lobewyper December 22, 2011 at 12:01 pm

      "Israel was assaulted with every minute detail, mentioning every mosque that was torched and arguing that state authorities weren't doing anything to stop settler attacks against Palestinians."

      Hey, the spokesperson was 110% correct. After all, lots of swastikas are painted on synagoges daily and we never, ever hear about this in the MSM...

  • Israel's image tanks as it slowly loses support of US media and Europe
    • lobewyper December 21, 2011 at 5:29 pm

      Thanks to Smith for acknowledging Phil's work in his article. Maybe he'll eventually get the recognition HE deserves, along with Mearsheimer, Walt, et al.

    • lobewyper December 21, 2011 at 4:38 pm with 1 replies

      The Israeli government is so stupid. The entire civilized world is turning against them and they still think they can do whatever they want with the West Bank and the Palestinians if they just use sufficiently harsh language in response to their critics. Truly pathetic!

    • lobewyper December 21, 2011 at 4:13 pm

      From Smith's Salon article:

      "Former New York Observer writer Philip Weiss has created a one-stop shop for critics of Israel and U.S. policy."

      You're gonna need a bigger server...

  • Naming Weinstein and Comcast chief as bundlers, 'Forward' wonders about 'Jewish influence' on Obama I/P policy
    • lobewyper December 21, 2011 at 7:03 pm

      For a small minority to be able to bend the so-called majority to its will was/is not the intended purpose of democracy, eee. This of course applies to all other lobbies, as well as the one under discussion. The Israel Lobby has unfortunately the power significantly to influence American foreign policy, including whether or not to make war on other nations. This possibility was decidedly neither foreseen nor intended by our Founding Fathers. Thus, The Lobby is far more pernicious and potentially dangerous than--say--the NRA (National Rifle Assoc.). The anti-democratic influence of lobbies generally seems obvious...

  • Klein: Ron Paul is surging because he opposes another neocon war for Israel
    • lobewyper December 20, 2011 at 8:59 am

      I agree with Exiled at Home and Citizen about the average American. I was one of those American sheeple myself for decades. Stayed that way for so long by only reading /watching the local MSM. The internet was pretty much the factor that awoke me from my thousand years' slumber--so the net could potentially be helpful to our cause...

  • Obama's rabbi sidekick is opposed to 'too many Arabs' in Israel
    • lobewyper December 19, 2011 at 9:25 am

      Well, at least the rabbi told the truth--he prefers Jews not only to Palestinians, but to the rest of humanity as well...

  • Has NYT become an 'existential threat'? Oren says Friedman column was 'dangerous'
    • lobewyper December 18, 2011 at 8:11 pm

      Not to worry about the NYT in this regard. Rumor has it that they are about to move all publishing facilities into "hardened" underground sites immune to nuclear attack. :)

  • Important tantrum: Netanyahu adds 'NYT' and Thomas Friedman to growing list of enemies
    • lobewyper December 19, 2011 at 6:42 am

      Kalithea wrote:

      "The world owes the Palestinian people a serious apology and compensation for their pain."

      Of course it does.

    • lobewyper December 18, 2011 at 7:47 pm with 2 replies

      Disagree, kalithea. Walt understands that Friedman has made a shift of sea-change proportions and is correctly (IMHO) welcoming him to the fold. Friedman has the ear and respect of many of the folks out there who should be giving Mondoweiss millions of dollars to spread the word!

    • lobewyper December 18, 2011 at 4:49 pm

      Krauthammer's probable response to Friedman:

      1) There is no such entity "The Israel Lobby"

      2) Even if there were, it would never have pushed for American entry into a self-destructive war.

      3) Even if it had so pushed, The Lobby has promised never to do it again.

    • lobewyper December 18, 2011 at 2:43 pm

      Now that the chickens have come home to roost, they don't seem likely to be welcomed with open arms...

  • Liberal Zionists (at last) say non-Jews have a right to criticize Israel
  • Kristol is going to 'punch' Obama administration, in Palm Beach and Vegas
  • Why did it take 6 years to talk about the Israel lobby?
    • lobewyper December 15, 2011 at 7:21 am

      Great post and totally from the heart, Kalithea!

    • lobewyper December 14, 2011 at 10:08 pm

      dbroncos: Congress "works for" the voters mainly by avoiding legislation that would be hugely unpopular. For example, cutting Social Security benefits by 25% starting Jan. 1, 2012. Anyone voting for such would be either recalled or thrown out at the next election.

      Generally, I agree with you, but the Lobby's power comes from money, influence in MSM, and high levels of commitment from relatively small numbers of folks that are tremendously dedicated and skilled at letter-writing, fund-raisers, etc. The truth is--as you imply--our Congress is for sale to the highest bidder, which happens not to be us average citizens. And don't forget the Lobby's power within the MSM!

    • lobewyper December 14, 2011 at 7:39 pm

      One other thing that is very encouraging is that it's not just Friedman changing his opinion and calling out the Lobby (and, by implication, the entire US government from Obama on down), but it's the NEW YORK TIMES signalling a potentially dramatic change for the better in the US MSM! (Time to do some drillin').

    • lobewyper December 14, 2011 at 7:25 pm

      Great and heartening post, Phil! I disagree with you on one point, however. That's your conviction that Mearsheimer & Walt will never receive the credit they deserve. When this history of this tragic period is written, there is no way that M & W will not be credited. Increasingly, people both in Israel and here will see them as heroic for their courageous, tenacious, and principled leadership for human rights in I-P. (Not to mention for their fierce anti-war efforts). So, if I were you, I wouldn't worry any more about this.

  • 'If we lived in any other country we'd be honored for this work' -prisoner Ghassan Elashi of Holy Land Foundation
    • lobewyper December 13, 2011 at 9:37 pm

      "religion, politics, and morality. on which in a free society everyone has the right to have an opinion; and on which the very legitimacy of opinions requires their formation in a particular way (through non-coercive persuasion and debate.)."

      Note particularly the portion in parentheses and you will see how far we have fallen from this central democratic ideal. And when we insist upon this debate with respect to I-P, Israel and its US supporters actively suppress it! Why, because they would lose this debate conclusively and soon if based solely on its merits.

    • lobewyper December 13, 2011 at 8:27 pm

      From: The Philosoper's Beard
      link to philosophersbeard.org

      Monday, 5 December 2011Democracy is not a truth machine

      "In a democracy people are free to express and debate their opinions. This is valuable in itself. But it has also been held to be instrumentally important because it is claimed that through open free debate true ideas will conquer false ones by their merit. Democracy thus has an epistemic value as a kind of truth machine. In a democracy therefore there should be no dogma, no knowledge that cannot be questioned. Not only is this view mistaken, but it is so obviously wrong that it is astonishing that it has ever been taken seriously.

      The case for seeing freedom of expression as a public as well as a private good was made most eloquently and famously by J. S. Mill in On Liberty.

      [T]he peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
      Mill's argument is a rhetorical tour de force in defence of pluralism and individual freedom. But it is only partly right. In particular Mill acknowledges no distinction between moral, religious & political opinions, and opinions about facts & science. He also fails to distinguish the processes of discovery and evaluation.

      Mill is quite right to defend people's freedom to form, express, and debate their own opinions about religion, politics, and morality. These are subjects on which anyone can have an opinion; on which in a free society everyone has the right to have an opinion; and on which the very legitimacy of opinions requires their formation in a particular way (through non-coercive persuasion and debate). Liberalism is founded on a respect for individual autonomy on these issues, in the sense that every person is considered to develop their own 'conception of the good': a kind of personal moral idiolect governing our judgements about value (opinions) that is built up from our cumulative interpretations and re-interpretations of our own experiences."

      AIPAC, the US and Israel governments, and their supporters, please take note of the above, especially the part about the importance of people's freedom of expression!

  • Keep Mondoweiss going strong -- make a donation today
    • lobewyper December 8, 2011 at 7:30 am

      Jesus, I forgot to mention the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs in my previous posting. I(Is my brain that close to death???)

    • lobewyper December 8, 2011 at 7:06 am

      Everybody, let's step up here. Phil, Adam, and their colleagues are doing crucially important work for all of us--both in Israel and the USA!

    • lobewyper December 7, 2011 at 8:52 pm

      Look guys,

      I'm just going to give u free access to my checking account from here on out. Take whatever you need, but be sure to send me documentation of your withdrawals so I can take the tax deductions. :)

  • The lobby blinks! Democratic insiders throw Josh Block under the bus
    • lobewyper December 10, 2011 at 2:37 pm

      I am shocked, SHOCKED by the tone of the comments here re: Josh Block! I have heard he loves cats and small children, and always pays his taxes on time...

  • Iran: If it had been a fighter jet not a drone, 'U.S. bases would have been pounded'
    • lobewyper December 12, 2011 at 8:37 pm

      The Iranians should tell Obama he's a bit late, and that they've already sold it to the North Koreans...

    • lobewyper December 11, 2011 at 8:07 pm

      From CNN.com on the drone:

      "The letter from Ambasador Mohammad Khazaee to U.N. Secretary-Genera Ban Ki-moon and the heads of the General Assembly and Security Council said the drone "faced prompt and forceful action" by the armed forces.

      "My government emphasizes that this blatant and unprovoked air violation by the United States government is tantamount to an act of hostility against the Islamic Republic of Iran in clear contravention of international law, in particular, the basic tenets of the United Nations Charter," Khazaee's letter said.

      He called for U.N. condemnation of U.S. "acts of aggression," as well as "clear and effective measures to be taken to put an end to these dangerous and unlawful acts in line with the United Nations' responsibilities to maintain international and regional peace and security."

      Why don't we fess up and tell the truth: that we were merely surveying possible sites for Iranian Walmarts and that no aggression was intended whatsoever by this overflight??? (This is what happens when you try to help develop countries that are still using 19th century economies.)

    • lobewyper December 11, 2011 at 3:22 pm

      Does anyone know whether stealth technology could be used to build a radar-evading missile? If so, the Israelis are going to be in some serious trouble if they attack Iran...

    • lobewyper December 11, 2011 at 2:56 pm

      Thanks, Jeffrey. I agree--it's definitely for real! (Were it a fake, the US would know it and not need to be warned against a cruise missile attempt to destroy it. See my post, above)

    • lobewyper December 11, 2011 at 1:09 pm

      I think we are maybe taking the Iranian threat too literally. What the Iranians were doing with their remarks was to caution the US against trying to destroy the drone before its technology can be studied and then used against us. Clearly we have the capability to pin-point its current location and the cruise missiles needed to destroy it. The Iranian talk about what they would have done had the drone been a fighter plane is merely a cryptic way of warning against an attempt to destroy the drone. They were saying to us: "If you try to destroy it, American military personnel are--with absolute certainty--going to die." (See Theo's comments above.)

    • lobewyper December 11, 2011 at 8:48 am

      MRW says:
      December 11, 2011 at 1:44 am
      "Israel claims in this Israel-infested wikipedia entry, that it developed the first modern UAV, or drone, after the 1973 war.
      link to en.wikipedia.org. This is 1000% false. The US military was using drones over Russia during the 60s"

      The next thing you're going to tell us is that the Israelis did not really invent the cherry tomato...

    • lobewyper December 11, 2011 at 7:23 am

      From Zakaria and Baer on CNN.com:

      "Downed Drone an Intel Catastrophe"

      Robert Baer: "I mean, if the Iranians themselves can't get into this and figure out how it works, they'll invite the Chinese in from one of these parastatal companies. They'll look at it. And this is extremely damaging because this drone had, you know, thermal imaging cameras. The resolution on the photography is very, very good. And as we know, it's the same drone that was used to surveil bin Laden's compound before the raid. And it plays a key role in collecting intelligence as it does against Iranian nuclear facilities."

    • lobewyper December 10, 2011 at 2:35 pm

      Kathleen, did Panetta actually say this? I listened to his presentation but don't recall hearing this:

      “It must take into account American interests,” continued Panetta, adding that, “an ally is not the boss; it does not drag the US behind it.”

    • lobewyper December 10, 2011 at 10:41 am

      All they needed to do was to hack into the flight controls. Then, they could have flown it around in some desert or something else soft at low level until it ran out of fuel and then belly-landed it.

    • lobewyper December 10, 2011 at 6:31 am

      Yeah, but how did they detect it in the first place? The thing's probably got the radar signature of a bumblebee. Guess it could have been flying low enough for visual detection...

    • lobewyper December 9, 2011 at 8:02 pm with 1 replies

      This is turning into a huge embarrassment for the US government. (As I'm sure you can sense, I am heartbroken over this.) First, they were stupid enough to admit that a drone was missing. Then they chose to lie to their own people (us) by suggesting the Iranians do not actually have an RQ-170. Now, the Iranians can show the world the drone's SERIAL NUMBER as proof! It's time for change we can really believe in...

  • Iran airs footage of US drone intact
    • lobewyper December 9, 2011 at 7:25 am

      Look, the obvious answer to this puzzle is, one of those drone pilots was feeling sorry for the poor, downtrodden and threatened Iranians, deliberately landed it on their territory to help balance the electronic edge of the US and Israel. :)

    • lobewyper December 8, 2011 at 9:25 pm with 14 replies

      The Chinese have lots of atomic weapons. They should trade one for the drone and that will be the end of the drumbeats for an attack on Iran...

    • lobewyper December 8, 2011 at 8:22 pm

      Not half so cool as your new nickname, "Hawkeye!"

    • lobewyper December 8, 2011 at 6:55 pm with 6 replies

      I think it would be splendid if the Iranian government offered to return that drone intact to President Obama, but only during a "friendship" visit to Tehran.

    • lobewyper December 8, 2011 at 6:51 pm

      Maybe they reverse-engineered the Stuxnet virus and now can control ALL of our drones!

  • GOP presidential candidates offer red meat on Israel (UPDATED)
  • State Department says Amb. Gutman was 'speaking on his own'
  • New York liberal Democrat implies Gutman is anti-Semitic
    • lobewyper December 6, 2011 at 8:23 pm

      Hopmi,

      I suggest you read the following article, titled, "Yes, Israel is a source of anti-Semitism":

      link to 972mag.com

    • lobewyper December 6, 2011 at 7:49 pm

      Hophmi,

      I forgot to answer your question. Indeed I would defend your sentiments "as simply explaining root causes" and would hope any other rational person would. (Not that I would be excusing Islamophobia, but at least I would better understand its emergence.)

    • lobewyper December 6, 2011 at 6:01 pm with 1 replies

      hophmi said:

      "...if I said that Islamophobia was based on the conduct of Islamic radicals through Europe and the Middle East, would you all defend my sentiments as simply explaining root causes or would you condemn? Many of you would condemn, so I don’t see why it should be any different with anti-semitism. Hatred is hatred, whether the perpetrators cite a reason or not."

      Your statement here beautifully illustrates the "logic" you use to discuss I-P. You are saying that most people hate because they are haters, not for reasons. Any reasons given are merely self-justifying rationalizations of their underlying hatred. Ergo, any reason for such is for you a sham, and anyone who offers such a reason is unknowingly but obviously demonstrating their anti-Semitism. With this state of mind, you have freed yourself of the bounds of decent and principled human conduct--for you, human life is at heart a war of all against all in which only the strong survive. (I commend you for your uplifting view of human nature, Hophmi!)

      This kind of thinking is irrational and requires seeing others as equally so. This is why Israel is and has been under fire. You cannot understand why others might value international law and social justice--to you, those things are just a means of "prettifying" underlying hatred for Jews generally. "They're going to hate us whatever we do, so we should therefore do whatever we want to and think we can get away with."

    • lobewyper December 6, 2011 at 5:04 pm

      Removed from his post? He ought to receive a commendation!

    • lobewyper December 6, 2011 at 4:02 pm

      Finally, I am waiting for the MSM to jump all over Rubin (and many others) for implying Gutman is anti-Semitic. Let's start reminding people what a democracy is supposed to be.

    • lobewyper December 6, 2011 at 3:49 pm

      P.S. to Jennifer

      Gutman might be incorrect in his linking of Israel's behavior to the anger it mobilizes in others (though at least in this instance, I think he's right). If you think so, say you think he's wrong instead of subtly accusing him of anti-Semitism, a charge which you well know is not conducive WHATSOEVER to free and open discussion. It is very clear that the truth of the situation matters not to you, but only protection of the tribe.

    • lobewyper December 6, 2011 at 3:44 pm with 1 replies

      So Rubin thinks Gutman is "anti-Semitic" because he suggested Israeli misbehavior might be criticised? O.K., Jennifer, how would you react if I suggested you were anti-democratic due to your implication that we should not have freedom of speech on all topics in this country???

    • lobewyper December 6, 2011 at 3:27 pm

      I'm sure glad the USA is a country where truth, free speech, and freedom of thought on all topics is both encouraged and protected by law, and where nobody ever tries to tell us how to think and express ourselves. Truly, it is not Israel, but the United States itself that is the real "light unto the nations!"

  • Beinart says Israel must give citizenship to Palestinians under occupation
    • lobewyper December 6, 2011 at 8:07 pm with 3 replies

      Hophmi wrote:

      "If Beinart (who is not orthodox but attends an orthodox synagogue in Washington, not that it matters), posted here, everyone would condemn him, as you do me, Witty, Dan Siederski, and others for being liberal Zionists. You’re one of the lunatics Beinart is talking about."

      Sorry, but I never realized that you're a "liberal Zionist," Hophmi. Why didn't you tell us sooner???

  • Game changer: Hillary says Israeli restrictions on women remind her of Rosa Parks and Iran
    • lobewyper December 4, 2011 at 11:11 pm

      y/t wrote:
      '...this time, however, once the public flips on the p/i issue, the burden will be on us anti-zionists to find ways to convince the public to hold fast in demanding an end to america’s unconditional support of the zionist entity. we can do this."

      I agree, the Israelis are extremely close to the tipping point. If Obama went on TV tomorrow night and said that the Israelis are planning to attack Iran but that this would be disastrous, and asked the citizenry to contact their congresspersons and senators at once about this, the need for a just I-P peace, and the start of reconciliation with Muslims generally, it would happen. Militant Zionism would be toast.

      I'm sure we would have all the help we needed to end "unconditional support of the zionist entity" from most Americans.

    • lobewyper December 4, 2011 at 6:04 pm with 1 replies

      Oh, Kaaaaay! You can keep it

    • lobewyper December 4, 2011 at 5:13 pm with 1 replies

      Please, Antidote, I was joking. (I guess I'm not going to be asked to do the New Years' Eve Jimmy Fallon show, after all.)

    • lobewyper December 4, 2011 at 4:44 pm

      And if war it is to be, some folks in Israel (and AIPAC) are about to learn something about Chicago-style politics--the only rule of which is, you play to win!

    • lobewyper December 4, 2011 at 4:37 pm with 2 replies

      If Hillary stands by her comments here, we will be on the verge of a full-scale "war" with Israel, which is the last thing Israel needs about now...

    • lobewyper December 4, 2011 at 4:04 pm with 5 replies

      Look, we're forgetting the "Rosa Parks" parallel Hillary drew. She has now endorsed the view of many that Israel is an apartheid state. I agree with Phil--this is a potential "game changer." This charge cannot go unchallenged by Israel, because of the enormous hated of such by Americans and their history of slavery. Unfortunately for Israel, they are a thousand times guilty of apartheid!!!

    • lobewyper December 4, 2011 at 2:06 pm

      How true...

    • lobewyper December 4, 2011 at 2:05 pm

      eee,

      I'm serious about Hillary's awakening the women of the world to their mistreatment by many Israelis. Apparently, this mistreatment doesn't concern you in the slightest. (Now, ask me if I'm surprised!)

    • lobewyper December 4, 2011 at 1:53 pm with 2 replies

      Hillary knew very well that her remarks would become public. She and the administration are seriously ramping up pressure on the Israeli government.

    • lobewyper December 4, 2011 at 12:59 pm with 9 replies

      Dumvitaestspesest (Please choose another, easier to spell pseudonym):

      I've already explained about regime change (see above post). :)

    • lobewyper December 4, 2011 at 12:34 pm with 5 replies

      After much reflection, I have decided that Hillary has struck a very low blow here against the Israeli government. In a few careless remarks, she has mobilized the feminine population of the entire earth against the Israeli regime. Speaking of regime, I hope Kristol has enough strength left to point out that Hillary is clearly calling for "regime change"in Israel--who just happens to be our "best friend"!

Showing comments 619 - 601
Page:

Comments are closed.