Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 20 (since 2012-06-24 14:23:33)

Showing comments 20 - 1
Page:

  • Israel has demolished more Palestinian homes in first half of 2016 than all of 2015
    • This is the behavior, no doubt, of a racist state. And it's a very aggressive policy, because squatting on other peoples' land, over enough time, becomes ownership. Who could kick the descendants of those settlers out of those homes after a generation or two? And as the Palestinian population dwindles to less and less of a minority in Jerusalem and elsewhere, how could the world see their land as "Palestine"? What really puzzles me is why the US Jewish community, which seems to be in the main quite well organized, doesn't speak up to condemn this Zionist madness which is producing so much atrocity, in direct contrast to basic Jewish religious beliefs? To me, it's much like the failure of the Christian denominations in the US to massively oppose the co-opt of Christianity by GW Bush during his presidential terms.

  • Hizzonor at AIPAC (has more political room than he thinks)
    • de Blazio's pandering to Jewish right wingers concerning Israel suggests that he believes the majority of Jewish New Yorkers want to hear such drivel. Is that true?

  • 'We can't let Israel determine when and where U.S. goes to war,' says Feinstein, but Hillary is quiet as a mouse
    • As usual, the subject of Israel instigates all kinds of nonsensical yak yak. Consider the Senate bill now being passed around, that increases sanctions on Iran and also commits the US to back Israel in a fight with Iran. Here's the language:

      "If Israel takes “military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” the U.S. “should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.” (Per Gharib.)"

      Notice the word "legitimate." It's my understanding that Israel would be violating the UN Charter (international law) if it conducts a unilateral strike against Iran, supposedly to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Thus, this bill does not require the US to back Israel if it goes that route. Now, if Iran would unilaterally attack Israel, that would be another story, and no one would dare suggest that the US stay out of the conflict and there's no need for a bill to cover that unlikely event.

      But don't get me wrong. I'm certainly against this bill, for many reasons. But the issue only confirms to me that the subject of Israel is a looney tune play, scripted by idiots.

  • America has changed in the face of Zionism's frozen grimace
    • Hi Shmuel, you make good points, though I make the argument that the “interest” represented here is, fundamentally, the interest of the majority of Jews in this country. Such interest stems from deeply imbedded cultural convictions within the Tribe, albeit many of which may be the result of trickery by Zionists. It’s not a secret that there’s a huge American Jewish interest in Israel, and indeed, if it weren’t for that interest, US policy would be very different. The Israel Lobby exists in the Interest of American Jews, and if it weren’t for American Jews, this lobby wouldn’t exist. For typical examples of such interest, with attendant coercive behavior, I refer you to Alex Kane’s article in today’s Mondoweiss. Thus, using the word “Israel” to describe this lobby is superficial. Israel is the Jewish State. The Jewish State is in the interest of a vast majority of American Jews, as illustrated by the dozens of well organized Jewish groups, some with Jewish funding amounting to over a hundred million dollars per year, which make up the vast bulk of the Israel Lobby. Thus, the Jewish Lobby is the real power in the Israel lobby.

      I also think there is precedence for my suggestion. During WWII, there was known to be the Italian Lobby, which advocated favorable treatment of Italy, when it switched sides during the conflict. There was also the Chinese Lobby, which advocated that the US support the nationalist movement in China. In Florida, there is a lobby that many refer to as the Cuban Lobby. It’s true that some people may refer to these lobbies as the Italy Lobby, the China Lobby, and the Cuba Lobby, but I don’t think there was, or is, the kind of prejudice you refer to in your last paragraph. I believe your insistence that my suggestion taints “all Jews” is an oversimplification and untrue, simply because most any label has exceptions, and it seems you want to force everyone to treat Jews differently from how we treat other groups of people. Why would you do that?

    • "The Israel lobby is a powerful force in American life and the headaches that may result from withholding tribute are too great to warrant the effort."

      Wouldn't it be more descriptive, instructive and helpful to use the term "Jewish lobby" in place of "Israel lobby"?

  • 'Quietly, with no fanfare,' Israeli army delivers Philippine baby alongside NBC's Dr. Snyderman
    • Try this: How many Israeli doctors does it take to deliver a Palestinian baby? One IDF field hospital tentfull.

  • Netanyahu calls on American Jews to stand 'together with us' to stop Iran deal
    • This speech by this hysterical Jew typically taps into a cultural PTSD of Judaism, and of course, the question remains whether the Western Jewish community can see this fellow Jew as hysterical and whether this cultural PTSD is still strong enough to dominate their thinking.

  • Lift the cruel, unfair sanctions on Iran, and you can close the nuclear dossier
    • Yeah, I heard of such a reason, but if this is really true, isn't the hypocrisy of the West laid bare? We have Israel that did just that - get the bomb without signing the treaty - yet no nation is drumming up war against it, just because of that fact. We also have N. Korea and India. I don't recall talk of war against these countries for doing that same thing. No, the whole thing doesn't compute. I also can't see Israel pushing for war with Iran more than it already is now, with Iran a signatory of the treaty. So the Iranians are damned if they do, damned if they don't, by nations that reek with hypocrisy. All in all, I have a hard time understanding such an explanation, and I think it's a subject that deserves some good analysis, and especially, interviews with government officials - especially level headed officials, if they exist - on just what's going on.

    • What puzzles me the most about this issue is, Why doesn't Iran simply pull out of the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), then do what it wants in developing a bomb, if indeed that's what it wants to do? Isnt it NPT obligations that provide the basis for all the demands the West is making on Iran's nuclear program? What penalties would Iran face with its nullification of this agreement? I've never seen an adequate analysis of this possibility. Can anyone here enlighten me?

  • Why does Uri Avnery know so little about Palestinian citizens of Israel?
    • I don't wish blindness on anyone. From the facts in this article, it seems Avnery supports the Jewish state, and although he may not like the fact that Israel is progressing to apartheid, he doesn't seem to understand that this outcome is inevitable for a Jewish state, immersed in a sea of Arabs. What else can he expect? The Jewish state cannot survive without becoming apartheid. Of course, it also cannot survive without becoming apartheid. This is true of any state based on racial preference - in this case, preference for Jews. How much clearer can such reasoning be? The author already made it crystal clear - except for those too blind to see.

    • Excellent article. It's one more illustration of the infinite moldability of the human psyche. How could such a man (Avnery) be so "right on" when it comes to the occupation and Israel's refusal to facilitate a just solution to the Nakba, yet be so blind sighted on the true, basic meaning of the "Jewish State?"

  • Einstein letter, on sale at Ebay, blamed Jewish terrorists for risking 'catastrophe' in Palestine
    • Yonah, please, the Stern gang was not an Israeli group and did not perform Israeli actions. It was a Zionist group and performed Zionist actions. But even more accurately, it was a Jewish group and performed Jewish actions. We often see such obfuscation, attempting to divorce the Jewish label from Jewish action. God forbid that anyone should point out that Jews have done bad things. One of the most notable obfuscations of course is the claim that Israelis fought the Arabs in the 1948 war before the creation of Israel. Indeed, it was Jews who fought the Arabs then. Using the term "Israelis" tries to legitimize the action of Jews, by identifying such action with the name of a nation that "has the right to defend itself." A nation that doesn't exist doesn't have the right to defend itself. The Jewish action was, pure and simple, the apex of actions and intentions on the part of Jews over a period of decades to get Palestinian land by any means possible, including murder and mayhem.

  • Deconstructing Ian Lustick's 'two-state illusion'
    • Woody, I largely agree, though my criteria question is, "What solution would bring justice to all concerned?" To me, the obvious answer is: one secular state with all present occupants (Jew and non-Jew, including all Palestinian refugees/descendents). This solution goes as far as possible to remedy the original theft of Palestinian land in 1948, and it provides the best humanitarian solution for all present. Objection to this solution because "Israelis won't go for it" is off the mark. World opinion and pressure must be brought to bear on Israelis and Jews everywhere to retract their commitment to the "Jewish State," an idealism, and nonsensical concept to begin with.

  • Why is the Egyptian regime demonizing Palestinians?
  • A solution to the conflict won't come from the Israeli Jewish public
    • "But the situation is not hopeless. If change won’t come from within Israel, international action combined WITH A STRONG PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT could change the game." (caps mine).

      I think this movement must be a peaceful movement. There's no chance terrorism or warfare could force Israel into moral action, and it makes the Jews look victimized, something which they can easily exploit with propaganda. Thus, a peaceful movement that will endear the world community to the Palestinian cause is the Palestinian's only real hope. I wish them well.

  • Cory Booker's connection to Zionism steeped in religious fundamentalism and ties to the Jewish community
    • "I contend that the Christian Zionists were cultivated by Israel-AIPAC..." I agree wholeheartedly. This is why I contend that, if the Israel lobby consists of a Jewish Lobby and a Christian Right component, it's still orchestrated, over all by the Jewish component. I don't think we can hope to correct the US government's biased actions in favor of Israel unless we somehow convince the broader US Jewish community to change their view on the role Israel plays in Judaism.

  • NPR can't stop talking about Jews
  • The controversy over the Oscars joke that Jews run Hollywood
    • The Jewish Community has a lot at stake here. If people freely talk about the Jewish influence in Hollywood, then they will talk about how much of the media, government, and banking that is also influenced by Jews. Then of course, this passes to the existence or not of the Jewish Lobby, as a dominant part of the Israeli Lobby, and heavens, where will all this lead? Personally, I'm astonished at what Jews have accomplished: they have succeeded with tremendous degrees of influence and behavior in Western society, yet have made themselves invisible. And trivially, of course, we're not talking about all Jews, but rather, emergent properties, considering a whole bunch of people.

  • CBS pulls down billboards calling for end to US aid to Israel
    • I think most Jews support Israel, at least in a passive way. Many Jews will say that they don't really feel connected to Israel, and that's in a way true, but when push comes to shove, their allegiance to the Tribe will dominate their actions, when for instance, they see Israel damaged or threatened. Proof of this it the power of the Jewish Lobby, which would not be possible if the bulk of the US Jewish community did not, in a fundamental sense, support Israel. The Jewish Lobby is massive, extending from AIPAC down to local Jewish community groups, who, in the end will support the Jewish state, especially when pressured by the more aggressive Israel supporters. Thus, the billboard may have looked to Redstone as an undue threat to Israel - something that he, personally, could stop - and he may have been influenced by other Jews, who are more actively supportive of Israel. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't say that you're right, either.

    • You hit the nail on the head, PTJ. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumner_Redstone

Showing comments 20 - 1
Page: