Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3664 (since 2009-10-01 15:59:16)

seanmcbride

Website: https://friendfeed.com/seanmcbride

Showing comments 3664 - 3601
Page:

  • British pol is beaten by man in Israeli army t-shirt, and the chattering classes are silent
    • The big story here is the outpouring of support all across the Internet, in posts, comments and tweets, for Neil Masterson's violent physical assault on George Galloway -- sometimes accompanied by the wish that the attack had been more violent than it was.

      Many more assaults like this may be in the works against any public figure in the United States and Europe who expresses disagreements with the Israeli government and the Israel lobby.

      Shut up about Israel or else. Find a new hobby. They are no longer playing by the rules of democratic societies or bothering to debate Israeli issues.

  • Elizabeth Warren says killing Palestinian civilians is 'the last thing Israel wants'
    • [Wikipedia; Bernie Sanders link to en.wikipedia.org ]

      Sanders spent time on an Israeli kibbutz, an experience that shaped his political views.

      That fact of course doesn't prove he is a dual US/Israeli citizen.

    • Annie,

      you have no idea what i think of the term, because i didn’t engage in that argument. i just noticed it took up a lot of bandwidth in a thread about hillary clinton. and i’m wondering why it’s being conjured again.

      Glenn Greenwald recently remarked:

      Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere. But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist.

      If one agrees with Greenwald about Hillary (and you may not -- I don't know), then one might hope that her base -- especially among liberal and progressive women -- would think more carefully about what she really stands for. And now the same for Elizabeth Warren, as well. That is the point to bear down on, in my opinion.

      Regarding a discussion about derogatory gender-specific terms, both male and female, in contemporary English usage -- that would be an interesting topic to pursue in another forum -- there is much to look into on that subject -- it's complicated.

    • Annie,

      So it has been your impression that the women's movement and feminism over the last half century haven't developed a critique on issues of war and peace and the often violent conduct of foreign affairs by male-dominated societies?

      I am fairly certain that I have noticed quite a bit of feminist literature on that subject in passing -- I would need to research it.

      I started paying attention to this issue when the first female secretary of state in American history, Madeleine Albright, described the killing of a half million Iraqi children by sanctions as "worth it" and when Hillary Clinton later threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran. And my attention intensified when I noticed that Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, according to many reports, were the most aggressive hawks in the Obama administration.

      A few days ago, Antiwar.com invoked the dreaded word "harpy":

      "ISIS: Made in Washington, Riyadh – and Tel Aviv" link to original.antiwar.com

      The Sunni Turn took a fateful turn when the Three Harpies of the Apocalypse – Hillary, Susan Rice, and now UN ambassador Samantha Power – hectored Obama into pursuing regime change in Libya. In this case the US and its NATO allies acted as the Islamist militia’s air force while supplying them with arms on the ground and diplomatic support internationally.

      I respect your objection to the term, and will keep that in mind, but I am much more concerned about the content of the aggressive neoconservative policies that Clinton, Power and Rice have advocated than the language that has been used to deride them. (From now on I will refer to Clinton as a "war hawk" -- a gender-neutral term.)

      Regarding Elizabeth Warren: her public persona is that of a compassionate and kind mother and grandmother -- a nurturer, not a killer. But apparently the murder of hundreds of civilian women and children in the latest Gaza operation trouble her very little. That is disturbing. And she appears to be clearing the path for Israel to build more settlements that displace Palestinians from their own territory. This enlightened "progressive" is a tool of Likud Zionism and Greater Israelism.

    • Annie,

      The operative word here is "QUEEN," not warrior -- it is a gender-specific term.

      The main issue is that some of us were hoping that the rise to power of women in the Democratic and Republican Parties would lead to more more humane and less brutal testosterone-fueled foreign policies. Apparently those hopes were mistaken.

      For instance, the other night I saw Bill O'Reilly (!) reprimand Monica Crowley for being a maniacal and thoughtless warmonger.

      Elizabeth Warren's recent remarks were especially disappointing.

    • MHughes976,

      Clinton is a powerful personality revelling in her warrior queen persona....

      tree and ritzl would probably characterize your reference to "warrior queen persona" as being sexist. :)

      We can now add Elizabeth Warren to the list of "liberals" and "progressives" (like Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power) whose views on foreign policy differ little from those of Pamela Geller, Jennifer Rubin, Caroline Glick, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

      Does everyone fully appreciate the magnitude of what Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren have done in recent days? -- they are pushing the Democratic Party to the *right* of Barack Obama and John Kerry on American Mideast policy on behalf of Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud Zionism and Greater Israelism.

  • 'New Yorker' limits its expose of Israel lobby to AIPAC
    • Adam and Annie,

      Thanks for looking into this.

      A user report: I signed up for email notifications for new comments to this thread, but so far haven't received any yet. There may be an issue there.

    • Annie,

      I see the checkbox with "Notify Me of Follow Up Comments By Email" but one needs to post a comment to activate that option. Is there another way that I am overlooking?

      I see "Mondoweiss In Your Inbox" at the bottom of the page, but that's not for receiving comments by email for specific articles.

    • Is there a way to subscribe to Mondoweiss comments by email without posting a comment?

  • Our new look
    • Keith,

      Doesn't Blogspot offer RSS feeds?

      Btw, I posted your blog entry to Mondoweiss on Friendfeed here:

      link to friendfeed.com

      where it can be discussed at any level of depth and for any length of time.

    • ckg,

      I like finding new posts too. I’ve been reading the RSS feed of MW to get the reverse chronological list

      Not only can you track the reverse chronological list of articles for Mondoweiss here:

      1. link to friendfeed.com

      2. link to friendfeed.com

      but you can comment on those articles without moderation (post them immediately), edit your comments whenever you want, communicate privately with other commenters and proactively post your own original material.

      The second link above is focused exclusively on Mondoweiss material -- the first link is the full feed.

      Try it -- it couldn't be more simple to use. Click and start typing.

      Again: this group is a *supplement* for Mondoweiss -- definitely not a replacement. Use it to handle the overflow of discussion that is jamming up Mondoweiss.

    • Also: I just tried to use CTRL-A to select and delete the text of the comment I was composing and replace it with new text -- no go. That feature no longer works.

    • Automatically including a link when copying text can often feel more like a bug than a feature -- one is often forced to delete the link/clutter. That is a feature that one should be able to turn off.

  • Hillary Clinton just lost the White House in Gaza -- same way she lost it in Iraq the last time
    • tree,

      I know *many* women who use derogatory gender-based terms for both men and women when the terms fit like a glove, when they are appropriate and applied with pinpoint precision.

      I wish you luck in your efforts to police this common language behavior according to your ideological criteria, but you will be facing an uphill battle. Many of us appreciate the power of the English language as an expressive tool and its ability to hit many colorful notes.

      Derogatory terms for males and females are not innately sexist -- *some* individual males and females do in fact exhibit familiar negative characteristics for their respective genders.

      I wish you had more to say about the role of female neocon warmongers in the Democratic Party who have used feminism as a tool to acquire political power. This strikes me as an important issue -- arguably the most important issue concerning Hillary Clinton. We should bear down hard on it -- dissect liberal Zionists and feminist Zionists as two aspects of a single phenomenon. We need to try to strip away the automatic unthinking support of many women for Hillary Clinton.

    • Shingo,

      There are some religious fundamentalists -- Christian and Jewish -- who possess a more nuanced and complex humanity and literary sensibility than some doctrinaire leftists who have developed strict rulebooks governing approved and banned words.

      By the way, has anyone paid any attention to Rachel Maddow's coverage of the slaughter in Gaza? Maddow is a strident, self-righteous and often overbearing "progressive" who seems to be too timid to discuss Mideast and Israeli politics in much depth.

    • tree,

      don’t use the slur “battleaxe” which is a a slur reserved for women. You are being particularly obtuse about this point, seeming to want me to agree that the term is not offensive but I consider it so, regardless of who is is used to describe.

      I think you are being exceptionally stupid on this point. I used the term deliberately to ridicule and annoy a certain group of women in the Republican and Democratic Parties who have betrayed their own highest principles regarding feminism, and who in many cases seem to be leading the charge to wage vicious neoconservative wars on behalf of Greater Israel without regard to the enormous damage to *women* and *children*.

      With regard to using gender-specific derogatory words for both males and females to describe particular individuals for whom the words fit, first-rate authors do it all the time in the year 2014 and will continue to do so for a long time to come. Used the right way, those words can be highly effective -- they possess force and color.

      This doctrinaire and authoritarian approach you are taking towards language frankly bores me to tears. You really need to focus on the content of Hillary Clinton's policies and not on the words that are being appropriately used to taunt those policies -- and pay close attention to her flagrant hypocrisy on women's issues and feminist values.

      Hillary Clinton is both a liberal Zionist and a feminist Zionist -- quite a few Democrats are.

      By the way, I don't care whether you agree with me or not on any of the above issues -- feel free to believe whatever you like, to express yourself any way you like and to be offended by whatever you like. If the term "battleaxe" provokes your moral outrage and righteous indignation, fine. But you will only succeed in making me laugh.

    • tree,

      The real issue here is the degree to which Zionism has infiltrated, subverted and hijacked feminism, gutted it of meaningful content, and replaced that content with aggressive Jewish ethnic nationalism -- to the point that leading feminists in the Democratic Party now dismiss the mass murder of children as an inconsequential matter.

      Many other domains have been subjected to the same treatment and manipulation:

      1. Americanism
      2. atheism
      3. Christianity
      4. conservatism
      5. Conservative Judaism
      6. gay rights activism
      7. human rights activism
      8. liberalism
      9. libertarianism
      10. Orthodox Judaism
      11. progressivism
      12. Reform Judaism
      13. secular Jewish culture

      Hillary Clinton is a feminist in the same way that John Hagee is a Christian, John Bolton is a conservative, Chuck Schumer is a liberal and Bill Maher is an atheist. They are all in fact tools of Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud Zionism -- and they are all agitating to push the United States into more Mideast wars on behalf of Greater Israel.

    • Shingo,

      The trouble is that Warren is already ducking questions about Gaza, so she may turn into a Barbara Boxer just as quickly.

      There is not the slightest chance that Elizabeth Warren will dare to challenge the Israeli government -- the Israel lobby owns and controls the Democratic Party -- and could break her just like that.

    • tree,

      Some common definitions for "battle-axe":

      1. a fierce, frightening and unpleasant older woman with strong opinions

      2. an unpleasant older woman who speaks in an angry way and tries to control others

      3. a domineering, aggressive, sharp-tempered person, especially a woman

      4. a derogatory word for an old woman who is tough, worn and not to be messed with

      When the description fits, use it. This is a perfectly legitimate word to use -- as is "harpy" -- in the appropriate circumstances. Such people exist. There are many derogatory terms for males that are also legitimate to use in the appropriate circumstances -- and they have often been used by the greatest authors in world literature.

      The efforts by some progressives to regulate language along strict ideological lines tends to make me irritable. Sorry -- but your admonition is rolling off my back. Perhaps you can convince Mondoweiss to ban these offensive words.

    • tree,

      You are much more politically correct than I am. One should be able to use terms like "harpy" and "battle-axe" with gusto to ridicule the hypocrisy of liberal/feminist Zionists in the Democratic Party who have been agitating for murder and mayhem, including the mass murder of children -- the language is not directed at women in general -- only at specific individual warmongers who have used feminism as a platform to help build their political careers.

      Feel feel to use whatever language suits you to describe Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power and Susan Rice. By all means be polite and sensitive to their feelings, if that is your disposition.

    • tree,

      To put this another way: "feminist Zionist" is as much an oxymoron as "liberal Zionist." To criticize feminist Zionists is no more an attack on feminists (or women in general) than criticism of liberal Zionists is an attack on liberals.

      One is noticing the egregious and absurd self-contradictions in these political labels (and in the politicians behind the labels).

      Criticism of Christian Zionists is not an attack on Christians.

    • tree,

      Can we cut with the gender-specific slurs of “harpy” and “battleaxe”?

      No -- you are missing the point. I am pro-feminist. I like women. I like women in politics.

      What is distressing is that quite a few women who are leaders in the contemporary Democratic Party, and who are associated in the public mind with feminist liberal values that are supposed to stand in opposition to traditional male aggression and warmongering, come across as aggressive warmongers themselves. It's a great disappointment. We were looking for women to bring more compassion and kindness to a male-dominated cultural and political system that has been driven by brutal aggression.

      You don't experience any cognitive dissonance on this issue, no mental jangling? -- some of us do.

      Hillary Clinton has acquired much of her political momentum on the grounds that she is a woman. Americans really need to pay much more attention to what she is saying and how she is saying it -- she is a crude militarist, even a swaggering militarist. Glenn Greenwald got it right about her:

      Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere. But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. It’s going to be this completely symbolic messaging that’s going to overshadow the fact that she’ll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing.

      link to mediaite.com

    • ckg,

      I agree that Hillary, Albright, Power and Susan Rice take marching orders from the ‘Israel lobby, AIPAC, neoconservatives and neoliberals’. But Palin and Bachmann are two seriously demented fundamentalists who foremost look to Daniel, and Ezekiel and the Book of Revelation for foreign policy guidance.

      It doesn't matter whether pro-Israel militants and hawks are religious or secular, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat -- the results are precisely the same.

    • Bandolero,

      "Hillary Wallops All Republicans, Elizabeth Warren Doesn't"
      link to forbes.com

      Our new Zogby Analytics poll shows Mrs. Clinton comfortably leading all the Republican big names we submitted for testing. The new poll, conducted online August 13-15 among 1,223 likely voters nationwide, shows Mrs. Clinton shooting each GOP duck in a row.

      She beats former Florida Governor Jeb Bush 49% to 36%; Kentucky Senator Rand Paul 50% to 34%; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie 47% to 35%; former Massachusetts Governor and 2012 GOP standard-bearer Mitt Romney 50% to 35%; former Arkansas Governor and Fox News host Mike Huckabee 49% to 33%; and Florida Senator Marco Rubio 51% to 29%. As we can see, she hovers around the 50% mark against each challenger while none of her putative opponents receives 40%.

      ...

      Meanwhile, Ms. Warren runs about even with all of the GOP candidates: 34% to 36% against Bush; 34% to 35% against Paul; 34% to 37% vs. Christie; 36% to 38% against Romney: 35% to 33% vs. Huckabee; and 35% to 31% against Rubio.

    • # war harpies in the Republican and Democratic Parties

      1. Condoleezza Rice
      2. Hillary Clinton
      3. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
      4. Jennifer Rubin
      5. Kimberly Kagan
      6. Madeleine Albright
      7. Michele Bachmann
      8. Michelle Malkin
      9. Pamela Geller
      10. Samantha Power
      11. Sarah Palin
      12. Susan Rice
      13. Victoria Nuland

      Seriously: are there any significant differences on foreign policy between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann?

      They all take their marching orders from the Israel lobby, AIPAC, neoconservatives and neoliberals. It's all about all war all the time on behalf of building Greater Israel.

      Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power and Susan Rice are classical "liberal Zionists" -- with all that oxymoronic expression implies. One doesn't recall feminism, as it was originally conceived, as being a warmongering ideology -- dedicated to "totally obliterating" foreign enemies or arguing that it was "worth it" to kill a half million children with sanctions.

    • It is going to be easy for opponents of Hillary Clinton to paint her as a bloodthirsty neocon, a warmonger, too old, tired, stale, mediocre, corrupt, etc.

      But here is the problem facing any possible Democratic challenger to Hillary (like Elizabeth Warren): the Israel lobby will be applying maximum pressure on them either to stay out of the race or to fall into line behind AIPAC. My impression is that Warren, and other Democrats of her stature, wouldn't dare buck AIPAC -- they will simply parrot the AIPAC party line in order to remain financially viable.

      Don't rule out the possibility of Hillary Clinton torpedoing her own campaign -- she is a lackluster mind and crude personality who makes unforced errors -- not nearly as bright, graceful and politically adept as Bill Clinton. She's gradually aged into a real battle-axe.

  • 'NYT' op-ed calls on Jews to abandon liberal Zionism and push for equal rights
    • yonah fredman,

      Your comment was essentially anti-Judaic and pro Christian.

      No it wasn't -- I am not a Christian and I wasn't promoting Christianity.

      I urged you to be skeptical and to think critically about all ideologies, both religious and secular, and to understand that they are human inventions, driven by human agendas, that are in a state of perpetual revision and reinvention.

      Your reply makes it clear that you didn't understand a word I said -- and that you are in fact underwater -- unable to rise above your own narrow ideological indoctrination.

      You said this Walid:

      Christians have been distorting the old testament for thousands of years and thus you consider the christian reading of the old testament to be accurate. It is not. It is distorted.

      Texts mean whatever human beings choose them to mean -- readings are creative inventions -- and religious Jews themselves have interpreted their own texts in endless and contradictory ways -- "accuracy" and "distortion" have little to do with it.

      Readings of texts tell us who the readers of those texts were at particular moments in time and space. The readings keep changing and evolving. I never read the same text today in the same way that I read it yesterday.

      Free your mind -- don't permit it to be controlled by the ideological inventions of others. Think for yourself.

    • David Samel,

      I started commenting on the strange disconnect between New York Times articles and comments about Israel among Readers' Picks back in October 2013:

      The comments on this New York Times article are overwhelmingly anti-Israel -- and express views that are systematically censored within the pages of the New York Times. We are looking at an untenable situation from the standpoint of the Times -- it is radically out of sync with its own readers.

      link to friendfeed.com

      The top Readers' Pick comment on that day (October 10, 2013):

      That cheap blustering Netanyahu. Use your own money Bibi. Stop the settlements Bibi. Obey international borders Bibi! In other words take responsibility for YOUR problems!"

      Congratulations on your comment being pushed to the top of the picks by the best minds among the New York Times' readership. One wonders if the management of the New York Times understands that it is sitting on an erupting volcano.

    • Regarding David Samel's superb comment at the New York Times:

      Quite a few Mondoweiss writers and commenters are more impressive thinkers and writers than the New York Times' stable of approved (and stale) pundits.

      I have repeatedly noticed that New York Times comments are often more valuable than the articles on which they comment.

      Thank God for the Internet in kicking out the jams and opening up intelligent conversations about everything. May it ever be free and open.

      And thanks to Phil Weiss for having had the courage and determination to buck the entire corrupt and mediocre system that the New York Times has worked so hard to enforce over the last few decades.

    • yonah fredman,

      You will achieve enlightenment when you come to the realization that all human ideologies, both religious and secular, are arbitrary human inventions, in a state of perpetual flux and reinvention, and that there is no good reason for your mind to be bound by any of them.

      People who are in the grip of ideologies invented by others are underwater -- they are not awake -- they are essentially bots, under the thumb of self-appointed priesthoods.

      Most ideologies are invented to advance the interests of their inventors in competition against other groups -- to serve as rationalizations for predatory behavior.

      Ideologies deindividualize and mechanize their followers, keep them in a permanent hypnotic trance, by means of the repetition of formulaic expressions.

      How would you characterize the demeanor of the Abrahamic believers and cultists who have waged endless wars in "the Holy Land" for thousands of years until the present day?

      Free your mind.

    • Aren't these memes and themes of "higher" and "lower" grounded in Old Testament/Torah notions of chosen people exceptionalism?

  • 'Common Dreams' website traps Hasbara troll spewing anti-Semitism
    • German Lefty,

      I am ambivalent when it comes to moderation. On the one hand, I understand that it's necessary on this site. Without moderation Mondoweiss would be overrun by Zionist commenters and normal discussions would become impossible. On the other hand, moderation is very often used to silence non-mainstream voices.

      I don't understand why more Mondoweiss commenters aren't more proactive in exploiting social media platforms that are much more flexible and bottom-up than top-down platforms like blogs, which are a 1990s technology.

      One can use these multipolar platforms not to replace publications like Mondoweiss (which are irreplaceable), but to complement and supplement them -- to increase the ability of commenters to communicate freely with one another in real time and to moderate their own information streams -- with no top-down authority controlling the conversation.

      Several of us here on Mondoweiss have been using Friendfeed for this purpose for years now, with positive results. That is why I set up Mondoweiss on Friendfeed here --

      link to friendfeed.com

      -- to provide an outlet for conversations that Mondoweiss wasn't interested in hosting.

      The Internet is a powerful tool -- but people must be PROACTIVE in using it -- not passive. Any obstacles on the Internet can be easily routed around. Everyone on the Internet stands on a level playing field.

      Modern social media platforms are all about freedom of association and free speech -- with no intervening authorities.

    • Mooser,

      For this he went to college?

      Laughing out loud literally. :)

  • 'Lesson: The Jews will defend themselves even if it means killing children'
    • Mooser,

      Gosh, Zionists know everything, don’t they? And wow, the skill he showed by deconstructing Danaa’s text, it’s word usage, syntax, etc, and quickly determining she is Christian. I mean really, it was so obvious, but we couldn’t see it.

      JeffB also claimed that Lewis Libby was a Christian (a WASP, no less). One begins to espy a pattern of miscognition -- a mental "tic," perhaps.

    • Mooser,

      Sean, I've had a bone to pick with those people for quite a while. Could you give me the address of the headquarters so I can write them? How about an e-mail, that'd be a start?

      You can find all their contact information from this starting point:

      Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organziations
      link to conferenceofpresidents.org

      The Conference includes the most influential organizations and institutions in American Jewish life -- for both Judaism and Zionism. Collectively, this lobby wields extraordinary power in American politics -- in the US Congress and the White House -- and has defined the character of mainstream Judaism for quite a few decades now.

      AIPAC, ADL, JINSA, RJC, NJDC, AJC, BBI, etc. are all components of the Conference of Presidents.

      Does this subject make you nervous? -- you seem to be a bit defensive about it. Perhaps I am misreading your tone.

    • Mooser,

      Good, thanks for telling me. So if we do the opposite of what they do in Israel, we can't go far wrong. Or is their some Jewish authority which Jews must knuckle under to?

      When the leading organizational representatives of Judaism in the United States, Israel and Europe succeed in distancing themselves from Zionism as an ideology, and moderating the policies of the Israeli government, this will no longer be an urgent issue. But I, for one, don't see that occurring any time in the foreseeable future. And, in fact, I am predicting that this crisis in Jewish civilization is going to become much worse before these issues are resolved.

    • Dan Crowther,

      The worldwide Jewish religious establishment has projected an image of itself and of Judaism to the entire world that is entirely Zionist -- for the last half century (at least) it has been fusing Judaism and Zionism into a single ethno-religious nationalist ideology and political program.

      Simply consult the official statements issued during that time frame by the leading organizations representing Judaism.

      You can find a list of them here:

      Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations: Member Organizations

      link to conferenceofpresidents.org

      In all the controversies surrounding Zionism, this issue strikes me as the most consequential by far -- the one that needs to be addressed most forcefully.

      The behavior of the Israeli government is not only delegitimizing Zionism -- it is delegitimizing Judaism. Zionism and Judaism are now joined at the hip.

      As for Mooser's dream of a non-Zionist Judaism emerging in any significant way -- I'll believe it when I see it. Matters are trending in the opposite direction -- especially in Israel.

  • Video: Gaza forces young Jew to overcome 'giant hostile ferocious backlash' of her community
    • Mooser,

      The choice is not between being a Zionist Jew and not being a Jew. The Zionists to not own Judaism. Judaism as it has always been will be whatever we make it....

      Maybe Jews can’t change the course of Israel, but we can if we want it take our religion back.

      Ok -- now I think I fully get your attitude towards Judaism -- and it's laudable. Now your job is to lead your brethren out of the wilderness. :) Don't laugh: a Jewish leader may come along to do just that.

    • Pixel,

      I’m in love with the 2-state solution:

      State #1: USA
      State #2: Israel

      Love it -- did you coin that?

      Let Israel go its way and the United States and Europe go their way. Israel is free to persist in building Greater Israel, but on its own dime and with its own political capital.

      If the United States and Europe ever do go "Zionist," their ethnic and religious nationalism won't be organized around Jewish ethnic and religious nationalism -- they have their own traditions and interests.

    • Why is the Zionist religious claim to the land any more valid than other religious claims throughout history?

      Because the Zionist religious claim is true and all other religious claims are false. It's in the Bible. End of story.

  • The Walzer Problem
    • James North,

      jon s: We are still waiting for your answer. Where is the link to the Hamas spokesman “openly boasting” about “using civilians as human shields”?

      We are still waiting for links and sources for all of jon s's claims.

    • lysias to jon s,

      What is your source for those figures?

      Jon s must have sources for those claims, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to post that data -- but he chose not to include the sources in his post.

      So, indeed, let's see the sources and judge their credibility -- jon?

  • US branch of the Jewish 'family' owes the homeland 'unconditional love' -- Rosner
    • JeffB,

      Regarding "the JINSA crowd" (JINSA=Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs):

      Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff (2001-2005), Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, makes taboo-statements on the role of the neocons and Israel in bringing about the war on Iraq in the following video. "Tyranny & Politics of Fear, Loyalty to Israel vs. US."

      Wilkerson's statements about the neocons and Israel are largely based on his own direct experience as a member of the Bush administration. Wilkerson has made similar statements before and I include some of them in my book, "The Transparent Cabal."

      For example, "A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn't open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel's interest than our own." (T.C., p. 120)

      link to home.comcast.net

      Regarding the oil factor:

      Finally, we have the oil argument. Wilkerson states the obvious in pointing out that Iraq has oil reserves. He does not show how particular individuals involved in the oil business lobbied for war. As I point out in my Chapter 18 of my book, the oil companies, instead of pushing for war, sought to eliminate sanctions on Iraq in 2001. Moreover, they have not shown much interest in acquiring leases that the current Iraq government has auctioned off, which have almost completely gone to non-American oil companies. American oil companies, American business in general, and the US government is certainly concerned about Middle Eastern oil, but that does not mean that they advocate US wars in this region. Actually, the oil factor is often a reason that peace and stability are sought.

      Regarding Israeli and neocon agitation for an American war against Iran:

      It should also be emphasized that the neocons are also pushing for war on Iran. The overall Israel lobby and the government of Israel had been supportive of the war on Iraq, but stayed largely in the background. Both these groups are much more openly supporting a war on Iran. That both wars have been pushed by supporters of Israel and have the support of the government of Israel should indicate that these factors are the most important motivation war in the Middle East. It is hard to see how bombing Iran, which is likely to greatly impede the transport of oil, would help the US to control oil in the region. Bombing Iran would not involve US occupation, so it is hard to believe how bombing a country would make its government or its inhabitants more favorable to American oil interests.

    • JeffB,

      By any reasonable measure: Iraq, Afghanistan are #1 and #2. After that South Korea.

      How many Iraqi, Afghan and Korean ethnic nationalists within the American political system are responsible for engineering these high levels of aid to those respective nations? None.

      Americans are spending a fortune in Iraq and Afghanistan as the result of the grand neoconservative plan to destabilize and break up power blocs that the Israeli government and pro-Israel activists see as a threat to Israel and Zionism. Google into Oded Yinon and the Clean Break paper for the details.

      From a strategic perspective, US aid to Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan should really be filed under US aid to Israel. The Israel lobby has used US aid to Egypt to defuse and defang its opposition to Israel. We keep pumping money into Iraq and Afghanistan to support the delusional belief that the neocon wars against those nations have been a success -- when in fact they have been crushing failures and foreign policy disasters.

    • JeffB,

      The person most responsible for Nigerian Uranium spoof was Scooter Libby a WASP.

      Wrong: Scooter Libby is Jewish, not a WASP, and he was a key member of the group of mostly Jewish neoconservatives -- "the JINSA crowd" -- that engineered the Iraq War in the Bush 43 administration, along with Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Abram Shulsky and many others.

      See Wikipedia:

      Libby was born to an affluent Jewish family in New Haven, Connecticut; his late father, Irving Lewis Liebowitz, was an investment banker.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

    • jayn0t,

      “If ethnic and religious nationalism is “good for the Jews,” it’s good for every other ethnic and religious group on the planet.” If you believe in universal values, it is! But if you’re special – not at all.

      Many people have begun to notice that many Zionists believe that Jewish nationalism is the *only* legitimate form of ethno-religious nationalism in the world -- all other forms of ethno-religious nationalism are illegitimate or criminal. Certainly to some degree this world model must be grounded in biblical exceptionalism and the religious cult notion that there is a single chosen nation on the planet -- all other nations are subordinate to the instrument of God's will and master plan.

      Liberal Zionists bring these peculiar self-contradictory attitudes into relief -- they are strident in preaching universalism in the United States and Europe (which includes the disintegration of traditional non-Jewish ethnic and religious majorities) and strident in defending Jewish ethnic and religious unity and domination in Israel.

      Zionists (including liberal Zionists in the United States in Europe) openly agonize about demographic threats to Jewish domination in Israel -- much in the same way that white nationalists like David Duke in the United States or Anders Breivik in Norway agonize about demographic threats to white Christian domination in America and Europe.

      Actually, these attitudes aren't self-contradictory -- they are perfectly consistent. Universalism is "good for the Jews" in the Diaspora (among "the nations") and Jewish ethno-religious nationalism is "good for the Jews" in Israel (and even in the Diaspora, within "the nations").

      If WASPs developed the same organizational tools (like the Conference of Presidents and its constituent organizations) to promote and protect their ethnic and religious interests in the United States that the Jewish establishment has developed to promote and protect its ethnic and religious interests, they would of course be branded and attacked by the Jewish establishment as racists.

      This is not a level playing field.

    • JeffB,

      Regarding comparisons of the Israel and Latino lobbies -- what are the Latino equivalents to elements of the Israel lobby mentioned following? (Replace the question marks with the appropriate items.)

      # Israel lobby/Latino lobby
      1. AIPAC/?
      2. CAMERA/?
      3. Commentary Magazine/?
      4. Conference of Presidents/?
      5. Dennis Ross/?
      6. ECI/?
      7. JINSA /?
      8. neoconservatives/?
      9. NJDC/?
      10. NORPAC/?
      11. RJC/?
      12. Weekly Standard/?
      13. William Kristol/?
      14. Zionism/?
      15. ZOA/?

    • JeffB,

      Which one of these people you listed are Hispanic ethnic nationalists who have been lobbying for a foreign ethnic nationalist state? Not a single one that I recognize.

      Certainly none of them are equivalent to the Jewish neoconservatives who have been agitating for a series of American wars on behalf of Israeli interests or who have helped enable the transfer of many billions of dollars in American financial and military aid to Israel.

      The issue here is the prominent role of Jewish *nationalists* in American politics who feel a passionate attachment to Israel and Zionism -- not Jews in general, many of whom may well feel no involvement with Israeli issues at all.

      Joan Baez equivalent to Richard Perle, Douglas Feith or Sheldon Adelson? -- not remotely.

      To be clear on this: Jews and Jewish nationalists are two very distinct and different categories. Many prominent Americans of Irish descent are of course Irish -- but most of them are not Irish nationalists.

Showing comments 3664 - 3601
Page: