-
-
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges … 17
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel 15
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 44
- Exile and the prophetic: No dissenter is an island 8
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to … 19
- Demonizing Mandy Patinkin is a tough sell 24
- ‘If I had to choose between the wealth of the … 15
- Rightwing Israeli group gets tax-deductible funds from US foundation 14
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 674
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 311
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 202
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 145
- San Francisco bus ads condemn Israeli apartheid: backlash begins 120
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 101
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 100
-
- US Jews are so ‘polarized’ over Israel they can’t talk … 160
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 88
- Israeli right-wing flys off the deep end following Hawking boycott 78
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 75
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
- Church of Scotland backs away from boycott call in the … 62
-
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges but thrust is unchanged http://t.co/FCgbAw9vEO, 11 hours ago
- Exile and the prophetic: No dissenter is an island http://t.co/vnbRO0AgjV, 17 hours ago
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to be http://t.co/j9GvEIOYqI, 17 hours ago
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel http://t.co/oJT9HsoQcD, 17 hours ago
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack http://t.co/G5N0uJqOwT, 17 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi Marmara (82)
- Hostage: Really? In August 1948 Emil Ghoury, a member of the Arab Higher Committee, the “Cabinet” of the Palestinian...
- Hostage: Have I cleared things up any? Yes, you’ve made it clear that you can’t tell the difference...
- pjdude: What invasion of israel there was no invasion I the war of Zionist aggression and conquest also known as the...
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges but thrust is unchanged (17)
- DICKERSON3870: P.P.S. RE: “AND, THE ‘JEWISH FEDERATION’ CLEARLY BACKS HAGEE” – me (from above) MY...
- tree: RJL, Ira is Jewish. Your assumption skills are as misguided as your intellectual skills. You seem incapable of...
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack (44)
- Shingo: OK, Except that the bill also would allow for weapon storage in Israel and comprehensive strategic military...
- thedirtydemocrat: Senator Boxer sits on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee as Vice Chair and should be removed...
- ritzl: Along sort of the same lines, there’s a great article on Meshaal and Hamas’ moderating political...
- The meaning of solidarity in the Palestine movement (13)
- Shmuel: W.Jones, It’s not that easy to shut my friend up :-) But the experience has made her a little more...
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel (62)
- Ecru: Thank you for that Irmep. I HATE chugging through figures, I’ve frankly done enough of it to last me...
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi Marmara (82)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
You're kinda looking with hindsight here. I personally don't think we know the half of it as far as Vietnam service is concerned. It wasn't just physical danger, injuries, and the fear of death, but the knowledge (half knowledge in a lot of cases) that the war was wrong, that scarred these service people. That anguish must last a long time. We have the photos, newsreels, books, and movies that confirm it. We have yet to see the same from the Iraq war, but I'm pretty sure they will surface, especially if Hagel is confirmed and there's a significant turn in foreign policy. We may not have the newsreels any more, but my guess is we will have a new generation of "Born on the 4th of July's" coming soon.
I agree that Hagel is being dragged down because of his mention of the “lobby,” but I also believe that pragmatically the biggest problem neoconservatives have with him is that he would be an impediment to war with Iran. And they most certainly wouldn’t want the lobby linked to any war with Iran either! (Although at this point it seems impossible not to link them since they've mouthed off so much about it). Hagel seems like the kind of guy who would vocally link the two if war occurred.
The man might have his faults, but it makes me rather sick to see the people who lobby so much for war drag down someone who fought so well in one and is scarred from the experience. And after watching this takedown, I can only imagine how
the Palestinians feel getting their names dragged through the mud, day after day by the same people.
I'm not that familiar with this subject, but Jon S's comment explaining the holidays scared me a little bit. I wondered if the Israeli leaders are reading these stories this way and formulating polices based on this interpretation (fear of genocide, lack of responsibility for "enemies" killed, "permission" to kill, etc). I was very happy to see Avigail's response below.
Thank you. I will have to print this out for thanksgiving where I'm sure to hear some relative recite the cnn/msm version of all this.
This letter was fair. It acknowledged suffering and violence on both sides. The "hard core" expansionists in both the U.S. and Israel don't want fair; they want a "favored relationship" with the mainstream voters in the U.S. Just like what the ADL said when George Mitchell was assigned as chief envoy to Israel-"he's too fair" link to walt.foreignpolicy.com
Wasn't this "dialogue" group started by Jewish secular groups to stem the rising tide of calls for boycotts and divestment among these protestant groups? I think they just got frustrated and said "The hell with it. Enough is enough. We're perpetually the losers in this dialogue." It's a bold and timely move. We'll see...
There was some concern about Paul here if I remember correctly, mostly by progressives wrt the racist newsletters, environmental issues, etc, but also a lot of support wrt the issues this blog deals with most. He's not everybody's cup of tea, but I've been a supporter for a long time because he was the only one out there willing to take a different stand on foreign policy and civil liberties.
I had been leaning Obama because I fear a Romney presidency so much, but after last night, I see that they are so similar regarding the civil liberty/war issues that I feel compelled to cast my "wasted vote" for Gary Johnson.
“JCPA is considering as a response asking Congress to investigate delegitimizers of Israel and to issue a resolution against their efforts.”
Oh brother. I'm waiting for Congress to issue a resolution against themselves- you know, for not stopping the letter from being written in the first place.
Indeed. The humanitarian tragedy of the Palestinians is what hits me the hardest, and it's the first thing I thought about when I heard the 2010 SCOTUS ruling re: the Material Support for Terrorism Act. I just know they would find a way to use that law against anyone who raised money for the kids in Gaza. Sad.
Great. Thanks for all the info and your work, Annie.
See, this is the reason I started reading this site in the first place. My best search efforts on the web would have never yielded this info even after a couple of hours.
I feel like the MSM here in the US speaks to us as if there's no end to our stupidity. That we are supposed to believe Palestinians just up and go crazy every once in a while for no reason other than pure hatred. Thanks Annie. This info alone is worth a modest donation. Looks like I'll have to send a check. My electronic info wouldn't go through. Could be on my side. I"ll get it via snail mail though.
Thanks. The issues on this blog are touchy, and you need a thick skin to post. Ignorance isn't tolerated either. There’s a lot to know about this subject, and if you talk out your arse, you’ll hear about it in the replies. I simply don't know enough most of the time to post anything intelligent.
There’s also a lot of wit, and overly earnest and nervous writing (like mine) can be fodder for the irony patrol. All this said, and maybe because of these reasons, mondoweiss is still the best place on the web to discuss Israel/Palestine-if you have the guts and wherewithal.
Exactly.
Ok, the grammar is atrocious at the end, but I have no idea why the quote was picked out of context to imply a position I didn't really intend to take. Bad writing on my part I suppose. I need to work on my writing when mad skills.
I think my post will validate a lot of what Mr. Rosenberg asserts here, and I hope it will provide some insight into an average, but informed, person’s view of this issue. This morning my newsfeed helpfully placed this article next to a Washington Free Beacon article. The WFB article recaps an AEI study which laments the fact that more than half of American families are receiving government benefits and then cautions that “We can’t expect voters to vote for restraint.” Most infuriatingly, it goes on to say that “Health programs worsen the situation. People look to doctors to save them from finitude... They prefer to ignore death and the prices for their actions. Overall, Americans are giving up the degree of self-discipline they used to show.”
Give me a break. I used to be a reasonably conservative middle class person who believed in hard work, savings, etc. There’s nothing to save, wages are stagnant, and the near zero percent interest rates only help the people who already own everything. Then they top it off with a scolding about wanting to be saved from “finitude” just because we would like decent healthcare like the rest of the civilized world. I about blew my top.
Next up was a Commentary article suggesting that the public need not be informed or involved in any discussion about Israel because “The pivotal audience for the administration’s spats with Israel is not the American people...It is the Palestinians who have drawn the wrong conclusions from Obama’s determination, as was often expressed at the beginning of his administration, to change everything George W. Bush did, especially his closeness with Israel.”
Sorry, but that’s not my main concern as an American. I still have a civic right/duty to discuss my country’s foreign policy. The point is that all of these organizations (WFB, AEI, Commentary) have very hawkish views on Iran, and, to a great extent, are very pro Israel. If these same organizations then demand austerity from the American people and the muzzling of public debate about middle east/Israeli policy, average people are going to feel put upon. Less than average people might feel outright hostility. This is what the author is trying to avoid when he makes his arguments about using the term “Israel Firster,” and I agree with him.
I don’t post much here because I have very little insight to offer next to the contributors and regular commenters, but I do read a lot about these issues and have tried to make it a point to understand all sides. My very visceral reaction to these 3 stories today is rare, but it seemed to confirm so much of what’s in this article that I decided to post this now, long winded, comment. While I’m glad that this site exists, I must admit I feel powerless to stop anything my gov does, so dwelling on the issues tends to mire me down. As one of the less than half of American families who do not receive benefits, I have to pick my battles, the main ones being to put food on the table and keep from getting sick (hard to do after reading these articles) in a society where that misfortune can cost you your life savings, if not your life. I do appreciate the discussion though and am grateful for the brave souls here who bring these issues to light to people like me.
So I guess if the situation were reversed,and the BDS movement called out the people trying to stifle their free expression and maybe even referred to those people as "nazis" it would be "neither possible, nor consistent with the value of free expression, for me or the Administration to intervene in the exchange of words that will inevitably occur in the context of highly controversial and deeply emotional issues" Not. There would be bloody hell to pay for even using that word.
I understand the emotional resonance of the use of that word by the opposition to BDS, but still they should be more careful with such charged name calling. Besides it reeks of desperation. Gimme a break. Even as a person with mixed feelings about this issue (with deep sympathy and empathy for the Palestinians), I still realize there's a blatant bias going on here.
BTW, as one of the Paul supporters on this blog, I should point out that he strongly endorses boycott and divestment as a peaceful form of expression and as a means for change. The issue is covered extensively in his books as part of our first amendment rights and desire for peace. I've not heard President Obama's view on this issue, even in the abstract.
This made me furious. Mr. Hassan was brave enough to ask this question, and neither candidate could even give him a dignified response. The sad part is that Romney actually sounded like he believed what he was saying, almost like he had been given the answers by somebody in case he was ever asked. Gingrich is too cynical to truly mean anything he says.
Of course, hardly any news stories mentioned it in their coverage of the debate. But come on, even a neutral observer of the Israeli/Palestinian issue would have to agree that they were both conspicuously and callously disrespectful, bordering on abusive, to this voter.
I'm not as adamant about this as you are, but I agree that not enough people have given Paul a chance. I campaign for him, and 80 to 90% of the supporters are under 30. They are eager to escape the old left/right paradigm. There is a sort of cult of personality around him. (It's a bit scary actually). His son doesn't have it. This is why I'm worried this movement might not go any farther if he doesn't get some kind of win this time (even some input at the convention would be better than nothing). He won't be around in 4 years, and I'd hate to see the antiwar, anti crony capitalism, anti big government power moment disappear for good. I just don't know who else could carry this torch. The guy really is not afraid of anything. The "Now" of the article title is absolutely right.
I just listened to a bit of the Paul segment. So glad to hear you guys and this subject on the radio. As a former progressive, I confess I feel disoriented sometimes as a new Paul supporter. Just goes to show how the 2 party paradigm is shifting. I think this is just the beginning, and I have a lot of faith in the millennial generation to eventually get this all right and forge a new coalition for justice and peace.
It may not be dripping with hostility, but the sarcasm is unmistakable: "Paul calling for abolishment of the fed at the convention" etc. etc. Yeah, Paul riles people up with this chant to "end the fed," and a lot of economists dismiss it automatically. But what if we just start with some transparency like the recent fed audit (that Paul fought for) that revealed for the first time the trillions they used to bail out the foreign banks. Abolish FEMA? Well, Paul thinks they're inefficient like a lot of federal agencies. Fed agencies often are bastions of bureaucratic inertia, but abolishing FEMA is probably not a popular idea in this age of natural disasters. It is a solid Libertarian one though. CIA? He's not against intelligence gathering. It's just that the CIA causes way too much mischief and with little accountability. They're the ones that told us Iraq had WMD's, remember? "American withdrawal from everywhere, and acquiescence to the Iran bomb." Well, that's the subject of a lot of this blog and also the reason for his support among non brass military. Besides we're broke. And, the border fence "keeping people in." Paul has many strong qualities, but improvisational eloquence at debates is not one of them. The reference to the border fence "lest it be used to keep Americans in" was mostly a metaphor for what he calls a financial iron curtain that is making it difficult to take your money out of this country. The imagery of the fence was also an allusion to civil liberty erosions like the TSA, the fact that we have more people in prison than any other country in the world, and, well, you know, indefinite detention, assassinations of American citizens, etc. The image is not so bizarre in this context.
I don't agree with all this, and much of it is utopian for sure. But it's not the complete lunacy Krauthammer paints it all to be. Also, Krauthammer alludes to Paul "nurturing his movement towards visibility and legitimacy." One of the Reason.com libertarians said something insightful the other day. Many of these young Paul supporters have known nothing but war their entire lives. They were maybe 6 or 8, or 10 years old on 9/11. This may be this generation's cause/causes, and there are a lot of them.
Pro life Catholic, my arse. Santorum has been the subject of a lot of internal catholic fights, witness his inability to win the Catholic vote in NH with Romney getting 45%. At bottom, he's a sellout from everything from assassinations and wars to political profiteering. Too bad the next primary is in SC, otherwise he might already be gone. Good riddance!
This is truly a tough question. Having read all of his books and followed him for 4 years, I have to agree with some comments here. Paul is not going to be an advocate for the Palestinian cause or any other foreign cause. He is not Obama, the community organizer, or Carter or Clinton, the peacemaker. He has gone on record as saying he admires the accomplishments of Israel, but to say that the terrible injustices and infringements upon "liberty" that the Palestinians face don't bother him does not give him enough credit. This is where the whole "Gaza is a concentration camp" quote comes in. Paul feels heavy moral responsibility for what goes on because of American support of Israel. I look at it this way: Right now, the aid is justified by appealing to our moral consciences (ie., Israel is our ally, they are democratic, under fire from terrorists, etc.). If Paul had to justify not giving aid, inevitably he would have to appeal to the consciences of Americans too by pointing out and describing what the aid is used for and how it hurts the Palestinians. Some Americans might be hearing this for the first time. An objective America would most likely empower the Palestinians tremendously but might also induce the situation you are describing. Considering Paul usually has an answer for all his views, I'm ashamed I don't have any reasonable speculation about his response. I might try to ask one of my fellow Paul pen pals at Blue Republican.
One more thought with regard to this year’s election and the Palestinian/Israel issue. I’m a Paul supporter, and it’s true what they say about us. Once you’re converted, you don’t tend to go back. Kind of scary actually. Still, if Obama gets re-elected, and that’s a pretty strong possibility, I will take solace in the fact that he will most certainly avenge, what he believes, is Netanyahu’s blackmailing/extortion. I lived in Chicago all my life up until a few years ago, and Obama is the epitome of political machinery that town is known for. I actually met him once briefly, and he can be a piece of work when crossed. So for those who believe in intervention for humanitarian reasons, I think he will not only continue the peace process as every other president has done, but motivated by animus and with nothing left to lose, he will press Israel very hard and in the process help the Palestinians.
It’s an interview with Israeli news. Of course, he’s going to articulate his view in a way that is not offensive to the country that is asking him the questions. That being said, every one of Paul’s views, including the one expressed here, comports with his reverence for the constitution and extremely limited government (Libertarianism basically).
After NH, I decided to refresh my understanding of his views by re-reading his book Liberty Defined, a sort of dictionary like, a to z guide on where he stands on issues. Don’t like unlimited campaign contributions or lobbying? Make sure there is less for the government to auction off. Don’t like what is going on in another country? Again, get rid of as much tax payer funded aid so as to avoid people being forced to contribute to causes they don’t believe in. Let citizens privately contribute to their causes. He will always come down on the side of the individual, not the state. With regard to foreign aid, he is pro American individuals, not Anti Israel or any other country. There's a long entry in the above book about the unintended, often negative, consequences of our foreign aid to all countries. That being said, personally, he is very pro life in that he is against abortion (probably as a result of his experience as an ob/gyn), capital punishment, and torture. His pro life stance is also what fuels his aversion to wars and, what he sees as needless soldier and civilian deaths. I would find it hard to believe that he does not personally feel sympathy and compassion for the Palestinians and their plight, but his first priority is to the citizens who elect/elected him.
Actually the title of the article is perfect. I appreciate the honesty of someone who calls Paul’s ideas, and by implication, his supporters “simpleminded” over the patronizing expert/media lecturing. The thesis is the same though: The electorate is too unstudied and child like to reasonably assess candidates. So we need the info experts to guide us. Except for one thing, the “experts” are corrupted and part of the problems we face (author of this article excluded. I think he is truly sincere). And these problems include war, the subject of this article, and much much more. No thanks. I’m going to try the Emersonian thing this time around and be self reliant in my campaigning and voting in this election.
I completely understand if Phil Weiss doesn't want to publish a post with the word "cross" in it. Sorry.
John H, do I know you? Outside of my comments here, I've been a big promoter of getting the Pals out of there (much to the chagrin of others on this site) I'm a big time Catholic and I can't stand the suffering , as much as the cross is our symbol. these refugees need a fresh start either in the U.S. or another Arab land.
Can't we all just get along? Jesus Maria!! I guess I'll be the a__hole. Israel should fight its own battles. Sorry. I think they can do it. They're tough. The pauvre, pauvre, are actually very strong
See, I knew all this since I've been following Paul for 5 years, but since this is a forum for discussing the Israeli/Palestinian issue, I try to refrain from anything that might be considered campaigning for him. If a reasonable person does her homework on him (and mine has taken 5 years and is still going on), she can ably justify support for him, baggage and all. That's not to say he doesn't have "issues." What candidate doesn't? One of the comments here mentions campaign finance. That's a biggie for me. But, Paul is nothing but consistent, and his Libertarianism just won't bend on this. There are many die hard liberals who could never be converted to Paul ideologically. I can sympathize with this. My significant other is one who won't bend. Still, with regard to the issue of this site, he is the only beacon right now. For anyone who is interested, there is a very lucid, somewhat sophisticated, article over at naked capitalism.com about liberalism and Paul. If nothing else the author argues, Paul requires liberals to do some self reflecting. That seems to be what is happening here.
I'm a lifelong, although youngish, Democrat, and I started supporting Paul in late 2007 because of his antiwar stance and his defense of the Constitution. However, I've had to do a lot of soul searching with regard to these newsletters which I've known about since 2008. I'm still not completely comfortable with his defense of them. But, it's interesting to see what bothers the "other republicans" about him. It ain't the racism. This today from Phillip Klein at the Washington Examiner, in an article titled, "Why I'd back Obama over Ron Paul":
"So then we get to foreign policy. Obviously, if you agree with Paul’s non- interventionist views, it makes sense to back him. But if, like me, you find Paul’s ideas dangerous, then as bad as he is, Obama is preferable. Despite the many problems I have with Obama on foreign policy, he has continued many of President Bush’s counterterrorism policies and did prove willing to order the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the drone attack that killed Anwar al-Awlaki. At the end of the day, Obama wants to be politically popular and so there are some limits to how far off the reservation he’d veer on foreign policy."
Talk about Bizarro world. Maybe it is time for a third party.
I have to agree here. The questions I had to ask and answer in order to justify my support for Paul include the following:
Do I value the constitution? Yes, probably more so than most Americans. Paul is the strongest on this issue, no doubt. I almost expect to hear platforms in 2016 that go something like this: The constitution is a nice document and all, but we need to progress (Dems) or it doesn’t protect immorality and needs to be “loosely interpreted” in matters of national security (Repubs).
Do I want the wars to stop? Yes. He is the only one who will do this.
Do I want any more tarp bailouts? No. Paul won’t do this either.
Do I want an end to crony capitalism? Yes. Again check on Paul.
Would Paul sign an Indefinite Detention bill or support torture?. Not on your life.
What about Social Security/Medicare? I have relatives on social security, so I worry about them. Paul has a transition plan that won’t leave them out.
What about national healthcare? See above re: crony capitalism and Obama’s plan
Is he a racist? 99.5% sure he is not. And yes, I find the statements in the newsletter abhorrent. Remember though, he is 76 years old and the thought did occur to me that his personal beliefs might contain some ahem, “prejudices” of an earlier time. Even so, as a Libertarian, he would not allow his personal bias to interfere with his conviction that every individual has the same rights in this country under law. (part of his stress on the constitution.) As a side note to this, Paul has the most support of African Americans among the Republicans. I once worked in the legal dept of a max security prison and know very well how unfair the system is to minorities. Paul’s views on drug laws resonate here. Ironically, it was the John Birch Society who provided the most assistance to the prisoners in ensuring their due process rights through appeals.(I know. I was shocked too) They are strong constitutionalists who (rightly in my opinion) view prisons much the same as the military industrial complex. Not an endorsement for this group, just a first hand observation.
In the end, as you said, it will be a matter of voter priorities because, as others have said, no candidate is perfect. But it does seem like a lot of emphasis on 20 year old ugly words (that Paul probably didn’t write) rather than on his public record/actions with regard to racism and his current platform. The prisoners I personally knew who had been locked up on drug charges chuckled a lot at liberal platitudes on TV, but they were always eager to sign up for visits from the John Birch outreach. Again, not endorsing this group, just sayin, things are not always as simple as the memes we are fed make them appear, and the people who are in real trouble because of disregard for constitutional protections know this very well.
Oops. I didn't see that the Atlantic article had already been linked in the discussion.
Sorry. Anyway, here's a nifty article (from NPR of all places!) that succinctly explains Paul's conservatism and why the establishment Republicans are afraid of him. Surprise, surprise-it's his opposition to wars mostly!link to npr.org
Kind of a shame that this is coming out now. Paul should have addressed these sooner. The newsletters are not a dealbreaker for me because I've known about Paul and researched him for years. He's not a racist, but voters who have less info on him might buy this line. Paul is the only candidate who is for real change. Romney, Gingrich, or Obama? Meh...only minor differences among these 3 centrists. If Ron Paul gets pushed out of the race from this garbage, establishment politics as usual will return. If that happens, I just hope these bought politicians will muster up some prudence about starting more wars. I don't want to have to watch any more of my military family and friends come home wrecked from them.
For a much more articulate quasi defense of Paul, you should read Conor Friedersdorf's article today at the Atlantic, link to theatlantic.com. It is by far, the most honest and nuanced discussion of this issue I have seen (at least from the libertarian point of view).
"But none of this has addressed voters’ big concern over a Paul philosophy that fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland."
Funny, Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate, Democratic or Republican, (Look at the recent "indefinite detention act" that President Obama is getting ready to sign off on) that actually recognizes that the real source of "American exceptionalism" is our constitution and bill of rights, not "decisive action to protect the homeland."
You hit it right on the head. When I saw Rubin's reply to these allegations where she stated that Abrams' post was an "understandable desire for righteous vengeance" I thought exactly the same thing. Where and when in the world of American politics would we ever hear the phrase "righteous vengeance" used by a politician or journalist? This is a country founded on enlightenment values of universal rights and freedoms, not some theocracy that pronounces vengeance on others.
I did this at a recent article at Commentary. What a difference. Where the subject of a sentence is "the Palestinians" almost invariably the verb will be something like "hate" or "refuse" while adjectives are usually along the lines of "unreasonable." Really, when I changed the word from Palestinians to Israel, the article looked like Nazi propaganda. It's subtle until you actually paste the article into a doc like I did (just for kicks) and do a replace.
Granted Commentary has a definite slant and agenda, but this kind of subtle word play by the media is insidious and part of the problem. People who don't follow the situation very closely are affected by it. I was, and I follow it fairly closely. Thank goodness there are sites like this.
"Imagine if this article was about whites and blacks in the US"
Yeah, I know. I've started using a new method to clear my mind of the MSM and neocon bias in the articles I read online. I just interchange the words "Palestinians" and "Jews/Israel" in the articles. The prejudice is so very clear after you try this. Very enlightening and disturbing!
This guy has too much integrity to ever really matter at the presidential level. e.g. Even if he did win the presidency he would still have to work with the congress and well... we know what that is like. I still gave him my token vote in the last election primaries. I feel down. Any ideas?
Actually it's Warren Zevon who sang lawyers guns and money. Just saying :)
Mhughes976,
Your comment has served as a good antidote to the pessimism of the day. Very perceptive and just a bit encouraging. :) I've just never done battle with these hardliners at this other news site yesterday who had me second guessing my own perceptions and judgments. It's true if we want to win this battle we will need a strong sense of humor and some very thick skin.
Watching these events today, I can't help but feel hopeless about any justice for the Palestinians. I was tarred and feathered at a right wing website (I didn't realize how right wing it was at first) yesterday for even diplomatically pointing out injustices committed against the Palestinians by Israel and implicitly the U.S. That experience combined with seeing Greece capitulate today is deeply depressing. I am still hoping but feel more and more that there are fewer and fewer ways to battle the immense power these people possess. It's sad, but I think that many more people are going to end up paying with their lives before there is any breakthrough. I hope I am wrong.
Israel seems to be their own worst enemy. Is the collective hysteria and paranoia so strong that they have to commit PR suicide with all this? Pinkwash hoaxes, frivilous lawsuits, threats, boat sabatoge, slander of famous persons? They'd be better off to just let the boats dock.
Still the publicity is great for the Gazan supporters, and that's one good thing!
Good answer Annie. Though it's disheartening to think that the man in this video is somehow considered "dangerous" by the powers that be. That pronouncement really speaks to the depravity of this situation. It's hard not to become cynical when faced with that kind of slander of a good human being.
And, thanks for posting this inspirational video and post. I've followed mondo for 5 or 6 years but just started posting comments recently. This is simply the best news aggregator out there on this subject. The optimism it generates for a breakthrough in the peace process is catchy. I'm living proof.
Saw this somewhere else about a month ago. This guy's the real thing (and very handsome too)
Seriously though, why he isn't he better known? He's a powerhouse combo of knowledge, experience, and empathy who should be able to appeal to a wide variety of people if only they would listen...
I'm almost positive someone on this forum has brought this up before, but when I saw Congress at the AIPAC conference, I couldn't t help but chuckle and think of the old Solzhenitsyn story about the gulag warning people to "never be the first one to stop clapping." Sad what our reps have come to.
What I was describing when I mused about the Palestinians agreeing to relocate to another country was the incredible sadness I felt when I first became aware of all their suffering. My first reaction had always been to try to get them out of there so they could regain their lost lives.
However, as I stated above, upon further reflection, I have come to realize that perhaps the larger issue is that no amount of concessions by the Palestinians will satisfy Israel. Have I just been conditioned to expect "new" demands by Israel every few years or so? e.g. Recognition of a Jewish state, No Hamas participation, No removal of any settlements, No 67 borders, etc. Keeping up with the changing demands is disorienting and has made me, admittedly not an expert on the history of this conflict, profoundly cynical about the prospect for peace.
I was using hyperbole for effect. (apparently not very effectively) I agree with you. :)
Such nonsense at the tax payer's expense. I do have to say that it is the system and not the players who are at fault. After all, the "lobby" just plays by the rules. Can't we do something about the "campaign finance laws"? How about the Supreme Court and their decisions about 1st amendment rights where this issue is concerned??
On an entirely not unrelated note: I used to be a whole hearted supporter of Israel. I was born in 1969, right when America became Israel's BFF. I've never known anything besides it. I still feel guilty taking the Arabs' sides on some things. But in the end what is right is right. Is it really that surprising that the Pal's would fight to keep their land for the last 60 years, considering that the native Americans fought for over 100 years here?
I've fantasized about this alternative: Let the Pal's give Israel EVERYTHING THEY WANT and agree to relocate to another Arab country. Sadly, I think that Israel would still be angry over some yet to be disclosed slight/threat. Based on the media, this thought brands me as an antisemite. i am scared!
I'm sitting 40 miles south of Joplin, MO. Joplin is our main city for shopping, eating, etc. in the rural area I live in, and the entire area is in a daze after this tornado.
I now see that Eric Cantor (I assume he's at the AIPAC conference) has now said that Joplin will not get any aid unless there are budget cuts somewhere else. Well, I think I know where the first cuts should come from...