Total number of comments: 140 (since 2010-06-07 22:33:05)
Showing comments 140 - 101Page: 2 1
ANTISEMITISM: The belief that there is something wrong with being Jewish.
ZIONISM: The belief that there is something wrong with NOT being Jewish.
I don't think the present crop of leaders are any more idiots than those 'former' ministers listed in the letter to Catherine Ashton. In another decade or two, similar letters might be written by a bunch of current European politicians when they are in retirement.
The USA has its own former President, Jimmy Carter, who has echoed many of the same things as in the Ashton letter. It all seems pretty meaningless and hopeless; all these people are out of power.
Keep in mind that THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A "TWO STATE SOLUTION" in terms of two equal states. Every proposal has been for a neutered, subservient Palestine alongside a belligerent, US backed Israeli regional superpower.
m j rosenberg's analysis is thoughtful but I don't quite agree.
Hagel is an outstanding American, who has obtained a job that only marginally impacts the overall US/Israeli relationship. By attacking him, the lobby is saying that even if you someone of the calibre of Chuck Hagel, and if you seek any important job in the government, the lobby is going to come after you in a severe way if there is anything about your statements or record vis a vis Israel that zionists don't like.
Any ordinary person planning a career in US politics, especially someone seeking a job which might touch on the US/Israeli relationship, will have gotten the message. Nobody who wants to have an easy nomination, or any easy career, will defy the lobby without thinking twice; otherwise they would take the same flak that Hagel took.
A victory for the Israeli lobby. It was always going to be.
The point of the anti Hagel fight was to show anybody and everybody in America what you are up against if you don't pay obeisance to the Israeli lobby. Even though he is a great American, a wounded and decorated soldier, a successful businessman and Senator, anybody who wants to succeed in American politics certainly won't choose Chuck Hagel as a role model. Not unless they want a difficult life.
I think you are wrong; too many are not ready to have this conversation.
In America, the Emperor still has no clothes. In the story written by Hans Christian Andersen, an obvious truth denied by the majority despite the evidence of their eyes is proclaimed by a small child; but the emperor carries on as if he had clothes; too much is invested in the lie.
The teddy bear at the Oscars is just like the little boy in the Danish fairy tale, enunciating an obvious but unwelcome truth. Some very powerful people in America will continue to see themselves as persecuted victims, so much so that their overwhelmingly obvious power and influence can not be discussed.
Zionism is Jewish fascism. The same basic philosophy-blood, soil, land, people- simply applied at a different time and place and to different peoples. Zionists haven't killed millions of people, because they haven't needed to. Not yet.
Has the USA had a half century of occupation of all of Cuba? Are there "American Only" Roads in Cuba, and hundreds of American colonies, turning Cuba into an unviable collection of Bantustans? Is there some 100 year old philosophy, like for example, "Cubanism" which claims that Cubans have to leave Cuba, and make way for Americans? If all these things were true, one would expect rockets to be fired from Cuba at the United States, at the very least.
there are all kinds of tactics employed in the politics of nominations. Couple of examples:
If Obama dumps Hagel, and is later criticized for his policies vis a vis Israel, he'll be able to say to people like Schumer, look, help me on this issue, I' did you a favor before by not nominating Hagel.
Another reason, is that floating one controversial nomination can help the actual nominee have an easier time getting Senate approval. Senators as well as Presidents have a finite amount of political capital to spend; having made the point they won't nominate anybody, Senators will be that much more congenial to the next candidate for nominee, whoever it is.
After a half century of a brutal and merciless occupation, isn't some degree of hatred of the Israeli occupiers completely normal.
Did the French Resistance have a 'culture of hate' against the Nazis? The Fascist plan was to make France part of a greater 'Germania', just as the Zionist plan is to incorporate all of Palestine into a Greater Israel.
This announcement means Obama has two options:
A) Declare War on Israel
B) Declare that the 'Two State Solution' is dead.
Which do you think he'll choose?
I agree with BillM, but it is also a victory for Egypt and President Morsi.
Netanyahu suddenly seems a diminished figure.
One can only ask how Netanyahu, and his zionist allies in the US, will react.
This cease fire is great news.
What a difference a US election makes. Congratulations to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (assuming the cease fire holds). A President Romney or a President GW Bush would have continued to mouth 'israel has the right to defend itself' till the last Palestinian was killed; while Obama's rhetoric may have been similar, he acted differently, by despatching Clinton; a Romney or Bush would never have sent their secretary of state in similar circumstances; their only worries would have been to do with the logistics of supplying endless munitions to Israel.
When Clinton and Netanyahu issued their joint statements, you could see that Bibi was furious at her presence on his turf.
I only hope that this is used by Obama and Clinton as an opportunity for some kind of comprehensive peace deal, but who knows?
I'm not sure that i agree with Winona. The 19th century, blood and soil philosophies of race, separateness, imperialism, colonialism, apartheid and jim crowe have largely been abandoned by western states. (at least as ideals to be aspired to). People accept multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi racial societies as completely normal, in which the rights of colonizers do not trump the rights of indigenous peoples. Israel is the glaring exception to this rule; zionism is the last of the colonial blood and soil philosophies to still have life in it. Europe has given up nazism, fascism, pan-slavism, etc. Only in israel is the belief in an ethnarchic colonial state still widespread.
I don't think any President was duped, Kathleen. They know the Israelis want to steal all the Arab land they can get. Both the US and Israel know full well that Palestine is disappearing and a Greater Israel is taking it place. To admit that would be tantamount to endorsing genocide, so Tel Aviv and Washington just play a game, to pretend to the world, and to themselves, that they are serious about peace. Talk of peace is just so much hot air to mask this process of ethnic cleansing. Israel is addicted to Arab land, and the US is the enabler of the addiction.
what can be said for Lieberman, is that he is the only major zionist politician who is honest.
Zionism is an ethnic cleansing non-democratic philosophy; 'liberal' zionists simply can not admit this obvious truth.
why all this focus on the prime minister's cute first name? Everybody already knows that American politicians love to call him 'bibi' to affirm their love for zionism and aipac.
It is his second name, and the way in which he uses it, which demonstrates both the man and the zionist ideology he espouses are nothing but frauds.
The netanyahus changed their name from Mileikowsky. There is nothing wrong with that. Your father could have changed his name to 'Presley', if he wanted to, and he could have named you 'Elvis' when you were born. Nothing wrong with that either.
What would be creepy, however, is if you started pretending that you were the real Elvis Presley, the singer. If you collected presley memorabilia, and showed to it people as if it were yours, would be so strange that people would rightly assume you were deranged.
But this is exactly what the prime minister does. He collects stuff from an ancient family called the Netanyahus, and displays it to visitors, telling them it comes from his ancestors in Israel. What a creep.
WONDERFUL work by Alison.
excellent report and insight, please keep it up, if you can.
It might be dis-spiriting witnessing the annihilation of a nation.
I can't help noticing how the two comments on the forum are tied together:
"The Palestinians must feel as oppressed as blacks were in the Jim Crow South. "
"i wonder if there has ever been an ethnic cleansing in the history of mankind so meticulously documented as what is going on today in palestine."
Blacks in the jim crow south always had at least a few influential persons in washington concerned for their plight; eventually there were enough representatives in congress and senators to make a difference. This ethnic cleansing in palestine today is happening in plain view because there are no 'pro-palestinian' people of influence in power in washington now; america's elected representatives only differ in the degree of their support for zionism. Tel Aviv has washington's middle east policy completely in its pocket.
Further to MRW's USA List, it should be noted that in the UK, Veolia is quite literally a household name.
Millions of people have their garbage collected by the company, which has contracts with lots of local governments. Some of the representatives who sit on the committees overseeing these contracts are quite sympathetic to Palestinian rights. If enough Britons wrote to their local authorities complaining about Veolia's record in Palestine, it might seriously threaten some of their UK contracts.
The Ottoman Empire was a pretty sophisticated Empire, more sophisticated in many ways than contemporary European states.
Many jews thrived under Ottoman rule. When Ferdinand and Isabella conquered the Kingdom of Granada (where, under Muslim rule, many Jews lived prosperously for centuries) many Jews fled to the Ottoman Empire.
Without the British conquest of the Ottoman Empire province of Palestine at the end of World War I, Zionism would today be known as a quirky and discarded theory. The Jews of Palestine would no doubt be living relatively happily under Turkish rule.
I think Pletka is right about Obama. At least, I hope she is. She only mistaken in two things. The first is her belief that Obama is alone. The second is her assessment of what is driving this contempt for Israel, which is the actions of herself, AIPAC and the rest of the Zionist lobby.
Former US Senator from South Dakota James Abourezk in 2006:
" I can also tell you that very few members of Congress—at least when I served there—have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I've heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they're pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby's animosity by making their feelings public."
Obama has given more money and more assistance to Israel than any other President. So you have to ask the question, what would the world be like if Obama LOVED Israel? How much money would we give Israel then? Would the Israeli Prime Minister have an automatic seat as a US Cabinet member. Would the Star of David become the 51st on the American flag. Would criticism of Israel be regarded as treason for American citizens, subject to the death penalty.
I only hope Obama, and our legislators continue hating Israel, the way the American politicians and the American people came to hate fascism and apartheid. Its the only light at the end of the tunnel.
What makes a "state" a "state?" I don't think there has ever been seriously considered any plan in with a Palestinian state with all the rights and freedoms of a normal state.
From this it follows that there is not now, nor has there ever been, any seriously considered plan for a "two state solution."
One could make an analogy with a mortgage when buying a house. Even if the lender offered you very good terms, but restricted how you could provide security in your own home, and who could live in your home, restricting when you could enter and leave your home, is that really a "mortgage?" Only in the technical sense, but it wouldn't be a mortgage than any reasonable person would accept.
Palestinians have likewise only ever been offered a truncated, feeble and neutered version of a state. No real "state" has ever been on the table, and now its unlikely there ever will be.
i think it is logical to assume that Netanyahu, the ever complaining, nuclear smuggling fraud, sees the nonexistent 'iran threat' as a useful way to disguise and justify when necessary the ever expanding borders of israel.
Any number of commentators have concluded that Israel gain nothing from bombing Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility, and it may have been a shot in the foot. Saddam Hussein and other Arab leaders simply became that much more determined to gain nuclear and other weapons for themselves.
Its the USA military that later got rid of the threat from Iraq; the lesson for the Israelis is to get the US involved in the region on a permanent basis as de facto mercenaries for the growth of Israel's power in the middle east.
"Netanyahu has blackmailed him with the possibility of an attack on Iran"
if you have any evidence for this belief, i wish you would share it with us.
the implications are pretty startling, for bibi and israel. If this claim is true, Bibi has failed to protect israel as he ought to, our of political considerations vis a vis the United States. I don't believe that. If Israel felt it needed to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities to survive, it would already have done so, regardless of American opinion.
Firstly, Bibi's been bluffing about iran for at least two decades. When are people going to stop believing him?
Secondly, the US is already at war with Iran. A war of economic sanctions, cyberwar, and assasinations. If a country was doing all that to the USA, wouldn't the USA consider itself at war with that country.
Thirdly, Iran is a great distraction from Palestine. While Ahmadinejad never actually said he wants to 'wipe Israel off the map,' Israel keeps repeating that lie, while it it Palestine which is actually in the process of being 'wiped off the map'; talk of Iran re-enforces Israel's sense of victim hood, excusing it from ethnic cleansing and house demolitions in Palestine.
American Jews do not need the State of Israel for a "self-confidence and sense of belonging" any more than African American need the State of Liberia for "self-confidence and sense of belonging."
Furthermore, the policies of the State of Liberia have little on African Americans or any Americans.
By contrast, with its current policies, the state of Israel has become a liability for American Jews in equal proportion to its status as a liability for all Americans, for the United States in general.
neo conservatives are not merely 'pro-Israel'; neo-conservatism is a branch of zionism.
Has anyone ever heard of an 'anti-Israel neocon'? It is unthinkable.
Every neocon will admit that supporting Israel is important. What they won't admit is that supporting Israel is the basis of the whole neo-con philosophy.
Without Israel, neo-conservatism would not exist. There would still be right wing, war mongering Americans, but they wouldn't be called neo-cons, they'd be called something else.
I think one reason the "thrown Israel under the bus" phrase is so beloved by Romney and his team is because they think it has the added purpose of telling ordinary Americans that even though unlike them, Romney never uses public transportation, at least he knows what a bus is.
There are lots of businessman who consider themselves socialist, especially in Europe. The Labour in Britain still considers itself socialist, even though it doesn't use the 's' word often. It has many prominent business men and women who support it, as does the Socialist Party in France, and other parties on the left in Europe. Are there no businessmen and women who vote for left leaning parties in israel? Of course there are.
In some districts, the 'jewish vote' is crucial in elections In general, American politicians have found its convenient to to mask how they've betrayed their country to the Israel lobby by emphasizing the 'jewish vote.' While the 'jewish vote' is usually small and usually doesn't decide elections, but 'jewish money' always matters.
This site has already noted the example of the film http://mondoweiss.net/2007/12/charlie-wilsons.html, where a Congressman acknowledges that 'jews' control his middle eastern policy, even though to his knowledge the number of jews in his district is only seven. The film is something of a parody but its brief admission that money from pro-Israel supporters controls american foreign policy in the middle east is spot on.
If one can't mention rich jews in this context, yonah, perhaps you can explain the context in which you feel that the phrase "rich jew" is permissable. Perhaps you feel one should never mention that an individual is Jewish and rich?
VP candidate Ryan is off to solicit funds from Adelson, a "rich jew" who undoubtedly doesn't care for Arabs. Why shouldn't it mentioned that Ryan is an advocate of a philosophy expoused by another rich jew who didn't like Arabs? If the phrase "rich jew" can not be used in this context, jonah, you must feel that it never can be.
America's 'Homeland Security' department already goes just about everywhere in the world. Wherever there are American oil platforms, you will find that Homeland Security personnel not only oversee their security but send their personnel their as well. Homeland Security is very active in the Persian Gulf, in the form of one of its principal sub-departments, the US Coast Guard.
Homeland Security's power is growing and growing all the time, and in future years and decades, protecting Israel will no doubt be considered a part of its remit.
Gore Vidal claimed that Harry Truman's election in 1948 was assured after Zionists secretly gave him a briefcase containing $1 million in cash. The only thing that has changed is that now Zionists no longer feel the need to disguise the obsence amounts of money they give to their favored American politicians.
amazing photos and trip. Its a vision of apartheid in blossom, or the democide of the nation of palestine in plan view.
Are your sure the image of the girl with the discus isn't taken from the 1936 Berlin Games in Nazi Germany. Hitler and Leni Riefenstahl would surely have loved the photo.
The irony of an 'anti-islamic' attack on a Sikh gurdwara (temple) is that many of the most prominent aspects of the Sikhhism as practised today were created as a response to what Sikhs themselves perceived as Islamic tyranny. Many Sikhs do not cut their hair, always carry a ritual knife (two of the mandatory 'five k's'). This is precisely because about 300 years ago the last of the Sikh gurus re-organized the religion along military/democratic lines to preserve Sikkhism from the repeated assault of the spreading Mughal Empire. The Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb was particularly known for his piety, and spreading Islam was one of the principal reasons for his consistent persecution of the Sikhs.
A Gurudwara is vulnerable precisely because Sikhs openly welcome visitors of all faiths. Many of them are very beautiful, and anyone can visit as long as you cover your head and take off your shoes.
Imagine if there were nuclear armed Iranian cruisers and aircraft carriers churning along the coasts of the united states; iranian military bases in mexico, canada and other surrounding countries.
The Iranians are enduring the equivalent of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, day after day, year after year, endlessly under pressure from the the US and its middle eastern allies. Iran doesn't threaten the United States in any way, and the US government should just leave iran alone.
Everything Romney says is designed to help him get elected. Nobody has any idea what his policies will actually be.
Remember the 'missile gap' in the 1950s? Kennedy actually led some people to believe he would be tougher on the soviet union than nixon/Eisenhower had been.
Remember Reagan? He promised to 'go to source', blockade Cuba, and rescind the arrangement to give control of the panama canal to panama. Many people believed him; once in office, he did none of those things.
Romney has no responsibility at the moment, and can say whatever he wants.
Mandela was in prison while Els was growing up. As a young boy the golfer would have been told over and over again, without any ambiguity, that Mandela was a terrorist. despite the fact that he proved to be the overwhelming choice of the people as president
Israeli's believe in the same self evidently contradictory mindset today, but to even a greater degree. This is because the people Israeli's claim to be 'terrorists' like Hamas in Palestine and Hizbollah in Lebanon are in power because they are they democratically elected to be there.
Israeli's also scorn the mullahs in Iran, but Iran is a far more politically representative state than most of the gulf states which are US and Israeli count on as allies.
What would Netanyahu's (and America's reaction) be if this was in the news (Would it be considered merely 'intriguing')?
James Holmes: Cinema Killer is a Muslim “Big Brother.”
The arrested terrorist, James Holmes, was known for his pronounced Islamic sympathies. He spent a significant part of time at an obscure organization which billed itself as the “Muslim Big Brothers Big Sisters of Los Angeles” . He worked as a “counsellor” at this Muslim organization, in charge of entertaining and indoctrinating young children. According to a spokesman for the Muslim Big Brothers Big Sisters, Holmes was in charge of the "the care and guidance of a group of approximately 10 children" at the Muslim “summer camp.” The ‘camp’ is strategically located near Glendale. The spokesman for the Muslim organization did not hide that fact that Holmes taught the young Muslims “how to work in small teams to effect positive outcomes."
That background, in part, has left those who know Holmes trying to process how his experience with the Muslim Big Brothers contributed to what happened Friday morning.
Here is the text from the Actual Article:
Holmes "worked one summer as a counselor at a camp for underprivileged children. The chief executive at Camp Max Straus said Holmes worked there in 2008 and "had no incidents or disciplinary concerns."
In a statement to The Times, Randy Schwab, chief executive of Jewish Big Brothers Big Sisters of Los Angeles and director of Camp Max Straus, wrote that Holmes was responsible for "the care and guidance of a group of approximately 10 children" at the camp, in the hills above Glendale.
"His role was to ensure that these children had a wonderful camp experience by helping them learn confidence, self-esteem and how to work in small teams to effect positive outcomes," he said. In a later e-mail, he added: "That summer provided the kids a wonderful camp experience without incident."
That background, in part, has left those who know Holmes trying to process what happened Friday morning."
the occupation of palestine is 'complicated' in the same way that apartheid was complicated, or that the jim crow separate but equal laws in the American South were complicated, or that slavery was 'complicated.'
But all these things -slavery, apartheid, jim crow, occupation - are all equally and simply wrong.
If you are American, and your friend says "“I don’t hear you complaining about Syria or North Korea,”why don't you make a deal with them?
Get them to agree to put their signature on a letter to their congressman/woman and senator written entirely by you, complaining about America's support for Israel.
You in turn agree to put your signature on any letter that they write to your congressman/woman or Senator, complaining about American support for North Korea or Syria!
What could be fairer than that?
Does the US give aid totalling $1,000/citizen/year to any other country? Does it block near unanimous UN resolutions against any other country than Israeli?
The USA is the enabler for Israel's horrid policies of ethnic cleansing. This isn't true of any other country. In former Yugoslavia, the US plays precisely the opposite role that it does in Israel, protecting minorities, including Muslim minorities. If the US behaved in Israel the way it has in the Balkans, the Bibis and the Baraks of Israel would be rotting in the Hague.
As Veolia claims to operate in 77 countries Veolia Worldwide
I hope your campaign brings Veolia's criminal behaviour to the attention of people wherever this firm operates.
If you want to see inaccurate maps, check out those provided by the government of israel itself at gov.il, from which we learn.
The total area of the State of Israel is 8,630 sq. miles (22,145 sq.km.), of which 8,367 sq. miles (21,671 sq. km.) is land area. Israel is some 470 km. (290 miles) in length and about 85 miles (135 km.) across at the widest point. The country is bordered by Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northeast, Jordan to the east, Egypt to the southwest and the Mediterranean Sea to the west:
THE LAND: Geography and Climate
The web site mentions Palestinians, but from the information displayed, you'd never know where 'Palestinians' have lived in the past, or where any Palestinians live today. You could easily conclude that there are not any palestinans living west of the jordan river today. I'd be surprised if you see on any israeli government web site the hundreds of official maps from the 20th century and before which simply mark the entire area as 'Palestine.'
to simply say that tobin is telling lies underestimates the difficulties of overcoming zionism. When tobin says abunimah wants to 'destroy' israel, from tobin's point of view, he is telling the truth: the only 'israel' tobin can imagine is one where Jews dominate everything. For Jews to be equal to muslims, christians, etc. would not be 'israel' for somebody like Tobin.
Zionists have a sense of entitlement, and other assumptions which they never question, without which the whole philosophy could not be maintained. Zionists think palestinian resistance to ethnic cleansing is 'terrorism', because their philosophy tells zionists that they are entitled to the land they are stealing.
Abunimah was as eloquent explaining zionist double standards as one could possibly be; but with tobin you can see that he was up against a very difficult zionist mindset.
The terrorism of Shamir, Begin and others is undisputed. The more pertinent question is to what degree has Israel simply become the personification of a terrorist as a nation state? Perhaps even more importantly, how has the United States, through its support and identification with Israel, become 'Shamir-like' in its policies?
"We are expanding...."
An uninhibited advertisement for ethnic cleansing.
The relative ordinary-ness of this sign is what is so shocking.
US Taxpayer dollars at work.
"NJDC President and CEO David A. Harris quickly pounced on the (Joe the Plumber) video.
“Using the memories of the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust to make a political point is never appropriate, under any circumstances,” he said."
If every Zionist has always adhered to Harris's statement, would Israel even exist?
“the place of infiltrators is in the countries that they came from,”
Will Avigdor Lieberman and millions of other European and American born infiltrators be packing their bags soon?
Do the children of "infiltrators", like Bibi Netanyahu, have to leave as well?
or can somebody say when it was that the state of Israel outlawed irony?
It might have been a great experience to hear Ilyse's speech, but there is so little substance in the text it could mean anything. You could just change a few words and it would have cheered at an aipac conference. It only increas's one scepticism that j street is substantially different than aipac.
For example, Texas Governor Rick Perry is among those who also recently said " I love Israel with all my heart".
How can Ilyse and Perry and others have any room left in their hearts to love America?
Calling the Palestinians an "invented" people because the term "palestinian" is new is like calling Native Americans an "invented" people, because the term "Native American" is a recent invention.
Native Americans always existed; they did not use the term "native american" because they never had to.
If someone beats the hell out of you and is prosecuted in a court, you will be referred for the first time in you life as the "victim." If the lawyer defending your assailant argues that his client is innocent because before the crime in question, no one ever previously referred to you by using the term "victim", the judge and jury would rightfully just laugh.
Palestinians used the term to "Palestinians" as and when it was needed. It is the unprecedented Zionist assault on the indigenous people of Palestine which suddenly made the need for a term to refer to the Palestinian victims of Zionism so pressing.
Oren is made to look silly but its every Israeli ambassador's job to defend the indefensible, and Oren does it as well as anyone else. Having to look like a chump is part of every Israeli diplomat's job description.
One is left wondering if Bob Simon had intended to interview Oren for this episode in the first place. One is left wondering how different this episode of 60 minutes would have been without Oren's intervention? For all we know, Oren might have reason to believe that his intervention was a great success, and the segment would have completely different without him.
Simon talked about the importance to Israel of American (mostly Christian) opinion. The must astonishing about the position of the Christians in Palestine which was not mentioned is the degree to which American "Christians" are helping to cleanse the holy land of its ancient Christian communities. So called Born again Zionists like John Hagee have raised millions or even billions of dollars to help build and consolidate settler communities in the west bank and east Jerusalem where Christians are not allowed to live.
When all these jews leave the middle east, are they going to take their tanks, helicopters and nuclear weapons with them in their luggage? Why do people think Israel is weak? It is a regional superpower, with a very high standard of living, with an armlock on the most powerful country in the world, the USA. Israel has everything it needs to continue its abhorrent policies for a long time.
Israel is like a man divorcing his wife who claims that the 10,000 times she said "I love you" don't matter; the only thing that matters is that she once said "I wish you were dead"
Then it turns out she actually said something like "I wish you were never born."
Whatever Ahmadinejad is irrelevant. Its just one of many statements made by one of many Iranian politicians. Ahmadinejad has also said, on more than one occasion, that he accepts the Arab peace plan for recognition of Israel. Israeli's never talk about that. They instead focus ad nauseaum on one seemingly belligerent statement, the ultimate purpose is to mask Israel's own unrelenting and ceaseless aggression.
Politicians who's deceitfulness is so profound that they can not admit their country has nuclear weapons can not be trusted on any matter at all. When an Israeli politician talks, it won't be long before the BS comes out.
The threat of an impending war with Iran is a ruse. Netanyahu wants Palestine. All of it. Talk about Iran just takes the focus off everyday Israeli practices of ethnic cleansing.
Israeli's like making comparisons with Amerindians because they know they'll attract some sympathy in the US. By contrast the Israeli's reject totally the much more apt comparison with apartheid South Africa, because Americans and most people in the world that regime was pretty much all bad with no redeeming aspects at all.
The other thing about comparing the plight of Amerindians to Palestinians. Its the closet that zionists will ever come to admitting that 'project israel' is an evil enterprise. Zionists can only justify what they are doing to Palestinians by drawing 0n the most controversial and morally questionable acts committed by other states throughout history.
The Nazi party might be the only popular political party in history ever to limit membership.
After Hitler came to power, applications for membership to the Nazi party surged. Whether out of opportunism, fear, or some mix of both, it seemed that everybody in Germany wanted to join. The party responded to the mass of applications by putting great restrictions on membership, something political parties never normally do.
As the Nazi dictatorship tightened its grip, just about anybody living in Germany in the 1930s would have joined the party if they were allowed to, in order to survive. So judging someone simply because they were a party member is pretty meaningless.
carowhat is right. The ad hominem attacks on Grass are a typical hasbara attack style.
Grass's past is not important. What is important is israeli policies, in particular its nuclear policies as well as its nuclear weapons.
Israel and its supporters criticize Iran for not living up to the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) which it has signed. Iran is also accused of not cooperating with inspectors sent under the terms of the NPT.
The point to make is that Iran has signed the NPT. For Israel, there is no treaty. There are no inspectors. Israel has no right to comment on Iran's nuclear industry at least until Israel itself has signed up to the NPT and allows inspectors.
Israel instead has an 'ambiguity policy' (in other words, a 'dishonesty policy') and pretends it has no nuclear weapons at all. Unfortunately many western governments (US, UK) have adopted Israel's 'ambiguity policy' and the MSM for the most part slavishly follows the Israel doctrine as well.
Phil is right.
Anybody who wants to understand how money controls politicians in the US should read Robert A. Caro's biographical series on President Lyndon Johnson. It is one of the best biographies of an american politician ever written. Caro explains in detail how the really big contributors can completely control government policy in certain areas.
States can pass laws and define themselves any way they want. The problem is the attitude of other countries, primarily the USA, which should not give any support to such ethno-theocratic states.
The US can be friends with Israel if it chooses to remain a 'jewish' state. But the US should not give any money, weapons or diplomatic support to Israel or any state which rejects democracy as Israel does. The US should instead encourage Israel and all other states to become true democracies without any bias shown to anyone of any particular religion or ethnicity.
Unfortunately the situation today is the opposite of this ideal. The USA is the enabler for the ethno-theocratic state of Israel. The siege of Gaza and the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank would not continue without American support. If the US withdrew its support, Israel would be forced to become a democracy.
bds would have carried if only about 200 or so people had voted differently. amazing result in a place like brooklyn; for anyone who cares about justice for palestinians, one can only be hopeful.
Can somebody explain what park slope would have done if that had happened?
"Dual loyalty in action, and the Post buries it."
Please explain to which country other than Israel do traitorous spies like Jonathan Pollard and Nozette feel any loyalty?
One can and only wonder how often the FBI have considered catching other traitors in the same way as Nozette, but dropped the investigations when they realized the traitors in question were senators or representatives?
Even "blanks" fired from a firearm can kill. If you are close enough to a victim when you fire a blank cartridge, the gun powder alone can have a combination of mass and speed to cause a lethal wound. A number of people have received wounds from "blanks", which sometimes prove to be fatal.
Iran has every right to BOTH nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Its a big country of 70 million people; why can the US and Israel have whatever energy and weapons they want, and not Iran? How can Israel, a country of 7 million people, dictate to Iran, 10 times its population?
I hope Iran gets nuclear weapons as soon as possible. Iran needs these to deter US and Israeli aggression.
Israel can have peace in the middle east whenever it wants; it just needs to end the ethnic cleansing of palestine, and the occupation of palestinian and other arab lands; israel's unceasing expansion and addiction to arab lands is the cause of the conflict, NOT Iran or Iran's nuclear ambition.
Israeli and the US are already at war with Iran and have been so for some time; If the US was subjects to the drone monitoring, assassinations, explosions that Iran is subject to, and if the Iran had its fleet patrolling American coasts, with dozens of military bases in proximity to to its borders as Iran does, then the US would feel its at war.
BIBI wins either way. By linking Hamas/Abbas/Palestinian resistance with Iran, he can pretend the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is necessary to stop an 'existential' threat to israel.
Who lost sleep last night over the nuclear weapons in countries like Pakistan and North Korea? Those are far more unstable countries than Iran. A nuclear Iran is inevitable. How can Israel, a nuclear armed country with only 7 million people, tell Iran, whose population is 70 million, that it can not have nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Israel further seeks to dictate the nuclear policies of surrounding states with hundreds of millions of people.
The world will be fine with a nuclear Iran. Iran will be safer from attack.
The USA had an internal debate when China was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. American generals argued for a strike on China "before it was too late." I imagine most people using this forum were born after China went nuclear.
Israel is using the Iran nuclear issue to cover the acceleration of its ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Bibi and other Israeli politicians have been crying wolf for years.
Will it get more official than this? The US and Israel are state sponsors of terrorism.
Don't forget that Adelson has said he'll support the Republican candidate, whoever he is. He might give just as much money, or more, to Romney, so he can own a President.
The whole story is not a bit surprising and encapsulates how Israel uses the USA for its purposes in general.
Israel is both a strategic and moral liability for the United States. If the US Navy was used in accordance with American values, Obama would be contemplating using it to break the existing naval Israeli naval blockade of Gaza rather than a theoretical Iranian blockade of the Persian Gulf.
The USA has been in a permanent state of war with Iran since before most people in this forum were born. This in turn is a continuation of Anglo-Persian conflict that goes back to long before anybody knew what fossils were or that you could make a fuel for them.
In 1622 the East India Company joined forces with Safavid Persia to effect "regime change" upon the Portuguese backed rulers of Hormuz Island in the Straits of Hormuz. For decades thereafter the Company and British monarchy continued to try to collect the protection money they claimed from the Persians owed them.
Most Americans don't even know that the USA had already had 10s of thousands of "boots on the ground" in Iran. During WW2 predominantly African American troops worked ceaselessly on the "Persian Corridor" to supply the Soviet Union with 100's of thousands of vehicles; Many of the jeeps and trucks which rolled into Berlin to take the Reichstag were built in Detroit.
We are simply experiencing another chapter in a centuries old attempt to control one of the world's oldest and most strategically placed civilizations. The US and Iran are at war.
The US is so powerful that it can not only wage war on multiple countries at the same time but can do so without its own population even noticing. Ahmadinejad is currently in another country, Cuba, which the USA has been in a state of war for a long time as well. If another country imposed sanctions on the US like those it imposes on Cuba, Americans would consider it a hostile act and go to war over it; if its not an all out shooting war its because the poor Cubans have no hope of retaliating against all powerful Uncle Sam.
As an antidote to this noxious issue of Saveur, check out the November/December 2011 of Saudi Aramco world, "Gaza's Food Heritage". Be warned: will make you both angry about the half century of occupation of Palestine and makes you hungry too!
How worried should would be about the people of Texas and Mexico and the rest of the United States? If Santorum gets elected, Santorum might introduce an Israeli-like system of citizenship. The USA will have different levels of citizenship, depending on ethnicity and religion. If you are born in Texas or New Mexico and perhaps anywhere else in the USA, and trace your family history in your locale back forever, you could still be denied citizenship. Russians like the Lieberman and the Miliukowskys (sorry, Netanyahus) with a philosophy like Zionism could come to America and claim they have a divine right to your house and neighborhood.
Should Americans being checking out refugee camps in Canada or Mexico to go to after Inauguration day, 2013?
$1.036 trillion? wow. Any record of a single Israeli word of gratitude for all that cash? More importantly, any chance the US will get paid back?
You should download a copy of 'pirates of silicon valley' and consider the rather negative portraits of bill gates and steve jobs. Even the title tells you where the film-makers stand. Then you should try to argue that that the portrait of Gates is 'anti-Christian' or 'anti-Congregationalist', or that the portrait of Jobs is 'anti-Buddhist' or a slur on adopted people. Your arguments would make make as much sense as those you've made about The Social Network.'
The world doesn't revolve around Judaism, any more than it revolves around Congregationalism or Buddhism. The portrayal of Zuckerberg in the movie has nothing to do with his religion or ethnicity.
You could use Gingrich's line of thinking to argue that the Holocaust never happened. There were indeed around 6 million jews were killed by the nazis during WW2. But there was no use of the term 'jewish people' at that time to refer to them. They must therefore have been an invented people, interlopers with no rights to any land in Europe. The fact that Israeli's identify the Middle East and not Europe as their homeland merely buttresses the argument.
The logical extension of Gingrich's argument is that nothing like the Nakba could ever have happened. There were indeed up to a million people who had to move or be killed, and many were killed, when the state of israel was formed. But since for Gingrich there was no such thing as a 'palestinian' then this million people were driven out of land that didn't belong to them, so no 'nakba'.
How often you see phrases referring to 'Lebanese people' or 'Syrian people' or 'Jordanian people' or 'Egyptian people'. Not very often, because in those cases there is no need to do so. 'palestinian people' became a more widely used phrase because unlike in the other cases there existence came under threat from israel.
gutman's analysis isn't too bad, except for calling hatred of Israel's policies a form of anti-semitism. Its not in any way antisemitic to criticize and oppose the colonization of the west bank and east jerusalem or to criticize and oppose "every new settlement announced in Israel". Its in fact a moral obligation to do so.
From the ynet article:
Interior Minister Eli Yishai also rejected Clinton's statements. "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. I assume that whatever will be done here will be within the measure of the law."
Even though elections were just held in neighboring Egypt, Israeli officials continue to blurt this absolute falsehood. Another neighbor is Lebanon, which has a parliamentary democracy as well. And of course israel is and never will be a democracy as long as it insists on being a jewish state. The government headed by Netanyahu controls all historic palestine, where jews are in the minority. its all rigged so that that there is one area under control called 'israel' where jews have a majority; people living in occupied palestine, the west bank and gaza, have no say in electing the people who make the most important decision of their lives; the PA is just like a local authority.
Maybe Panetta made a Freudian slip, one way or another.
Something which is "damned" is doomed and disgraced. For Israel the table has always been damned. Negotiations are just so much stalling while the settlements expand and Palestine disappears. Alternatively you could say that the "damned table" is one which for Israel can only function as a means to damn Palestine into non-existence.
Instead of 'Likudized' i would use a different term; may 'zionized. All major Israeli parties are dedicated to the same goal of the total absorption of Palestine and other territory in the middle east and differ little on how to achieve it; its a mistake to think things will be substantially different if Livni or Barak was prime minister. Same thing in the USA; Obama is just as much a captive of America's Zionized politics as his predecessors and his potential successors.
Nobody knows what is being planned vis a vis Iran but the USA and Israel are already very much at war with Iran and have been for some time. Obama has been against Iran getting Nukes since before he took office; that goal can not be achieved without killing people.
The bad deal the Egyptians got on their gas sounds like the latest chapter in the long history of western exploitation. The Suez canal was supposed to help the Egyptians but European countries and companies made all the money; when Nasser tried to make it function for the first time to primarily benefit of the Egyptian people, France Britain and Israel invaded to tried to take it back.
The Israel problem is the biggest problem in world politics. Accomodating the endless aspirations of Zionism is equivalent in import to other episodes in history such as the cold war, the rise of imperial and later Nazi Germany, and the rise of Revolutionary/Napoleonic France. Huge countries like Egypt are having their fate shaped by the question of what is best for the far smaller country of Israel. Much of the effort that western powers once put into building their overseas empires has been directed to Israel, the last western colony.
If she was a Muslim linked to a pro-palestinian group who had made the same tweet she'd either
a: be in jail
b: her tweet would be all over Fox News and the other right wing MSM to show how Obama is soft on islamo-terrorism.
Rice admitted on television that on 9/11, after the first tower was struck, she assumed it was an accident. As national security advisor at the time, she should have been the first person in the world to consider it might be a deliberate attack.
I don't think she thought this way because she was stupid or lazy. Like her observations of Livni's statement, politics forces officials like Rice not only to view the world through a narrow, ideologically constricted box, but to act accordingly as well. The Republicans were focused on Saddam Hussein throughout the Clinton Presidency and consistently denigrated the priority the Democrats gave to fighting Osama Bin Laden, purely for political reasons. Focusing on the terror threat from Al Queda didn't fit their political agenda to such an extent that it made America less safe. Anybody Rice who told George Bush that he should forget about Iraq and focus on Al Queda would never have been hired or would have been fired. Rice should be ashamed of letting down her country just as she should be for acquiescing silently to Livni's repugnant views.
hope your right
Livni is just as much dedicated to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian as Netanyahu, Lieberman or any other Israeli Minister. Condy Rice was just as dedicated to playing a useful role managing this ethnic cleansing as Susan Rice or Obama or any other member or the current US government.
We are witnessing the slow extinction of the Palestinian nation. The Israelis may be the perpetrating this managed extinction. But the US and other western countries are the managers, trying to anaesthize the world and their electorates by making the whole horrible affair seem as benign as possible.
Barak is pretty much in agreement with the sentiments expressed by Zionist founding father Theodore Herzl's views a century ago in the "A Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question" The only thing that's change is that what was universally referred to before WW2 as Palestine is now called 'Israel', and that the "Jewish Question" or the "Jewish Problem" is now called the "Palestinian Problem.":
Herzl: "Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvellous potency"
"An infiltration (of Jews) is bound to end in disaster. It continues till the inevitable moment whent he native population feels itself threatened, and forces the Government to stop the further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless based on an assured supremacy."
At the end of Zionist spectrum are later writers like Jabotinsky (of whom Netanyhu's father was a student and admirer). Jabotinsky specifically explained that Zionism is a colonial project. Neither he (not Barak in the interview) didn't use the phrase "assured supremacy" but they both absolutely agree that their must be maintained a Jewish majority by one means or another.
The present situation is a compromise between these zionist streams of thought. The Israeli government rules over lands in which Jews are in the minority. The Palestinians in the occupied territories do not have a say in the selection of the Israeli cabinet in Tel Aviv which makes the ultimate decisions over their lives. Endless and meaningless promises that this is only a temporary situation which is not israel's fault disguise the fact that historic Palestine - within which resides the state of Israel -is now ruled as an oligarchy or ethnotheocracy but which has been rigged or gerrymandered to maintain the pretense that the State of Israel is a democracy.
who is the unnamed 'American official'? Usually journalists say 'senior official' or such to try to hype up the importance of the scoop.
the 'bomb iran' talk works for bibi in more ways than one. You have to admit, if you really think that world war III is about to start tomorrow, the ethnic cleansing of palestine seems a less urgent issue.
if anyone didn't know it before, the leaked sarkozy/obama conversation demonstrates that the us has to constantly deal with israel; bibi wants to put the focus entirely on a non-existent threat from iran, so that in his conversations with washington things like settlement expansion and the related repression of palestinians doesn't even come up.
Is it a coincidence that the iran threat has been of more concern to Bibi since the PA's recognition by Unesco? Just this small hint that the Likud party program of a single state west of the jordan might be threatened by a genuine prospect of a palestinian state might have seriously spooked the israeli government.
Israel and the US have been at war with Iran for a long time. Cyber attacks, assassinations, and who knows what else. Even if not a single American person is directly involved, it doesn't matter; the US is involved as the enabler. Nobody quite knows what things the US and Israeli leadership have in mind for Iran and its not much use speculating.
don't think the sarkozy microphone flop or the IAEA debacle are important enough issues to sack ross.
'Bomb Iran or I quit' sounds better, but far too dramatic for somebody like Ross.
What would you want most, if you were a career diplomat like Ross? maybe a republican candidate offered Ross secretary of state in return for support in the election, or something like that.
you can be a liberal zionist any more than you can be a liberal fascist.
Wexler and his friends are guilty of appeasement. Germany's and Italy's sympathizers in the 1930s made the same argument, give the fascists the land to which their entitled, let them build huge armed forces and demilitarize their enemies, and then it will fear secure and become less bellicose and make peace.
Israel's nuclear superiority gives its leaders the confidence that they can continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestine with impunity. They don't want to worry about Iran's or anyone elses reaction each time a new 'settlement' extension is announced
Shame on Obama: You'd think he would defend the deceptions necessary for an american spy like prime minister Netanyahu, aka, Miliukovsky, aka. Benjamin Nitai, John Jay Sullivan and John Jay Sullivan Jr.
link to alisonweir.org
Sarkozy and Obama are like 2 dogs complaining about being wagged by their tails.
Don't delude yourself by blaming it all on Bibi. Israeli professor ilan pappe has warned against thinking that any other israeli prime would be any better:
link to youtube.com
the anti-muslim comments mentioned demonstrate a general ignorance of the fact that the USA and Israel put enormous efforts into propping up the Saudi Arabian dictatorship and other Islamic regimes so that they continue to react with complacency as Israel expands its territory, primarily at the expense of people who themselves are Muslim.
Fascists of the world, Unite!
Zionism is such a form of national socialism. In the 19th new groups of 'people' emerged in Europe that had never been referred to such in the same way before, such as the Italian people, the German people, and the Jewish people. In the 20th century leaders of these 'peoples' emerged who maintained that they needed to purify their societies and claim lands they to which they had an ancient right and in which anyone who was not the right kind of 'people' who have to leave or accept 2nd class status. Mussolini told Italians that 'a great people needs space' and that the Meditteranean was 'Mare Nostra' (Our Sea). The National Socialist German Workers (NAZI) party claimed 'lebensraum' in eastern europe. Zionists claimed Palestine, although they hesitated and almost opted for other places like uganda. Zionism is colonial and fascism combined. Israel is Europe's last colony.
The problem is called Democracy.
The US is in the mess its in because even those jewish-americans are a small minority there are nevertheless about 25 jewish americans for every palestinian-american. There are no palestinian american senators, governors, or congressmen, none running banks, movie studios, corporations, etc.
There isn't any reason for any politician to support the palestinian cause, and there lots of reasons to be seen as a supporter of israel. If there were 6 or 7 million palestian americans and only 2 or 3 hundred thousand jewish americans, the Us would have a completely different policy.
Democracy is a better form of government than just about anything else, but it doesn't guarantee moral or ethical behaviour. A democracy can be just as cruel and inhumane as any dictatorship. When Harry Truman recognized Israel, it was against the advice of all of his officials, as it would cause enormous hardship in Palestine and make America a pariah in the Arab world. He explained by saying he didn't care about Arabs because he never heard of a case where an American election was decided by the Arab vote.
Halevy is irresponsible and wants to have his cake and eat it too. If Iran is attacked and there are dire consequences, which there no doubt will be, he can say I told you so.
Like most Israeli and their supporters the double standard that allows israel to have nuclear weapons without signing the non proliferation treaty or allowing any inspectors while condeming Iran which does not yet have these weapons but has signed the NPT seems perfectly normal.
Force will be needed to stop iran from acquiring the bomb so if you against iran having nuclear weapons you are a hypocrite if you are against the use of force to stop iran from acquiring any.
He doesn't explain what or anything should be done about the "ultra-Orthodox" because he doesn't want to be responsible for anything done to them.
In any case the war has already started with cyber attacks, assasinations, and who knows what else. The US is waging an undeclared war on Iran because the Iranians have the audacity to want a tiny fraction of the same arms that US and Israel have.
I hope iran gets nuclear weapons quickly because it maybe the only way to deter us agression. Pakistan, China, India, North Korea, Russia have enough nuclear weapons between them to destroy the world. Did anybody lose any sleep last night worrying about these weapons? The world will be safer with a nuclear iran.
this is what it says about likud at ynet, which is not unsympathetic to likud:
Israel will not allow the establishment of an Arab Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. The Palestinians will be able to manage their lives freely in the framework of an autonomous regime, but not as a sovereign, independent state.
The Jordan River will be the State of Israel's permanent border.
Jerusalem is the Jewish people's everlasting capital; it will not be divided, nor will any negotiation to the effect be conducted. Israel will continue to push for the expansion of Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem. Israel will ensure the freedom of religion and faith as well as free access to all holy places in Jerusalem, for all religions. The boosting of Jewish settlement activity in the Golan Heights will continue.
Israel's defense, safety and security will be top priority in any political negotiation or agreement. Israel will maintain all its security assets in order to ensure its ability to defend itself in times of crisis.
The Likud pledges to continue to strive for peace with all of it neighbors, while stressing security Israel's safety and security as a benchmark guideline to Mideast peace.
Israel will spare no effort in ensuring the return of all its missing and captive soldiers; Israel will continue to work for the pardon of Jonathan Pollard.
Israel will strive for a free economy while integrating into the global village, encouraging privatization and greater exposure to competition; a greater effort will be made to conserved the environment and improving infrastructure; additional government assistance will be offered in order to expand the job market and minimize unemployment; and more foreign currency, energy, tax, health and welfare reforms will be introduced.
the usa and israel are at war with iran, have been for sometime. US MSM giving tons of exposure to an alleged assasination which didn't happen, while virtually ignoring the actual assasinations of iranian scientists. We may never know the full involvement of US in the murders of Darioush Rezaie this year and Majid Shahriari in 2010. But it doesn't matter if there was no direct involement of US personnel because Israel is fully supported by US and the intelligence and defense agencies of the two countries are joined at the hip.
Its a new cold war, and its just a question of if or when the shooting begins.
That the authors felt no need to explain is a testimony to the grip the israeli lobby has on the American legislature; any senator, congressman or congresswoman would fear for their job if they even discussed cutting aid to israel as a possibility.
Two particularly startling points from this AJC:
15. Should the Palestinians be required or not be required to recognize Israel as a Jewish state in a final peace agreement? 96% Agree
This demand for recognition of a "jewish state", which has only been around for a few years, is just an example of israel's bullying of palestine, demanding something that no state can do. States only acknowldedge other state's sovereignty, not their character; Israel can define itself as a martian state if it wants, its nobody elses concern. The demand is just another way to frustrate any meaningful discussion as israel expands its illegal colonies.
even more frightening and telling is the 76% of respondents who agree that "The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel". The implications of this are enormous. If 3 quarters of all American jewish leader of any influence believes this, which by this poll would seems to be the case, there is little chance of peace in the middle east.
i fear the NY Times will retaliate. they will transfer bronner somewhere else, which will be dressed up as a promotion of some kind. then his replacement will be some zionist who will make bronner look like a palestinian activist.
"[Awlaki's] hateful ideology and targeting of innocent civilians have been rejected by the vast majority of Muslims and peoples of all faiths. "
why not, or how long before:
"Avigdor Lieberman's hateful ideology and targeting of innocent civilians have been rejected by the vast majority of Jews and peoples of all faiths. "
lawless US government!!!
Out of sight, out of mind. Obama's administration doesn't want American troops on the ground, with the images of the grieving families and the dead soldiers in the media. For the same reason, avoiding publicity, Obama doesn't want any prisoners; whether at Guantanamo Bay, or inside America.
So the solution the administration has arrived at is drone strikes in remote areas. Maximum bang for your buck, minimum publicity.
The rule of all, of course, goes completely out the window. But politicians have long known that if you are seen as providing protection, the electorate doesn't really care about the rule of law. This is especially true where the USA's victims are foreigners, but now it even applies to American citizens.
quartet is a waste of time; it exists simply to internationalize and further legitimize israel's tactic of obstruction and temporazation while its colonists grab ever more of the west bank and east jerusalem. Israel will stretch out negotiations forever if it can and the quartet is only there to help this happen.
Abbas should just forget about negotiations for the time being and concentrate on UN recognition; doing so may not work, it may backfire, but its the best of the bad range of choices facing him; hopefully and independent Palestine will be able to gain its fast disappearing leverage for dealing with israel and the us
Blair is a Zionist. He obviously sold out to the British Zionist lobby in order to get elected. Lord Levy, the chief fundraiser for the Labour Party during Blair's leadership, was also the chief fund raiser for Israel. Levy was almost jailed for abusing his position. Blair embraced the invasion of Iraq, probably because for one thing is was so good for israel. this guy is bad.
Don't agree with Jerome's analysis. Obama could take a lesson from President Eisenhower, who went over the heads of the Congress and went on TV to explain how he had to boot the Israeli's out of Gaza, which they had occupied during the Suez crisis in 1956. Ben Gurion and Golda Meir had initially told him Ike that a return to the status quo ante was impossible.
If the US President wanted to force israel to do something, he could easily do so. Congress would protest but would simply have to accomodate itself; Majority Leader and closet zionist Lyndon Johnson was livid about Ike's decision, but couldn't do anything about it.
Similar situation with Apartheid South Africa as there is with Apartheid Israel now. US withdrew its support for the Apartheid government and apartheid collapsed. The US could completely alter Israel's fate, but unfortunately the tail wags the dog.
No way that Bibi wants a Palestinian state declared on his watch; even this"armored plated bullshitter" will have a hard time living that down for the rest of his life.
Never forget that the word 'appeasement' was first used by Churchill and others not to refer to Hitler but to Gandhi. Only after the term had been used to deride the legitimate aspirations of Indian nationalists was it used to refer to the situation in Europe.
After this speech, and the 'obama no friend of israel' billboards in new York, and the election in Brooklyn that was all about Israel, you have to wonder if Obama sometimes thinks, "I might as well just go ahead and recognize Palestine, the Zionists are going to think i'm anti-israel whatever i do."
I agree with hophmi, but for reasons hophmi would like.
Israel loves the sense of crisis; it plays into israel's hands. Israel loves to pretend its under serious threat, so it can demand more money and support from the US. The reality is that Israel is winning; Palestine keeps dissapearing. But Palestine and its friends are helpless before the might of Israel and the United States. What difference will it make if the settlements expand in a recognized nation state? I hope the US has to use its veto in the Security Council, so that the world will see that all the US talk about a palestinian state is just so much hot air.
The US is there because of Israel. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are for Israel. The present intervention in the Libyan civil war is also designed to install a more American and Israeli friendly government. Ousted Tunisian President Ben Ali's driver has revealed that his boss was a Mossad spy, helping them assasinate Palestinians. The same is probably true for Mubarak in Egypt, and other Arab leaders as well.
Those invasions of Afganistan and Iraq would not have happened without 9/11. 9/11 would not have happened if israel did not exist. (In the overall context of a brutalized and warlike American society, it would have been much more difficult and controversial for Obama to take on the Libyan campaign if US troops were not so heavily deployed in Asia). Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Osama Bin Laden, Mohammed Atta, etc, all identified with the Palestinian people. New York is as much the center of Jewish pro-Israeli America as anywhere else, and the mass murders which happened on 9/11, though deplorable and disgusting, were a predictable response to America's unqualified support for Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Arab oil is a factor in the wars as well; US military presence in the Middle East is designed to make another Arab oil embargo unthinkable. But there would never have been the prospect of an embargo if not for US support for Israel.
The 9/11 commission heard evidence from the FBI that the attacks on America were caused by the 'Palestinian problem.' This 'problem' existed before WW2, when Zionists and everyone else referred to it as the 'Jewish problem' or the 'Jewish question.' Zionists like Ben Gurion decided the answer to the 'Jewish problem' was 'compulsory transfer.' We are still living with the same problem today. The only thing that has changed is that a place that was universally referred to as Palestine is now called Israel, and the conflict there is no longer called the 'Jewish problem' but the 'Palestinian problem.' This 'problem' is the major issue in world politics, replacing the 'communist problem' before 1989 and the 'German problem' before 1945.
You can only answer the question of what the hell US troops are doing in places like Kandahar and Helmand if you see it in this context. US foreign and military policy is completely subservient to Israeli interests.
What else can the PA do besides try the UN? The Palestinians are watching their country disappear before their eyes, bulldozed house after bulldozed house, under Israel's relentless campaign of ethnic cleansing. Observing Palestine is like watching a friend slowly die, or like being a scientist accumulating data on a much loved species that indicates that its going extinct. Palestine appears to be a case of a managed extinction. Israel is the agent of this extinction, but the USA is the manager.
"should we just assume that their interests are one?" YES YES YES!!
Settlers should no more be considered 'extremists' than the US Navy Seals or the British SAS or the CIA or MI5 are extremists. They are fully supported and funded by the Israeli state, and doing the work that Israel wants them to do. The very fact that they are referred to as 'settlers' or 'extremists' is a victory for israeli propaganda; these labels allow israeli spokesmen to wash their hands of the settlers state sponsored terrorism and ethnic cleansing whenever its convenient to do so.
Obama's administration are putting America at risk, in order to increase Obama's chances of re-election.
This reminds me of how in the early months of the G.W. Bush administration he and Condi Rice decided to downgrade the importance of catching Osama Bin Laden and focus more strongly on confronting Saddam Hussein and Iraq, a decision driven by domestic politics. The Republicans had scoffed at Bill Clinton's efforts to kill Bin Laden, arguing that the Clinton administration was sending rockets into Afghanistan and Sudan just to distract the public attentions from Monica Lewinsky and other domestic woes. So once in power, W. had to follow the tone the republicans had taken for years and in the campaign, that Clinton was weak on security because he hadn't done enough to confront Iraq. 9/11 should have shown everybody that Clinton was right and Bush was wrong, but instead Bush merely stepped up his confrontation with Saddam by several gears and implied that the Iraquis and Al Queda were the same problem.
Now Obama is similarly digging his head in the sand, refusing not only that support for Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine is not only not central to America's 'terrorism' problem, but not even acknowledging that the I/P conflict contribute at all to the threats that the US is facing. Doing so would open up Israel's policy to analysis, and analysis would lead to criticism. Obama doesn't want that to happen, and would rather risk another 9/11 than risk criticizing Israel.
totally agree with this un-named views. Too many people think that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine can be stopped easily. It can't.
Some people think that Israel is in some sort of crisis with regards to its devouring of Palestine, but any sense of crisis just plays into Israel's hands. Israel is more powerful than ever. Israel completely owns US policy with regards to Palestine/Israel and any other US policy which impacts on Israel. There is no reason for the status quo, which is the continuing dismemberment of Palestine, not to continue.
If I was an artist considering playing Israel, Dylan's experience would show me that doing so is a lose lose proposal. You first of all risk being derided by the growing band of critics of Israel in the western world. But 'playing Israel' won't please the Israelis either, unless you go out of your way to make dramatic gestures of support; you'll look just like somebody who flew in and out to collect a big check. Dylan won't have any enthusiasm for playing israel again.
Israelis love to celebrate their real live jewish heros, don't they?
Now all they have to do is visit Lucas, in jail.
It reminds of Bono's foolish question, where are the gandhi's in the Israel/Palestine conflict?
Just like Mohandas Gandhi, they can be found in British built jails.
Whatever the actual percentage "Jewish money" makes up of Democratic or Republican campaign contributions, how does one correctly describe the influence of "Jewish money" in American life, American politics, and American foreign policy towards the Middle East and P/I conflict?
I've seen any number of articles denouncing the mere mention of "Jewish money" as evidence of antisemitism. With the JTA itself now using this terminology, how does one refer to the enormous influence of "Jewish money" without being accused of being a self hating jew or an anti-semite?
It is important because one can not even begin to explain how the USA's harmful foreign policy towards Palestine has been formulated without referring to the influence of "Jewish money".
There has not been a 'failure'. Israel has in fact been consistently successful in expanding its territory. With every bulldozed Palestinian home and pronouncement of a new 'settlement', Israel expands further and further. All the while this has been happening, the bulk of the western world, including people critical of Israel, regard it as a country which has been 'frustrated' in its attempts to pursue peace. Israel therefore not only gets to expand its territory, but it also gets credit for trying to make peace.
At the moment we have a very interesting parallel, with Gaddafi in Libya. Many of his supporters and probably many other observers all over the world regard him also as someone genuinely seeking peace. The western media and western politician regard him with Gaddafi's 'peace' attempts cynically, just as they naively regard Israel's 'peace' attempts with sympathy.
Israel hasn't failed. It has been overwhelmingly succesful in fulfilling the zionist goal of the complete extinction of Palestine, and looks set to continue on that course.
It is true it is not about the '67 lines. It is not about any lines. What is 'new' is not Obama's enunciation of the '67 lines, but rather Netanyahu's rejection of them. Even then, it is not really significant that Netanyahu rejects the '67 borders; the real significance is that neither he nor any other zionists has made a single suggestion of where the borders should be; which means the status quo will continue, in which the possession of any particular part of Palestine is determined not by law but by brute force. With Israel's formidable military, and backing by the even more formidable United States, army-less Palestine will continue to lose and lose more land until there it left.
hophmi on zionists: "We don’t have to be popular to be right."
hophmi on anti-zionist aipac protesters:
"Anyway, this doesn’t seem like much of a crowd given that there were 10000 people at AIPAC."
The double standards employed by Zionists to justify and rationalize their ethnic cleansing state is as endless as it is nauseating, but it is rare to see such a blatant example on one blog page!
Everything is working is Israel's favor. The US gives more money to Israel than ever, military/intelligence co-operation is stronger than ever. The colonists steal ever more Arab land, ever more announcements of new colonies are made.
I bet the private talks between Bibi and Obama were in complete contrast to the public rancor, finalizing all the military/nuclear/intelligence operations that the 2 countries are jointly conducting. Each guy wants to look tough; Obama wants to show the Arab world to show he is not a pushover for Bibi, but of course he is. You can talk and talk and talk but the reality on the ground is what matter: Palestine disappears and Israel grows larger.
Obama to Abbas: Palestine is going to continue to be devoured by Israel, the US will continue to allow this to happen, and going to the UN won't make any difference.
The situation is easy to understand by simply asking yourself the question, can you think of any prominent, powerful Palestinian Americans? Businessmen, White House & Administration Officials, Senators, Congressmen, Media Moguls, etc, who have a particular reason to want to see Palestine thrive, its people succeed?
Contrast that with all the rich and prominent Americans who want to see Israel survive. Then remember how overwhelmingly powerful America is, and its easy to see how we got in the mess we are today.
Mitchell's attempt to secure 'peace' as was a doomed as a that of 16th or 17th century British negotiator sent by a ruler like Queen Elizabeth and Oliver Cromwell at the same time when the English were acquiring as much land in Ireland as possible.
The difference between Ireland and the Middle East today is that in the former the case the borders are both static and agreed upon. In Palestine by the border is disputed by many israelis and in any case it is ever shifting as more palestinians are evicted and ethnically cleansed.
If one understands that the occupation of Palestine is a kind of slow, creeping invasion, you can see that Mitchell's task was not only always doomed, but actually ridiculous. The phoney 'peace process' is just israel's way of stalling talks while zionist colonists backed by their army acquire ever more land. 'Peace' attempts are even more zany when one takes into account that this program to create a Greater Israel has never been hidden and is no surprise; acquiring all of Palestine, expelling its indigenous people, and turning it into a jewish state is the oft expressed desire of Ben Gurion and a host of other Zionists leaders.
"once Israel is ready to pursue peace with its neighbors" is the only phrase in this article that is even vaguely accurate, because it carries with it the absolutely correct implication that israel is not pursuing peace at the moment.
zionists have been stealing land from palestinians for almost a century now, a process that only greatly accelerated with the founding of the state of israel. Israel is stronger than ever. Think of all the wars and upheavals and challenges zionists have faced over the last century. The current arab uprisings and political situation are just a bump on the road to the fulfillment of the ben gurion's vision of turning all of palestine, and lands beyond, into a jewish state. A peace deal means the end of territorial expansion, and there is no reason for israel to pursue peace. Why should israel stop the ethnic cleansing of the west bank? Does anybody really think israel will give up its 'settlements.' In the usa, you can buy wine from the golan heights for passover. Does anybody think israel can willingly give up the Golan? Peace means giving up land, and perhaps more importantly giving up the dream of further territorial expansion. All negotiations with palestinians have just been a farce. Israel does not want peace and will only sign up to a peace deal that is forced upon it, and that looks very unlikely.
The problem with people like Mathews is that they accept they idea that possession of certain weapons can justify going to war. What war that you ever read about in history was justified on the basis that some other country had 'weapons?'. Even if your adversary had a superior arsenal, it alone can not justify aggression. When you consider the overwhelming superiority of the US arsenal, the whole case for war in iraq is even more ridiculous. The fact people supported the war on the basis of possession of weapons is depressing. The neocons were able to tap into the arrogant assumption in western the society that the US and its allies have the right to sit in judgement of whether or not another country should or shouldn't be allowed to have weapons.
As for 'curveball', Presidents and their advisors are always going to be thrown a lot of 'curveballs.' There are always going to be an array of spies out there with all kinds of conflicting information, always enemies or friends of a given regime who will lie or exagerrate to support their agenda. If a President decides to go to war, he or she will always be able to cherry pick whatever information justifies the decision for war. That has always been the case, but with the explosion in information technology it has become a lot easier.
I don't think that is correct eva. Parsons is the CEO of godaddy, the largest domain registration company. The actual owner of the domain has kept his/her/its identity anonymous by using a company called domainsbyproxy which offers an anonymity service. Anyone interested in acquiring this domain would first start by contacting the email address firstname.lastname@example.org. They would most probably charge a substantial fee to buy the domain, if they were in fact willing to sell.
There are legal processes which one can go through to acquire a domain that you think is rightfully yours, but this is expensive too.
In any case you might never found out who the legal registrant of the name is at the moment.
There are thousands of companies and individuals who automatically re-register domains the moment they expire. The most important criteria is the number of visitors. Once the domain is re-registered, the page is filled with advertisements using completely automated processes which maximize the revenue for the new domain registrant. Each time you click on one of the links, the new registrant earns a few pennies. Whoever owns this domain now probably doesn't know and doesn't care who ilan pappe is. Its all about money. There are many players in this market, but the vast majority of the revenue goes to google.
The interesting thing is to see what ads are automatically served up. Anyone can create a google adwords account and designate what keywords you are interested in and how much you are willing to pay for each click. When you do so you don't know where your ads will appear. Google tries to ensure they appear on the ads for the most relevant domains. The fact that the ads on ilanpappe.com are all about israeli services like apartments, flights, etc. just shows how israel is rich and palestine is poor.
I'm sorry i missed this important conference.
I noticed in the syllabus that there was a BBQ. There were also parking instructions.
Unfortunately I could not find any information on the antisemitism of BBQ's and the antisemitism of parking instructions. I'm sure these were among the topics discussed.
How long before mondoweiss.net gets shut down? Also in the lecture topics were the following:
The Internet and the Proliferation of Antisemitism
• Professor Abraham Wagner, Columbia University: “Antisemitism in the Internet Era”
• Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Simon Wiesenthal Center: “Digital Antisemitism”
• Mark Dubowitz, Foundation for Defense of Democracies: “Terrorist Media "
what exactly is the conspiracy theory?
newsweek goes from one pro-israel owner (w. post) to another?
for italian fascists the whole mediterranean was 'our sea'. they came late to the 'scramble for africa' and tried to take ethiopia, eritrea and somalia; due to the the lengthy occupation and colonization its easy to find italian speakers in those countries today.
Robert O. Paxton was chairman of History at Columbia U. In NY for a time. With his thoughtful and perceptive thoughts about Israel, I wonder how he would get along there if he was a young teacher there today?
One of his great insights into postwar France was the widespread belief that during the Vichy period the French were reluctant collaborators, doing their best to frustrate nazi initiatives. In fact the Vichy government was enthusiastically fascist, taking initiatives without reference to Berlin. Paxton upset some French with his analysis of this collective denial, but they eventually came to accept his views; Paxton has often been on French TV and has been brought as an expert witness into trials of former Vichy officials.
Can you imagine someone being feted and honored in the US today, for thier insights into Israel's ethnic cleansing of 100s of thousands of palestinians in the 20th century and the collective Israeli denial that it ever happened?
I think you either need new terms to describe the fascist like policies of the Israeli state, or you should simply use terms commonly applied to all polities which employ abhorrent practices today, such as ethnic cleansing.
In Hungary the term for the particular brand of fascism was 'Hungarism', so a good term to describe Israel's repellent policies is 'Israelism'.
Comparing anybody to hitler or mussolini or comparing one state's policies to fascism or naziism in europe in the 1930's or 1940's may be tempting but it in the end its probably self defeating.
One thing fascism and nazzissm had in common with today's 'israelism' is the desire for territorial expansion at the expense of other people, who's claims to the land in question and who's very existence was completely negated.
"A Great People Needs Space" was a common banner to see in fascist italy, reminiscent of a zionism's "a land without a people for a people without a land" In both cases the people in question, in the land to be acquired, simply aren't there. 'Israelism' negates the cultures, traditions, and existence of the people living on the land that zionists want.
Americans were once 'israelists'. The early settlers in English colonial America considered they were building a new israel. Malcontents and criminals were termed as 'disturbers of our israel.'
Again, the fact that there were millions of people, indigenous Americans, already living in america, with their own rival claims, cultures and traditions, was completely ignored and nullified.
US Investigators discover that telephone calls were made to the Pentagon and the World Trade Center warning of impending attacks on these buildings, half an hour before hijacked planes flew into these builings on September 11, 2001.
The US Government announced that in light of these new findings the war on terror has been cancelled, and the heroes of September 11 will be honored accordingly.
Statues will shortly be erected in New York City and Washington D.C. of both Osama Bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the men who instigated these attacks (out of anger at unlimited US support for Israel).
Isn't anybody going to warn Mezvinsky and his family about the dangerous terrorist family into which the young man is marrying. We have from no less a figure than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his recently released 'America is a thing you can move very easily' video, that Chelsea's father Bill Clinton is a pro-Palestinian fanatic.
Never did get a chance to make his position clear. Now the US foreign policy in the Middle East is in itself completely completely subject to 'squalid political purposes'
Since its only recently been discovered that in 1946, Irgun plotted to assassinate UK Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin and other British Parliament members, but the plot was foiled by the MI5, Congress should open a new investigation into Forrestal's 'suicide'.
Not that it can be expected to happen, though. Easy to see from the above conversations why Harry Truman said: "In all of my political experience I don't ever recall the Arab vote swinging a close election."
less is generally known about the first Muslims in the world. There may have a mosque in the Americas before there was any Protestant church, perhaps even on the american mainland.
Muslims were living in permanent settlements in the Western hemisphere for many years before the first durable English settlements in Jamestown & Plymouth. 'Moors' definitely sometimes accompanied the Spanish ships that travelled to the New World in the 16th century, and there may have been any number of 'moors' on other European ships that came to the new world as well. When Englishmen attacked Spanish settlements in the Caribbean they sometimes recorded that they found themselves fighting against Muslims as well as Spaniards. For example, decades before sailing to Jamestown with John Smith, Captain Christopher Newport in 1592 attacked the Spanish in Hispaniola in a small flotilla of frigates. After sacking one town, Newport's flotilla then sailed to another Spanish controlled island they called Aguava where they "burned the towne being a poore place inhabited by moores & spaniards ..."
You can see how just one incident like this could create one sept 11 plot to bring down the world trade center. And its just one incident of thousands.
not sure if this is mearsheimer at his best. no mention of the widespread deception that israel to mask the development of its nuclear weapons program; With their fact control rooms and so Israelis probably far outdid anything the iranians are doing now. Mearsheimer asks "My first question about (Israel's nuclear)opacity is who are you fooling?" He doesn't seem to understand that the most important people to keep fooled are the bulk of the american people, who hear endlessly about weapons in iran and iraq that don't exist and nothing of israel's very real weapons. US public would have far less support for action against Iran if it was widely understand that israel has lots of nucleur weapons and has had had them for a long time.
Ken's satiric reference to the 'peaceful and wonderful Palestinians' is a good example of the extent to which israel controls the narrative in the middle east. Its not just that it doesn't occur to him that palestinians can be peaceful; most of them are peaceful. The Palestinian people as a whole ARE wonderful. They've endured nearly a half century of a brutal occupation with incredible resilience.
Thaddeus Russell's article is good, but it doesn't go far enough. Americans are not only dying because of Israel's actions. Americans are being killed by Israelis.
Russell mentions Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, but doesn't mention Forrestal's mysterious suicide after men he believed to be Zionists were following him. The recent discovery that Zionists were definitely plotting to kill UK Foreign Minister Bevin at about the same time lends weight to the possiblity that Forrestal was targetted for assasination by Israel.
Even if Israel didn't kill Forrestal, they have definitely killed lots of other Americans, notably the 34 men of the USS Liberty; Israeli forces wounded more than 100 more. Then there are peace activists like Rachel Corrie, mowed down by an armored Israeli bulldozer while trying to stop the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Israelis never thank Americans for everything given to them, but only complain that want more money, and more diplomatic support. Americans are told that any questioning of Israel's policies is antisemitism.
So Americans should not be asking questions like:
Should American foreign policy be tougher on Israel?
Do Israelis enjoy seeing Americans die because of them?
Do Israelis enjoy killing Americans?
Its about 3 miles from ground zero to 36th and 6th. Will an inquiry be launched into how Mohamed Atta missed the target by 3 whole miles?
Comments are closed.