Total number of comments: 138 (since 2009-09-16 20:15:12)
Rusty Pipes
"I am a Progressive Christian who wants to see our government act evenhandedly in resolving the conflict in Israel/Palestine, bringing about a just peace." I have been an active participant in I/P diaries at Daily Kos and related blogs (Booman Tribune, Talk to Action, Street Prophets) since 2005.
Website: http://www.beyondbethlehem.blogspot.com
Showing comments 138 - 101
Page: 2 1
Showing comments 138 - 101
Page: 2 1
Whether you trust Lake or not, Mattis appears to be out of line here. "No Drama Obama" has had little patience with civilians in his administration or campaign staff who have created scenes. But military officers in the chain of command speaking out of line goes to another level of concern about their respect for the office of commander in chief.
It looks like a lot of non-committal language from the White House to keep the donors on an even keel, attempts at lobbying the White House by Barak and spin by former administration officials to keep up the appearance that they still have access and are still as important as they used to be.
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (MAJO?) was formed during the Eisenhower administration to lobby the Executive branch. They always have had regular access to the President. What might be more notable is that they only got a speech from the VP instead.
Dubya has been vastly "misunderestimated." He is underestimated because, while not as smart as his father or brother, he is often parodied as stupid. He has been a very savvy and talented campaigner and coalition builder, both in understanding the various constituencies of the Republican Party, and using them to run a very competitive campaign for the Presidency (ultimately decided by the Sureme Court) as well as using the constituencies that brought him to the Presidency to launch a war on Iraq. He danced with the ones who brought him.
In his second term, hoping to build off the momentum of the Iraq War ("the road to Jerusalem is through Bagdad"), Dubya and Condi tried to negotiate a resolution for Israel/Palestine but his coalition partners undermined his efforts. Obama would be a fool to believe that if he gave the neocons/neolibs Tehran or Damascus, they'd give him peace in Jerusalem either. There will always be a new goalpost.
Did you catch the interview of Fawas Gerges on today's Diane Rehm Show? There was actually a little decent discussion about Obama and I/P
It is not a majority, but a plurality of American Jews who define themselves as liberal. Consistently in AJC polls, those who define as liberals are in the 40 percents and those who define as conservative are less. A bare majority of Jews are registered Democrats and around 15% are registered Republican. Which leaves from around 1/4 to 1/3 of Jewish Americans who could be swing voters, sometimes for Democrats sometimes Republicans. If these deli customers are not already Republicans, they could be easily swung to vote that way in the fall.
Is that the status quo in the direction of consolidating apartheid or in the direction of completing the project of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians?
Forestry and Ethnic Cleansing? I was expecting maybe you'd talk about the JNF and greenwashing, where they uproot Palestinians' olive trees and plant Pine trees over destroyed villages.
Trees are not a one-size-fits-all solution. The forests in the Northeast are quite different today than the ones the Pilgrims encountered, but they were not free of human impact. Native American tribes had been practicing forestry management to keep the tall widely-spaced trees with plenty of room for deer to run underneath them.
As has been mentioned further up, the history of Native Americans on this continent is not finished. There are still many injustices being committed today and there are still ways that America as a country can address previous wrongs and honor prior commitments.
But is it a big enough attack on Gaza to keep the Quaker BDS "peace offensive" out of the American MSM? Surely all of the bombs in Syria (which Assad blames on terrorists AKA "freedom fighters") are providing enough distraction from Israel -- or maybe those are only enough distraction this week from the MEK getting de-listed by the State Department as a Terrorist Group.
"How can we explain the assertion that ... Israel oppresses Christians?" Pay no attention to that 6o Minutes episode behind the curtain -- I am the great and powerful hasbarist.
The Iraq War was supported across the Israel Lobby, not just by the neo-cons -- a point that M&W make in their book. The neo-cons were the ideological movers behind the run-up to war, but it took the combined input of various components of the Israel Lobby to drum this country into the war, including neo-lib pundits and "liberal zionist" legislators. Many lobbies in Washington have strong influence with one party of even with moderates of the other, but M&W argue that the Israel Lobby is unique in that it has broad support on both sides of the aisle. No other lobby could have assembled the kind of congressional coalition that came together to support Bush in his push for the war with Iraq.
Thanks to the link to a good article. Your quote is from point five out of six. The others highlight various ways that it's more convenient for insiders to go along to get along. This one highlights the flip-side -- the price, way beyond inconvenience, paid by those who get on the wrong side of neo-cons.
Considering the treatment of these American citizens for coordinating contributions to charitable organizations before the State Department labeled them terrorist, the recent delisting of the MEK as a terrorist group under zionist pressure makes this family's story even more wrenching (even more disgusting to be part of our nation's alleged democratic processes).
Maybe they should start selling it as Sex-Rite Israel: Your Right to Get Laid in THE Land. How about a sound-track of Summer Nights (He got friendly, holding my hand. She got friendly, down in the sand)? And then, in that beautiful Bedouin tent, westerners can project their orientalist stereotypes about the lush and decadent otherness of the experience and think that their sexual encounter in a tent with 45 other 20-somethings is adventurous and romantic (rather than degrading and depersonalized).
And are there a proportionate number of plaques for the Romas, Communists, Gays, "Mental Deficients" and others among the 11,000,000+ killed in the Nazi holocaust?
Apparently, Ariel Sharon not only put the peace process in formaldehyde, but some congresscritters' brains.
She may be a big fish in the move-on community. But is Move-On as influential as it was at one time? At best, it ignores the I/P issue. I doubt that I am the only progressive that has moved-on from Move On's PEP organizing. Her speaking at J-Street may be just as much outreach from Move On as outreach from J-Street. Move On's adopting J Street's platform may be an improvement over where they've been, but it still may not make their e-mails relevant enough to open on a regular basis.
As others have noted here, MRFF has been documenting how dominionists were taking over leadership positions in the military, especially the Air Force Academy, during the Bush Administration. Talk to Action has also covered the influence of dominionists at the Pentagon. It's disturbing to see how much of the Islamophobic propaganda has continued in the training of military and law enforcement leaders under the Obama administration.
Especially an economically viable Gaza with full control of its coast and natural gas reserves. Based on its control of Gaza, Israel has been trying to broker energy deals for exploiting that gas which could contribute not only to its energy self-sufficiency, but its income.
Jimmy Carter, who brokered that peace treaty, has said that Israel has failed to fulfill it in letter and spirit.
Try this title: "Zionism 'Carefully Taught' at Hebrew Charter Schools on US Taxpayer Dime"
to pay no attention to the Arabs who can't live in your Utopian "diverse" Ha Olam neighborhood.
Even better, try the intense vitriol and Islamophobia directed toward the Khalil Gibran charter school and its principal, Debbie Almontaser. A school named after a famous Lebanese Christian poet, which was dedicated to teaching Arabic language and culture broadly, was demonized as promoting anti-Semitism and terrorism. Yet, Hebrew charter schools can, not only promote Zionist ideology and a connection to a particular country, but present a truncated vision of the country's Hebrew-speaking population -- especially the 20% who are Palestinian Citizens of Israel:
Make that, "They're such Friers, it might just work" and you'll get closer to the attitude.
Syria may be nothing to US strategic interests, but it is huge in the interests of the Israel Lobby and consequently to US politicians during an election season. Assadwashing is allowing GOI to keep embarrassing stories out of the US MSM, such as the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem and the Palestinian hunger strikers. To get contributions from "The Democrats' ATM," US politicians have singled out Syria, not only for criticism, but for the imposition of sanctions and facilitating pressure from Syria's surrounding states, like Turkey.
Perhaps those preparations have a different PNAC target in line next. You say:
Since Biden is talking about how Iranian leaders won't be around in a couple of years, he could be setting up a comparison between Iranian leaders, who face term limits, and Bashar Assad of Syria. After all, Iran could do more actual damage to the US military and our interests than Syria could. The US administration has been ramping up rhetoric about Syria in the direction of establishing "no fly zones" like Libya or at least being able to provide "non-lethal aid," (like night goggles, communications equipment, etc.) rather than just humanitarian aid, to Syria's opposition groups.
The US administration has moved to a clear posture of "Bashar Assad must go." They just may be waiting for the UN efforts at negotiations to stumble in order to have an excuse to escalate.
I think Biden was sent to deliver a little realism (in his own inimitable style) tucked in among the standard "we love Israel no matter what" professions. Just as Biden took the bullet for the Pollard no-release decision ("over my dead body"), here, he is saying that the Obama administration is not going to attack Iran for Israel.
The rest is commentary.
Even better if protesters could thank UN for upholding land rights of native peoples in US (and could the UN do more about Palestinian land rights?):
Not only junk science, but science reporting with a decidedly Zionist bias. Here's Ha'aretz's blurb:
The Chronicle of Higher Education had an entirely different interpretation of Ostrer's findings on "Jewish Genius:"
The Chronicle does mention a higher incidence of bi-polar swings from grandiosity to depression among Jews than non-Jews. The Ha'aretz author likes to cite Jewish mothers for credit for distinctions on genius. I'll leave other analogies to Mooser.
Great close to the article beyond the paragraph Phil cites:
New Meme: Zionism makes you stupid.
Pro-Israel indoctrination requires adherents to suspend their critical thinking skills and penalizes them for making analogies with human rights in other contexts. Would Jewish parents think twice about exposing their children to Zionist summer camp or Birthright Israel if they thought that it could stunt their children's intellectual growth and limit their academic achievement? And then there is the relative quality of the Israeli education system ...
I am reminded of another incident of a representative of the Zionist center-left warning the Zionist right about how their words and actions might be perceived by the American public:
In the internet age, what is said (and booed) in these formerly insular gatherings, can get widely disseminated. Dersh worries about such PR disasters -- the right-wingers in his audience don't.
I had a similar cynical response to the piece. A former Baptist became a Methodist pastor. Then when she had a mid-life faith crisis decided that she was an atheist (tells the atheist convention that she's going to burn with them in hell. I don't know Methodists who talk like that. It's the fundamentalists who talk about how anyone who doesn't believe the 5 fundamentals aren't "real Christians" and might as well be Atheists who are going to burn in hell.).
Well, they've got the Methodists covered for a few weeks. Nothing else important happening.
And did these other campus groups know that by co-sponsoring these programs with Hillel, Hillel would claim that they support its agenda of delegitimizing the wall and its "parallel between Israel's policies in the West Bank, and South-African Apartheid."? Might these other groups think twice the next time that Hillel asks them to co-sponsor a program adding not only their names but their student numbers to Hillel's pro-wall spin?
To remind politicians: who is "The Democrats' ATM?" In a town which illustrates the effects of outsourcing, it sure isn't organized labor. In a town where houses are abandoned and repossessed, it sure isn't the small donor maxing out their credit limit to donate to their favorite candidate (if they are even foolish enough to try to compete against the campaign dollars of corporations with personhood).
A state that is constructed for rule by a majority (not to mention, an artificially created majority) without providing protection for the rights of minorities is not a Democracy, but a mob-ocracy. Another reason Zionists are so afraid of "demographics."
An Arab-American woman with a long distinguished career as a journalist (during which in the Bush Administration she was the only reporter courageous enough to ask tough questions and got moved to the back row) who at 89 was entrapped into making a stupid statement can kiss your Yale-scholar ass?
As they say, "mighty white of you."
Thank you, MJ, for all that you do!
I hat-tipped you on the Garish Orange Site the other day. Unfortunately, lurkers there can't find some of the latest news and analysis related to American foreign policy in the Middle East because of a site ban against linking here -- which is an impediment for Progressive Democrats who seek to be reality-based. One of the users there encouraged me to change my blogroll. As well I should: I need to update it with a link to your new blog.
Good catch. Armenian Weekly does notice that he omits mentioning "genocide:"
But then, the word "genocide" was coined to describe the atrocity that was inflicted on the Armenians by Turkey. And our government is relying heavily on Turkey right now to be a team player for putting the squeeze on Syria -- as our state department tries to blur the distinction between providing "humanitarian" and "non-lethal" aid to Syrian "protesters." At the same time, Obama advocates penalizing high-tech companies that provide Assad regime with the same technology for spying on Syrian citizens that homeland security is using to spy on American citizens.
Thanks for the link, lysias. Good to see that even though I/P is not at the center of Wheeler's research, she doesn't shy away from pointing out the connections. I appreciated this:
Thank you for this, Phil. The delegates to the UMC General Conference range from center-right to far-left in the spectrum of American Protestants. No doubt they have been bombarded from many sources on this issue (including the 1000-rabbi letter). For those Methodists who have been unfamiliar with the work of this site, your letter is an effective introduction. For those who have experienced various types of pressure from major Jewish organizations, your letter gives them an authentically Jewish voice, an informed conscientious voice, that supports their taking a stand for the human rights of Palestinians.
There's all sorts of intelligence that GOI might have picked up from a CBS crew going to the West Bank, both through human and electronic sources. But currently, it sounds as though the embassy didn't catch wind of the story, or at least its direction, during the interview phase but during the editing and production phase. This suggests that the American ambassador got wind of the story through US sources, not West Bank. But who knows what else may surface in the coming days.
The 60 minutes report just keeps producing more benefits. First, Simon's team did some great investigation, allowing Palestinian Christians to speak for themselves rather than to allow others to spin their story. Then, he exposed how the Israeli ambassador contacted his boss at CBS and tried to squash the story. Now, Ha'aretz and the Forward are exposing that Oren and Netanyahu are concerned that Palestinian Christians speaking for themselves might undermine support for Israel by American Christians:
We learn that a "communique" tipped off Oren about the segment before its broadcast (would that "communique" be a CBS source who contacted the embassy or an intercepted electronic communication about the content of the program?):
But, best of all, we learn that because of Oren's intervention, the segment was delayed from before Christmas and Easter, when many American Christians are too busy with holiday preparations to find time to watch an hour-long news program, to a few days before the United Methodists will be gathering to discuss divestment from multinational companies that profit from the occupation -- where it can provide important context not only for those delegates gathering, but for the average Methodist back home.
This is true regarding AIPAC's direct influence:
However, AIPAC has indirect influence on the executive branch through the pressure congresscritters of the same party put on even a lame duck President to not upset their fundraising with some major donors related to the "Democrats' ATM."
Further, AIPAC is not the only player in the Israel lobby. In addition to all of the policy think tanks like JINSA and talking heads like Dershowitz that shape the public narrative and beltway wisdom in which a president operates, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations' principal mission is "to pressure the White House when it acts in ways that the Conference opposes. ... But there is an even more obvious way to shape an administration's policy: the lobby's goals are served when individuals who share its perspective occupy important positions in the executive branch."(p.165)
"By the same token, groups in the lobby also try to make sure that people who are seen as critical of Israel do not get important foreign policy jobs" (p.166) -- or do not last long in them if they do.
Actually, I think Garcia-Navarro did a decent job with much of this report, emphasizing that Israel stands outside the international consensus of relief that Iran is negotiating and clarifying that the criticism was coming from Israel's Foreign Ministry and that there is dissent within Israel to the Foreign Ministry's rhetoric as well as its creating tension with the Obama administration. Americans who are not hardline Zionists can separate Israel's and America's interests in that part of the story.
What concerns me is N-V's accepting both Israelis' contentions about Fordo and Iran's nuclear program without question.
From the end of the deleted segment:
Wallace said that he was willing to listen to Ahmadinejad's complete answers. His editor did not give the American public a similar opportunity. But hey, the Bush Administration was breathing down their necks and they got another Emmy; so it was a win for the show.
Garcia-Navarro is one of NPR's better reporters in the Middle East (don't get me started on Kelly McEvers and Linda Gradstein).
As far as this from Carter goes:
Tragically, Israel continues to bank on the international community tolerating its consolidation of a non-democratic one-state solution, as it entrenches the system of apartheid and continues ethnically cleansing Palestinian lands and Palestinians from the Holy Land. If the time comes when the international community will override the UN Security Council veto by General Assembly action, the ethnic cleansing may be so far advanced that Palestinians are a distinct minority in Greater Israel and most of the West Bank is owned by the JNF by then. A one-state solution, without dismantling Israel's peculiar anti-democratic institutions, is not a just solution.
Syriasly:
This really needs more coverage. I have been appalled by coverage about Syria on media outlets that are usually progressive on I/P. PNAC's Clean Break outline proceeds apace with a few adjustments to accomodate some inconvenient obstacles.
Send a link to every Zionist celebrity who has posed for a PETA ad. Why not start with Madonna?
Since the members of SJP vetted their flyer with the Housing Office and not only received approval for its publication, but were accompanied by a representative of the Housing Office in its distribution, the administration will probably blame the Housing Office.
Thanks! Mayhem comments below:
Looking at the comment from a different angle: unfortunately, the distortion of SJP's actions is not an isolated event. With dedicated hasbarists on many campuses (some volunteer, others funded in some way, like these Israel Fellows), some of them not only promote propaganda about Israel, but frame the advocacy for Palestinian human rights as hate-speech and distort the record about the activities of local SJP chapters.
This only applies to Arab international students:
International students performing alternative service for Israel by tasks such as taking notes at US schools and filing reports about "delegitimizers" aren't getting expelled and deported. Chris Hedges even addressed some remarks to such members of his audience at one university.
Thanks, seafoid. "Jew-counting" here has made this site unlinkable at the Garish Orange Site (and has made the GOS less interesting to visit as a consequence). "Jew-counting" in service of Brand Israel is golden.
Ignorance is bliss. Hillel works closely with the Israel on Campus Coalition. Hillel chapters that affiliate with banned groups, like JVP, risk losing their funding. From the Sun Sentinel article:
So what constitutes hate speech? A publicity stunt that has gone through proper university channels to raise awareness of facts? Misreporting/spreading lies about a student group in an inflammatory manner that contributes to the student group's leader receiving explicit death threats?
While this misrepresenting of facts may not be unusual for Ynet, whose stories can read like a press release from the Foreign Ministry, the story's being picked up unquestioned by the Forward displays a lack of professionalism in what is widely considered a progressive publication.
Seventeen language students from a religiously affiliated school in NYC recently took a trip abroad to learn more about the language, culture and history of some native speakers. But they neglected to get Abraham Foxman's approval for their itinerary.
Every year in High Schools across America, students studying international languages travel abroad through a school program to have the opportunity to use their language skills among native speakers. When my sister was in high school, she traveled to Latin America with her High School Spanish club during one of her school breaks.
A few weeks ago, students from a 220 year-old Quaker school in America visited students from a 120 year-old Quaker school in another part of the world and stayed with their families. The American Quaker school offers four international languages to its 700 students and 17 students of one of those languages chose to take a trip abroad. The American School has been taking part in an NPR project, Story Corps, as part of its celebration of its upcoming 225th anniversary, so some students who have been recording their stories as part of that project were prepared to interview their host families when they traveled abroad. But the language the students were studying was Arabic, the 120-year-old Quaker school was in Ramallah and the families whose whose homes and stories were shared were Palestinians.
Just as Israelis control all of the access points to the West Bank, even the Allenby Bridge, Foxman wants to control these students' access to the narrative about Palestine and Israel. But these young people and their parents, even those who are Jewish, aren't bothering to submit to inspection from the major Jewish organizations as much as in the past. They are finding other paths and other sources for their information, which makes the old gatekeepers cranky.
This young woman encountered Kennedy in a post-Playboy bunny, pre-Feminine Mystique era. That alone may not explain her actions or self-esteem.
Phil has mentioned that his wife is a WASP. Was she raised as an Episcopalian?
Just as a follow up about Finkelstein and the context of the interview. I have heard Finkelstein speak in some recent interviews about preferring not to speak at length about subjects which he has not thoroughly researched. He has quoted people who have said, you may not agree with his tone, but you can't disagree with his facts. His comments about not having seen enough evidence about the Israel Lobby and Iran may be more of a reflection that he hasn't thoroughly researched the subject.
The article from the Summer 2007 edition of MERIP analyzes the M&W 2006 article from the LRB not their 2007 book, as is evident from the opening paragraph:
In their introduction to the book, M&W list among their reasons for expanding their article into a book:
The Israel Lobby is an excellent resource. I am not fully persuaded by its concluding recommendations, but then I am neither a political scientist nor a Realist. The book's analysis of the problem as a whole is thorough.
I have not been impressed by some of the previous articles I have read by this Ha'aretz reporter. She may have been shaping his statements to fit her narrative.
Even so, this is not the first time he has commented about BDS and M&W. Finkelstein does not oppose targeted BDS as a strategy. Yet, in recent years, NF has offended many Palestinian activists by some off-the-cuff remarks about BDS and its Palestinian spokespeople. BDS has broad support across Palestinian society, both by those who have advocated for one-state and by those for two-states.
While it is understandable that NF would rather focus on issues related to his forthcoming books on Gandhi and the American Jewish community, his remarks make him appear, at best, out of touch with the stated concerns of the nonviolent activists putting their bodies on the line in Palestine and calling for the world to support them through BDS as well as the parameters of debate about I/P within American society at large (including academia since he left it), not just within the American Jewish community.
Perhaps Finkelstein has been too busy reading the collected works of Gandhi (which are extensive) to get around to reading the book by Mearsheimer and Walt, which is meticulously footnoted with extensive evidence related to Iraq. The evidence of the Israel Lobby's influence and pressure related to Iran policy has been documented by far more sources than just Mearsheimer and Walt.
If the reporter is quoting Finkelstein correctly, he appears to have moved closer to Chomsky on this issue than he was after the publication of M&W's article in the LRB. In fact, it was the sort of legitimate criticism like his "It's Not Either Or" that contributed to the improvements in Mearsheimer and Walt's argument between the publication of the article and the book the following year. While it is understandable that, as a political scientist, he would disagree with M&W's realist perspective about what is in America's national interest, the evidence about the Israel Lobby's influence on Iran policy is obvious even to informed laypeople during this election season.
He may not be totally alone, but he's out in front of the pack in American media (while they both face slings and arrows, their risks are different than Sullivan's: Juan Cole is tenured and Robert Fisk is British)
Not to mention that the parts of Israel's Declaration of Independence that are referenced to show its democratic, inclusive nature were added solely for the purpose of gaining admission as a nation to the UN. Among the many promises that Israel made to gain admittance, but subsequently ignored.
Liberal Zionist organizations in Israel are under assault. Last year Im Tirzu posted that whole smear campaign aginst NIF's leader. There is a campaign to force Israeli groups that receive international aid to be taxed out of existence as well as to enforce criminal penalties on citizens who advocate for BDS. In that context, while it may be an act of courage for NIF leadership to advocate any BDS at all, even that limited to the occupation, Paiss' manner of doing so has given fuel to those who would smear other advocates of BDS.
In the print version of the NYT, where do the concluding paragraphs of this story appear (Page A1 below the fold, page A18 ...)? The new editor may be braving local advertisers' ire by including these facts at all. The casual browser still may miss them since they are not in the lede. But perhaps the NYT has made a little progress since the days when Judy Miller was a neocon mouthpiece for provoking the Iraq War.
Who in Ha'aretz gave the green light for this headline? Bibi is a right-wing politician running for reelection, determined to make himself look tougher against Middle East foes and more influential in America than his competitors. There is no way to determine what, if anything, Obama said to Bibi from his campaign rhetoric.
Frankly, Annie, you graciously give Burston too much leeway. He mentions Abunimah's (brilliant) commentary in passing, picking up on a sub-theme and amplifying it as a problem of the left. He even trolled for comments on leftist sites to provide fodder for his diversion -- and he found and distorted yours. The diversion of course was from Abunimah's point, part of his title: "mowing the lawn" -- seeding Gaza with attacks (which are not covered in the MSM) until it finally manages to get a violent response of any kind, which it can then use as a pretext for escalation of attack on Gaza. Here's Abunimah:
NPR reported that all of the Republican Presidential contenders except for Ron Paul spoke at AIPAC. It didn't mention that he hadn't been invited.
Why should Streisand deign to respond to Dershowitz? He's jumped the shark. If her die-hard fans hear about his attack on her, no amount of pinkwashing will clean up Israel's or the Lobby's image -- and he has clearly identified himself as a prime spokesperson for the Israel Lobby in speaking of "we."
Around 6% of American Jews consistently identify Israel as their top priority for voting in American elections. Even if one considers the regular AJC poll as flawed in its sampling or the questions flawed in their framing, year after year, a small percentage of American Jews self-identify with Israel first. This may come as no surprise to their friends or relatives. But the Israel Lobby is taking a big risk by airing the term "Israel Firster" to all of the readers of the NYT, many of whom are not Jewish. Aside from hardcore Christian Zionists, many other non-Jewish Americans with mildly positive views of Israel could be irritated to learn about how their political leaders are pressured to put Israel first. Now that the Israel Lobby has aired the meme to the general public, it will lose control of it.
In which branch(es) of the military do your buddies serve? I don't know what the ideological mix of the rank and file is in the Army, Navy and Marines, but the Air Force has a fair percentage of members who are heavily influenced by Islamophobia and Christian Zionism (and more than willing from a distance to bomb 'em all and let heaven sort out the rest). Talk to Action has run many good pieces about Christian Zionism in the Air Force.
I've taken to calling the tactic, "Shiny Syria," but it really is a multi-pronged hasbara strategy. When the public gets bored of one of the two major distractables, Syria and Iran, or start asking too many questions about the commentaries that look like they got their talking points from the Foreign Ministry's press releases, another shiny distractable can be tossed out for the American public's media consumption. By the time the glitter is debunked, it is old news already, as well as the latest example of ethnic cleansing or other GOI atrocity that didn't get top coverage because of the shiny stuff waved in front of the American public. Timing is everything -- especially when counting on an uninformed audience with a short attention span.
It's "Shiny Syria: The Ultimate Distraction from Israel's Ethnic Cleansing." As long as beating the war drums and making Syrian atrocities (as reported by so-called "human rights organizations") the Middle East lede story keeps what is happening in the West Bank out of the news, who knows whether the hasbarists will find an actual war on Syria necessary?
Ooh look, another Friday protest in Syria -- time for a GOI Friday news dump.
Re Kampeas:
I doubt that Chris Hedges' language studies at Harvard Divinity School were an impediment to his reports from Israel/Palestine being taken seriously.
Finkelstein conflates the BDS movement with Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti. Although Abunimah and Barghouti are prominent spokespeople for BDS in english-speaking activist circles and alternative media, they are not the sum total of the views within the BDS movement. No one person possibly could be. The call for BDS came from a broad spectrum of Palestinian civil society in 2005. All sorts of Palestinians support BDS, from many different political parties and religious groups.
In practice, the BDS movement is more BD/S. Civil society, the average Palestinian and average international supporters of human rights, only have immediate power over their own finances (Boycott) and related power over the finances of institutions with investments (Divestment). The application of Sanctions falls within the specialized field of lawyers and politicians. Because of divisions within Palestinian political parties and the PA's history of corruption and cooptation, opinion among Palestinians varies about whether Abbas can or should pursue actions against Israel through the channels of International Law. So, while civil society is united on Boycott and Divestment, it is divided about Sanctions -- especially the means by which Sanctions might be brought to bear.
Neither Abunimah nor (O) Barghouti is a lawyer or a politician. Barghouti is an engineer who has written a book about BDS and traveled and lectured widely. He also makes no secret about his preference for one state, but he clarifies that he does not speak for all Palestinians. Abunimah is a journalist whose Electronic Intifada has given him a prominent platform to advocate BDS as well as his other beliefs. He has made no secret of his support for one state, it's the title of his book. The Brandeis PR for Abunimah highlights this:
The Arab League monitors' report would seem to contradict the artists who signed this statement:
No word in the statement about armed thugs in the streets of Homs or their bombing diesel tanks. Are all of these artists named real people?
Thank you Mondoweiss for the daily round-up of news related to I/P and the Middle East. At least we can follow the links to a few sources in alternative and international news where we can get nuanced commentary and reporting on the situation in Syria. While here at home, even NPR is quoting as a legitimate source, "the London-based, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy and its neo-con and neo-lib affiliates continue to wag the dog for intervention in Syria.
All PNAC agenda, all the time. Just a few sources, like counterpunch, questioning the narrative. None of the MSM covering the actual content of the Arab League report. There is less interest in the unfolding of the Clean Break agenda for the Middle East at the Garish Orange Site than there was during the Bush Administration. I've had no success there lately.
With regard to the link, I am reminded that Paul Newman considered it one of his greatest achievements to be high up (#17?) on Nixon's enemies list. No wonder Max B and Ali A have tendered their congratulations.
The news round-up posts function a bit like an open thread.
A "senior administration official" told Ha'aretz reporter, Barak Ravid? There's not much there there. Ha'aretz has a variety of reporters and they're not all Amira Haas. Sometimes their reports even look as though they are slightly more warmed over versions of press releases from the Foreign Ministry than what one finds in the Jerusalem Post.
Or maybe Ross is trying to convince folks in Jerusalem that he's still a player and the whitehouse is reluctant to contradict his bragging during an election season (especially when they still have fundraising to do before the election and Ross is very popular with key donors).
From what I saw, it was only a few commenters he came close to accusing of being anti-Semites. On the other hand, the Professor accused nearly everyone, with the exception of a few creative hasbarists, of being idiots:
Perhaps the British edition of November's Vogue that was available on US news stands should have given a clue to this snub. Initially, I could not find the November British Vogue at my local bookstore that carries everything. Weeks later, I found the November edition with the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo on the cover. Swinton's feature with the Palestine scarf was hidden on page 200 and something.
Farting in his general direction? Makes you wonder what the penalty is for saying that his mother is a hamster and his father smells of elderberries.
That nasty stuff that the IDF sprays on protesters in Bil'in and Nabi Saleh may linger in their nostrils so that they think they smell farts everywhere.
Did Ann Coulter even get investigated much less prosecuted for advocting the assassination of Supreme Court Justice Stevens?
That rabbi is afraid of losing his job or having his congregation split between those who would join the writer's criticism of Israel and those who would side with the angry men who were giving him dirty looks. The lukewarm Southern clergymen to whom MLK wrote The Letter From a Birmingham Jail were also afraid of losing their jobs or splitting their congregations if they took a stand for justice (rather than saying that the situation was complicated, so it needed more time for study or dialogue).
Are you a Kossack (or Kog)? Knowing how you like to use the same handle at other sites, like Tikun Olam, I searched your username at the Garish Orange Site and came up empty. It is amazing how a person who runs his own blog, posts thousands of comments on this blog, following it so closely that many of your comments arrive as "firsts" (even though some of them do get delayed by moderators), and would post even more comments at Tikun Olam if RS would only let you -- how such a busy person as yourself has the time to follow obscure diaries (by an average user, not on the rec list and with only 45 comments) on Daily Kos.
Thanks for the link to the excellent, and extensive, article by Greenwald. His columns are not a regular read for me, but those I do catch are always clear and insightful.
When one of the site's owners is a former employee of the American Friends Service Committee, it is safe to assume that among the friends of this site, readers and commenters, are people who oppose all wars -- whether because they are opposed to killing people for ethical reasons or because they believe that, no matter how justified any war looks on paper, in practice it is impossible to fulfill the requirements for a Just War.
I too have concerns about Paul's candidacy, some of which were highlighted in Pollitt's article:
I did not support Nader in 2000, but I wish we had a candidate like Kucinich giving voice to the range of Progressive concerns in this election cycle. Instead, we are left to try to find some motivation to turn out to support a constitutional law professor who has further eroded our civil liberties and a community organizer, who rather than fighting for us or getting everyone to yes, not only caves at the first pushback, but continually gave away progressive chips as a starting negotiating position and got no concessions in return. But he gives a good speech.
So, progressives supporting Paul might be a measure of despair over the alternatives. Given the actual power of the Executive branch, I do not know what further damage to the social safety net of the New Deal and Great Society that a Paul presidency could inflict if he were serving with a Democratic House and Senate. I fear what parts of his libertarian domestic agenda would be enacted by a Republican controlled House or Senate. But I doubt that his libertarian rhetoric during the primary is going to drive further to the Right a Republican Party that was more than willing to defund government agencies to make them small enough to drown New Orleans in a bathtub.
Unfortunately, these progressive concerns are not the ones in Pollitt's article that attract Slater. Instead, he invokes Just War theory and derides pacifists as fools.
One of Poppy Bush's main levers for getting Israel just to sit down at the table at the Madrid conference in 1991 was by using bully-boy Bolton at the UN to threaten or bribe enough members to reverse position on "Zionism is Racism." Bush didn't get much more out of his efforts than Israel's attendance.
Even though the US MSM is notorious for keeping American citizens in the dark about important international events and for distracting the public with info-tainment, the main source here is the Jerusalem Post -- which not only is a right-wing rag, but a serial publisher of press releases from the Foreign Ministry practically verbatim. There are some confirmable facts in the article -- the US and Israeli MICs overlap, Israel has been testing the US Iron Dome system in Gaza, Israeli military have provided all sorts of "anti-terrorist" advising and training for US troops and homeland security:
However, much of the rest of this could be Foreign Ministry hype, pushing the US to provide it more joint cooperation (especially when framed as part of an Iran threat), as the US is gearing up for the presidential election. Obama denying what Israel claims is needed for its support makes him look soft on terrorism and Iran. Sure Israel is glad to "train" US troops on its methods -- elsewhere. Neither the US nor anyone else has ever been allowed a base in Israel, something common with many other US allies. Is GOI seriously going to allow thousands of US troops into Israel?
Considering how many people have kissed Foxman's, ahem, ring in order to obtain absolution for their alleged sins, he appears to be recognized as the Pope of "The New Anti-Semitism."
NPR has been under sustained pressure from the Israel Lobby for years. As Mearsheimer and Walt note in their book (p.172-3):
Considering that NPR has been deluged from this kind of criticism from groups that claim to speak for the whole Jewish community, I don't find it ironic that Gradstein would expect when she is giving a talk at an American synagogue that she would assume that any accusations of bias in her reporting for what CAMERA dubs "National Palestinian Radio" is anti-Israel:
Thank you to Pat Carmeli for giving Gradstein a reality check.
Bob Graham, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for ten years and co-chair of the House-Senate joint committee on Intelligence failures on 9-11, opposed the war vociferously, provided ample opportunity and resources for his colleagues to question the administration's claims about Iraq and was ignored by his colleagues in congress and by the press.
Republicans wanted war. Democrats who had opposed Poppy's Iraq war in 1991 didn't want to risk their presidential ambitions by being painted soft on terror.
Mel Brooks they are not. Would they even get the joke, "Where the white women at?"
Phil has quite a sense of humor to expect to get a reply from him when Kampeas has linked to this blog in this manner:
Kampeas and others can continue trying to convince the reality-based community that some topics are verboten in the mainstream discourse. At some point, people who believe their lying eyes over the words of pundits will just move their discussions elsewhere.
What this wall to wall coverage in both the conservative and progressive media says most clearly is that Ron Paul is being considered a serious political contender. For the longest time they ignored him, even when he was polling at #2 or #3, his campaign was unmentioned on the MSM. Then when Jon Stewart and others pointed out how obviously the MSM was ignoring Paul, they ridiculed him. Now that we are getting close to the Iowa caucuses and his profile hasn't fallen as those of so many other GOP contenders have, they are finally bothering to fight him. Whether or not the allegations have merit, it is clear that other politicians are regarding Paul as a contender and they are prepared to fight him directly or indirectly.
Pre-emptive Branding campaign for the product right before a long holiday weekend. Rolled out in plenty of time for the Friday news crews, so that they don't have to spend too much staff-time investigating current happenings in I/P or remembering anniversaries of past Christmas weekends (like Cast Lead). Netanyahu, who responded to this months' old outrage just in time for America's holiday haze, believes that the American public is an easy thing to manage.
Interesting you should mention the Garish Orange Site. This topic hasn't been touched by anyone who is anyone at dKos. If you google "Josh Block" and dailykos.com, you only come up with six or seven listings, the only one of which is from 2011 is by a nobody (that would be me) in a comment on an open thread.
A site which has always prided itself on being progressive, for more and better Democrats and against the DLC has ignored a story about a scandal at a DLC-related think tank. Why would progressives and Democrats turn elsewhere for reality-based news and analysis?
By Jewish programming, it's more likely that he planned or attended Jewish programs (cultural, religious, educational, political ..) hosted by Hillel or Jewish Studies. But you never know, it could be something else -- we keep hearing about how Israel excels in tech (and cherry tomatoes).
Excellent post by Greenwald, especially insightful:
But I question Greenwald's speculation about what the bloggers have learned from this:
Are the bloggers really surprised to find that their writing is monitored by the Blocks of this world? Maybe they are enlightened by the extent to which their every utterance on Israel is catalogued and shopped around by folks like Block. What is more of a jolt is the reality that one employer, Media Matters, backs Rosenberg entirely while CAP doesn't support its bloggers well. Bloggers get used to handling all sorts of trollish responses to their writing, but public distancing by one's employer sends a different message.
Interesting that one of the people that Block was targeting with his smear campaign was MJ Rosenberg. One of Rosenberg's well-known takeaways from his experience in AIPAC was the concept of the "night flower":
Block's action has exposed the lobby's functioning. In fear of the night flower's withering further in the harsh glare of the light, Block's tactics are being repudiated, even by people who have a trackrecord (an easily googled trackrecord) of using such tactics themselves. For example, I can't forget Lanny Davis' words and actions during the Honduran coup when I hear him objecting to smearing people now.
I've kept a comment of O'Neill's in my mind regarding the price of loyalty in the Bush Administration:
Publishing the facts about Israel has taken a lot of courage and perseverence for people who were established in their professions, retired politicians like Jimmy Carter or tenured professors like Mearsheimer and Walt. They have faced smears and lost out on some opportunities, but their careers have not been ruined. Their speaking out about Israel has given others with more to lose the courage to question our foreign policy regarding Israel. And this increasing ability to have reality-based discussions about Israel even in corners of academic discourse and obscure blogs has been moving the acceptable parameters for discussion within our broader society, slowly but surely.
Congrats, Annie! It's great to see your talent, insight and hard work being appreciated here. Mondoweiss is where it's at.
Regarding:
The Bush who withheld loan guarantees was Poppy (George H.W.), not Dubya (George W.).
I wouldn't exactly call this an abject apology:
He might as well have said:
.
Thanks. I saw that article a few days ago at counterpunch, one of the few sites that has been following the developments in Syria and spin about the "nonviolent" opposition for several months.
Did you see Rashid Khalidi's take on Syria in Ha'aretz?
Slow news days, like right after Christmas, have been popular timing in the past.
I too hope this isn't more pink-washing or distraction from America's or Israel's Misdeed of the Day. I'd take American diplomats' statements of concern about people abused or tortured by the Syrian regime more seriously if our government would acknowledge Maher Arar's grievance.
Not apartheid, but Jim Crow. The Jim Crow/Civil Rights Movement analogy about Israel is gaining steam among African Americans and Black Churches. As a United Methodist, HRC has probably heard the analogy through her church as well. Obama and HRC may not make these analogies in public, but they know what is going on. The prevalent form of discrimination that Rosa Parks encountered on the bus was not sexism, but institutionalized racism and Clinton's analogy raised that issue, whether she intended to or not.
While it's great to hear this from our Secretary of Defense, it would be encouraging to hear something like this from congressional Democrats, rather than the fawning fundraising letters from Wasserman Schultz:
What Foxman is objecting to is Israel's authoritarian trend, which is going to make his job much harder in promoting "The Only Democracy in the Middle East." He goes out of his way to clarify that his objection is not to Likud or to its history of right-wing policies or ideology. While he does throw in concern for the rights of Arabs and other minorities as an aside, Israel has always managed to infringe these rights with impunity under the excuse of "security reasons" or maintaining "the Jewish character of Israel." This concern mentioned in the cluster at the beginning isn't repeated at the end, because what is being threatened by the recent laws that he's having a hard time selling to his ADL constituents is that the rights of some of Israel's Jewish citizens are being curtailed:
There are many good sources on CUFI. You probably are already familiar with many of them.
Right Web
Challenging Christian Zionism (Don Wagner's site)
Talk to Action (Bruce Wilson did an excellent series on CUFI in 2008)
Max Blumenthal
Right Web tracks the funding from many of the large American traditionally right-wing donors and foundations, but doesn't have as much information about hardline Zionist funders (Like Saban or the Ahmanson Foundation). I think that some of that information may have been touched upon at Talk to Action back in 2008, but I don't know how current it is.
Thanks for the links. Important food for thought, along with the Greenwald piece linked by ritzl upthread.
Talk of "Mediterranean looking" team members and sports bags reminds me of the short, fat, balding tennis-tog-wearing team member with the huge duffel bag caught on tape during the hit in Dubai. I don't recall whether his get up was as popular a costume in Tel Aviv the following Purim as that of team-member, "Gail."
Considering the use of Hasbara memes in the piece, I have wondered whether 100% of it was penned by Mr. Goldstone:
Considering the heavy use of air-quotes, I can't decide whether it looks more like the editorial hand of Reut Institute or a Zionist teenager.
Re:
The real danger with the terms, "war crime" and "apartheid" are that they are precisely defined terms in International Law. As Palestine gains membership to more and more UN agencies, it finally may be able to start bringing the Government of Israel and its leaders to account for the violation of Palestinians' Human Rights. No amount of Brand Israel PR can continue to shield even Americans from what words best describe Israel's actions in International courts.
Excellent article, as always, Jamie. Great to see your work posted here!
Good catch. Lots of reasons the State Department has been trying to find a way out of this (while blaming their problems on uppity Palestinians). Then there's this JStreet angle:
It looks more like the Executive Branch is recognizing prior restrictions mandated by the Legislative Branch. This move will have a severe impact on the US's influence in the UN -- one of the few arenas in which the Executive Branch could take action on I/P without congressional interference. Of course, by threatening a veto at the Security Council, the Obama administration is squandering what little independence it had.
Also on this morning's Democracy Now, an excellent interview with Greg Palast about Goldman Sachs and their withdrawal of $5000 support of a local credit union. Goldman Sachs portrays it as refusing to support a group that has joined in supporting OWS's unfair protests of the bank. Palast points out that the money for the credit union is only (a very late) drop in the bucket of the money that Goldman Sachs is required by law, as a condition of its having received Federal bailout money, to disburse to groups that serve the poor.
Many of the Student chapters of J Street are to the left of the organization as a whole. The woman who approached you may have been expressing her personal interests or the interests of students within her chapter. I have a hard time believing that it was an initiative supported by J Street headquarters. In fact, across the US, Jewish community and campus groups are being told that they will get their funding cut if they co-sponsor events with the wrong sort of people ("delegitimizers").
Well, it may not be the front page:
But the Business Section in print is a big step in its NY profile from the IHT online. Then again, while the article mentions that Goodman covers controversial or progressive issues, it didn't mention that she covers the realities in I/P and interviews the real experts.
Memo to Barack:
Do you have to wait for this quote to show up on a sign at Occupy Wall Street before you fire this woman? Do you think all the money raised for advertising by this woman to motivate the base to turn out is enough to off-set the abandonment average Democrats feel by its leadership?
Considering Adam's excerpt, I was surprised that the NYT ran the piece at all. But without the disclaimers and diversions in the rest of the piece, the NYT would only make Kristof's views expressed in the excerpt available online in the IHT.
Hostage, did you see Medea Benjamin's article last week about her meeting with the Office of Congressional Ethics about investigating congresscritters' AIEF-sponsored trips to Israel, the overlap of AIEF and AIPAC and AIPAC's lobbying activities? Benjamin was told that the OCE only defined a handful of AIPAC staff as lobbyists (in an organization that employs over 100 people). Do you see OMB's revised guidance as making any difference here?
Ahmed, regarding your concerns here:
Have you seen this post by Richard Silverstein: Hamas Leader, Meshaal, Praises Abbas’ UN Bid for Statehood:
Thanks for the heads up on the OEA, Henry:
It's a beautiful statement:
Considering that, among Bay area communities, Oakland has one of the highest percentages of African American residents and that MOCHA is mostly an art in the schools program, a large number of Black children have been protected by MOCHA from exposure to confusing images from Gaza. They might start thinking about the occupation in terms of Jim Crow or Apartheid or just plain wrong.
Protecting the children from confusing influences:
“President Bush got it wrong. And so did I.”
A half-step above Bush Pere's passive-voice admission, "mistakes were made." More along the lines of "and the small kangaroo said, 'me, too.'" What should be an embarrassing acknowledgement that, as the country was torn by questions about whether the country should go to war, the function of The Times -- our putative fourth estate -- was to act as the commander-in-chief's "yes man."
And let's not forget Barney Frank's "shocked, shocked" response to Eason Jordan's remarks about US troops targeting journalists in Iraq, the fallout of which led to Jordan's resigning from CNN. Of course, the US would no more target journalists in the Palestine Hotel than our ally would target them on the West Bank.
Just a couple of points:
Qaddafi was begging for years to be taken off America's shit-list. He finally found the leverage to get Libya's status change by performing a sting operation on America's supposed ally in the war on terror, Pakistan, when he produced a suitcase nuke which he had procured from AQ Khan. Many in the US establishment were unhappy about being embarrassed into upgrading Libya's status. So, it's not surprising how the US's initially expressed concern for human rights in Libya which gave the backing for our engagement has escalated into outright support for the Libyan rebels. The Qaddafi regime is brutal and repressive and many Libyans have suffered from it; even so, the US has not been a passive observer from the sidelines at any stage of this revolution.
Also, the various surveillance systems used by Qaddafi are widely available and in use by many governments on their own citizens and other international critics of their regimes. The use they make of such surveillance may vary. These systems are used in countries even where the citizens are supposed to have rights that protect them.
As is typical, Stand With Us does not respond to the positions of those who place the ads, but with the rightwing Zionist spin it wants its audience to swallow. The coalition is explicit that their focus is on Human Rights and a Just Peace. This statement on its site shows diversity among its members on the subject of how many states, but unity on the issue of Human Rights:
Stand With Us would distort the inclusion of a perspective like that expressed by Bisharat to claim that one-state is the demand of the group as a whole. Even though the group would support two states in the context of a just peace, it does not endorse the Liberal Zionist formula, "Two States for Two Peoples" where the two peoples are defined as "Jewish" and "Arab," because that implies that Palestinian Citizens of Israel do not have the right of full citizenship in Israel (It also implies that Palestinian Jews do not have the right of full citizenship in a Palestinian State, an assertion that is explicitly debunked in the PLO Charter).
It would be helpful when logged in to be able to see the new comments highlighted in diaries one has read previously. This makes it easier to follow on-going conversations in old diaries, even if one is not participating in them.
Those buttons on other sites are very handy. Whether those buttons can be added or not, it would be helpful to have a preview button for comments, so that we can check our spelling or html codes (or even cool down) before clicking post.
We need a replay of the little kid saying, Our problem is PR
I had a similar reaction. Perhaps the title "WASP Elite Society is Disintegrating" would be more accurate. I may need to dig out my old copy of "The Preppy Handbook," to recognize the WASPs Phil is talking about. I certainly knew such WASPs growing up and in college, finding many aspects of that elitism foreign and stifling. Most WASPs I have known have been neither wealthy nor from the Northeast.
Looks like the word, "Liberal" has suffered from exposure to (what the Garish Orange Site likes to talk about as) the Overton Window, i.e. Republicans have succeeded in redefining the discourse about Right and Left by pulling the conversation so far to the right that what used to be defined as Centrist, now is being portrayed as Liberal. The other organizations supported by the highlighted major donors are some of the standard ones long favored by moderate Republican and Democratic donors. So, it looks like some AIPAC-affiliated orgs, like AIEF are still getting some of these moderates' donations, even if they are not among the two donors who gave more than $5000 to AIPAC last year. The giving patterns to AIPAC reflect a significant shift since Michael Massing wrote "The Storm over the Israel Lobby" just a few years ago.
The new Grant Smith article raises some interesting possibilities for why these moderates are not major givers to AIPAC. Two other possibilities for a shift in giving among moderates is the introduction of the JStreet option for moderate to liberal Zionists as well as the devastating effect of the Madoff crisis on charitable giving to a variety of Jewish and civic organizations.
From an article that recycles most of the neo-con talking points about Syria that have been the staple of the media for years, not just during the Arab Spring, the only objection raised is that the article says something slightly positive about Europe's perceptions of Bashar's wife? That slightly positive paragraph is used within the article to highlight how Bashar's image has taken a turn for the worse even among Europeans (among whom, he and his wife have some personal connections):
Kennedy did not write the Vogue article -- she cites it as one previous success Assad had achieved in cultivating a positive image among the easily deceived (like Europeans and shallow fashion magazine readers). But in true neo-con interpretation, Bashar can't hide his real Assad-ness forever (because Arabs are all alike and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree):
The reality in Syria is that there are a mix of people and groups involved in the opposition. Some of them are indeed as Bashar has described (we even have one guy dubbed "The Syrian Chalabi" getting funds from the Defense of Democracies). Syria has long had good reason to point to foreign conspiracies even before PNAC put Syria on its hit list. But there are also real average citizens who are involved in the protests. Assad has portrayed all the protesters as conspiracists. Our MSM has portrayed them all as non-violent freedom fighters and given them overwhelming coverage -- especially on days that Israel has committed a new atrocity.
Here's my yardstick: the genuine protesters' top demand is reform; the "conspirators'" top demand is Assad's ouster. As is often the case, the best coverage I've heard of Syria has been on Democracy Now.