Trending Topics:

In ‘Dear Dad’ letter in 1939, JFK called for ‘independent’ Jerusalem

News
on 168 Comments

As a young man, Jack Kennedy was largely sympathetic to the Arabs in Palestine but called for dividing the land between Palestinians and Jews and keeping Jerusalem independent.

This is the thrust of a “Dear Dad” letter about the Palestine problem written by Kennedy at 22 to his father Joseph, who was then the ambassador to Britain. It was 1939, and Kennedy’s father had sent the Harvard undergrad to the Middle East to tell him what was going on. (Thanks to As’ad Abu Khalil for picking it up. I wonder when Chris Matthews will get to it.)

I think the letter is brilliant. The thoughts are incredibly cogent, for a 22-year-old, and reflect a desire to be the honest broker. Kennedy is mostly on the Arab side in this letter. He reflects their long history in the land and the arrogance of the Zionist immigrants, their desire to dominate. He largely describes the Jewish immigrants in colonial terms (cultural superiority, desire for economic domination), but also recognizes that they are “refugees” from the Nazis.

Kennedy saw that the heart of the conflict was two claims to land, and thought the only way to resolve them was partition. But citing Jewish desire to dominate the land he made it clear that Jerusalem should be independent.

“Jerusalem, having the background that it has, should be an independent unit.”

He believed what I believe about the Balfour Declaration, that it was deployed by the British government to win Jewry to its side during WWI:

“During the war the British government, desiring both the assistance of the Jews and the Arabs, made separate promises to both, one in the McMahon, the other in the Balfour Declaration.”

The Arab sympathy reflected in the letter:

Arabs “naturally” objected to “the Jewish encroachment” of immigration, feeling that the Jews intended to “dominate” them economically.

“On the Jewish side there is the desire for complete domination, with Jerusalem as the capital of their new land of milk and honey, with the right to colonize in Transjordan …”

And here he seems to reflect the expat crowd, the diplomats and other western voices.

“The sympathy of the people on the ground seems to be with the Arabs. This is not only because the Jews have had, at least some of their leaders, an unfortunately arrogant, uncompromising attitude, but they feel that after all, the country has been Arabic for the last few hundred years and they naturally feel sympathetic.”

P.S. A smart friend has pointed out to me the phrase at the beginning of the letter, in which JFK says to his father: “Dear Dad: I thought I would write you my impressions on Palestine while they were still fresh in my mind, though you undoubtedly, if I know the Jews, know the ‘whole’ story.” This is anti-Semitic dogwhistling. JFK’s father was famous for his anti-semitism. JFK is saying that “the Jews” have already gotten to his father with the hasbara. And so he is telling him the real story… Complicated.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

168 Responses

  1. Cliff on October 9, 2012, 12:21 pm

    Far removed from the social pressures and taboos of our era. It was a different time.

  2. iamuglow on October 9, 2012, 12:40 pm

    “After all, Palestine was hardly Britian’s to give away.”

    Great piece of history. Can’t make out what he meant in the first paragraph…

    • ColinWright on October 9, 2012, 4:43 pm

      To iamuglow:

      I assume that by ‘after all, Palestine was hardly Britain’s to give away’ Kennedy is referring to the fact that Palestine was awarded to Britain not as a possession, but as a mandate.

      The theory of a ‘mandate’ being I assume that a given area is not ready for self-government, and that the ‘mandatory’ power is in the position of a guardian, who is to supervise it until it is ready for self-government. However, that doesn’t imply ownership.

      • iamuglow on October 9, 2012, 10:12 pm

        Hi Colin,

        Sorry, that wasn’t the line that confused me. It was

        “I thought I would write down my thoughts on Palestine while they were still fresh in my mind although you undoubtedly, if I know the Jews, know the “whole” story.

        Now that I write it though, I think he is referring to assuming that his father has had one side of story told to him.

      • Citizen on October 11, 2012, 3:39 pm

        @ iamuglow
        Yes, that’s how I took it upon first reading. He’s telling his father that he’s going to give him his first-hand thoughts on the I-P situation, which will conflict with “the whole story” which he figured his father knew at the time from Jewish advocates.

      • iamuglow on October 12, 2012, 11:16 am

        Yeah, I guess I missed Phils postscript.

        “P.S. A smart friend has pointed out to me the phrase at the beginning of the letter, in which JFK says to his father: “Dear Dad: I thought I would write you my impressions on Palestine while they were still fresh in my mind, though you undoubtedly, if I know the Jews, know the ‘whole’ story.” This is anti-Semitic dogwhistling. JFK’s father was famous for his anti-semitism. JFK is saying that “the Jews” have already gotten to his father with the hasbara. And so he is telling him the real story… Complicated. ”

        “anti-Semitic dogwhistling” sounds too dismissive to me.

        It sounds to me like he talking about lobbying. If he knows “the Jews” they’ve already told his father the ‘whole’ story.’ “The Jews” sounds crude, but is he really referring some eternal trait of “The Jews” when he assumes they’ve told his father the whole story? Or is saying if he knows “the Jews”, referring them to a group the he knows has been lobbying the goverment about Palestine have told him the ‘whole’ story?

        The latter seems more reasonable to me. I would file it under evidence that in 1939, it was common knowledge in this instance to JFK that ‘the Jews’ (Zionists supporters in America) were heavily lobbying politicians about Palestine, telling them their side of story.

        MW has posted articles stating the same thing and will cite diaries from that State Department offical, Forestor(sic) showing that this lobbying was going on…but when confronted with someone else saying it, maybe crudely, without too much thought it gets called, “anti-Semitic dogwhistling”? Ah well.

  3. Kathleen on October 9, 2012, 12:55 pm

    22 years old. What an insightful letter. Mentions the oil line between Haifa and Iraq. I interesting that he states that the bombing in the Jewish quarter are set off by Jews who then demand that Britain come into fix. So those bombings were blamed on who?

    Thanks

    • annie on October 9, 2012, 1:20 pm

      “There were 13 bombs set off my last evening there, all in the Jewish quarter and all set off by Jews. The ironical part is that the Jewish terrorists bomb their own telephone lines and electrical connections and the next day frantically phone the British to come fix them”.

      maybe they sought upgrades and thought that was the most effective way to get them? ;)

  4. seanmcbride on October 9, 2012, 2:12 pm

    I don’t endorse conspiracy theories on any subject, but I do take cognizance of some conspiracy *speculations*, depending on the quality of the facts and reasoning that support them, and file them away for future reference as new facts are disclosed or uncovered:

    “Wikipedia: John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories: Israeli conspiracy”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories

    This theory alleges that the Israeli government was displeased with Kennedy for his pressure against their pursuit of a top-secret nuclear program at the Negev Nuclear Research Center (commonly called “Dimona”) and/or the Israelis were angry over Kennedy’s sympathies with Arabs. Gangster Meyer Lansky and Lyndon B. Johnson often play pivotal roles in this conspiracy theory as organizing and preparing the hit, thus bleeding into and possibly catalyzing many of the other conspiracies as well.

    In July 2004 Israel’s nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu claimed in the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper that the state of Israel was complicit in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Vanunu, a former technician at the Dimona plant who was jailed for 18 years for revealing its inner workings to Britain’s Sunday Times in 1986, made the statement after his 2004 release. He claimed there were “near-certain indications” Kennedy was assassinated in response to “pressure he exerted on Israel’s then head of government, David Ben-Gurion, to shed light on Dimona’s nuclear reactor.”

    Key phrase: “angry over Kennedy’s sympathies with Arabs.”

    It’s easy to dig into this discussion with a few well-crafted Google searches:

    1. john kennedy assassination israel
    2. john kennedy assassination israel clay shaw
    3. john kennedy assassination israel david ben gurion
    4. john kennedy assassination israel dimona
    5. john kennedy assassination israel jack ruby
    6. john kennedy assassination israel james angleton
    7. john kennedy assassination israel jim garrison
    8. john kennedy assassination israel levi eshkol
    9. john kennedy assassination israel louis bloomfield
    10. john kennedy assassination israel meyer lansky
    11. john kennedy assassination israel michael piper
    12. john kennedy assassination israel mordechai vanunu
    13. john kennedy assassination israel mossad
    14. john kennedy assassination israel nuclear
    15. john kennedy assassination israel permindex
    16. john kennedy assassination israel shaul eisenberg
    17. john kennedy assassination israel site:amazon.com
    18. john kennedy assassination israel site:books.google.com
    19. john kennedy assassination israel site:youtube.com
    20. john kennedy assassination israel speech
    21. john kennedy assassination israel tibor rosenbaum

    • American on October 9, 2012, 7:18 pm

      @ sean

      Conspiracy theories have gotten a bad name because of outlandish ones that are utterly stupid.
      The world is actually full of conspiracies, lots of them, by lots of people.
      Conspiracies and governments go together like hats and gloves.

      • seanmcbride on October 10, 2012, 9:10 am

        American,

        Power elites from all cultures throughout all of human history have indulged in conspiratorial behavior on a regular basis. Mainstream conventional history is largely a chronicle of conspiracies — and there is nothing theoretical or speculative about it.

        Governments around the world collectively spend many billions of dollars a year to offensively operate and defensively detect conspiracies, both from without and from within. It’s the way of the world.

    • hophmi on October 10, 2012, 11:16 am

      Why does the moderator let crap like this through?

      Is any part of this blog dedicated to the idea that Israel was involved in the Kennedy assassination?

      Remember folks, Sean isn’t a conspiracy theorist.

      Note to Major League Baseball: Increase the surveillance.

      • Woody Tanaka on October 10, 2012, 12:22 pm

        LMAO. The idea that the israelis killed Kennedy is solid fact compared to whoppers such as “the Jews were slaves in Egypt and the land of Palestine was their promised land, deeded by god.” I don’t suppose you want to call for garbage like the latter to be stricken from this site…

      • Cliff on October 10, 2012, 2:35 pm

        Exactly Woody.

        But to these people (nationalist fanatics) – dishonesty comes so naturally.

        Hoppy and his tin-foil cultist ideology shove their religious garbage down everyone’s throats about how Jews are ‘returning’ to their ancient homeland and yada yada yada Zionism – and meanwhile we aren’t supposed to discuss stuff like this because THIS is the actual conspiracy!

        Yep!

      • seanmcbride on October 10, 2012, 3:23 pm

        Hophmi continues to wail away and flail away at his ethnic and ethnic nationalist enemies in a way that places him far outside the sane and normal behavior of most Americans, few of whom are ethnic nationalists or even mildly ethnocentric. This is how he appears to be wired — either by innate temperament or cult programming.

      • hophmi on October 10, 2012, 5:25 pm

        “Hophmi continues to wail away and flail away at his ethnic and ethnic nationalist enemies in a way that places him far outside the sane and normal behavior of most Americans, few of whom are ethnic nationalists or even mildly ethnocentric. ”

        Sean continues to duck any debate by falling back on the old fact-free ad hominem. Like most people with mental problems, he asserts that whomever does not think like him must be crazy.

      • eljay on October 10, 2012, 6:12 pm

        >> The idea that the israelis killed Kennedy is solid fact compared to whoppers such as “the Jews were slaves in Egypt and the land of Palestine was their promised land, deeded by god.”

        IMO, unless these allegations can be proven, they shouldn’t be admitted as “fact” on this site (or anywhere else, for that matter).

      • Woody Tanaka on October 11, 2012, 10:29 am

        “IMO, unless these allegations can be proven, they shouldn’t be admitted as ‘fact’ on this site (or anywhere else, for that matter).”

        eljay, I don’t disagree. My point was merely that it is laughable for hoppy to complain about this conspiracy theory — which has zero practical effect to anyone — but not complain when people cite to ancient religious stories as grounds for the theft of Palestine — when those stories are not based on any facts at all and which vastly affect people’s lives for the worse.

      • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 11:30 am

        hophmi wrote:

        Sean continues to duck any debate by falling back on the old fact-free ad hominem.

        The terms “ethnic nationalism” and “ethnocentrism” are not ad hominems: they are precise and objective terms that are used all the time in the serious social science and humanities literature to describe actual and well-understood phenomena in the real world.

        hophmi — why even bother trying to deny that you profile out as extremely ethnic nationalist and ethnocentric when you have posted 4000+ extremely ethnic nationalist and ethnocentric comments on Mondoweiss? Your Jewish nationalism is as conspicuous as the white nationalism of David Duke, but arguably more abrasive and irrational.

        You are one of the most ethnocentric personalities on the Internet — in a class with Jeffrey Goldberg, Yid with Lid, buberzionist and Pamela Geller.

        Most Americans are not ethnocentric in their politics and most Americans strongly reject ethnic and religious nationalism as political ideologies. Americanism, unlike Zionism, is all about transcending ethnic and religious nationalism and rising to a higher level of cultural evolution based on Enlightenment principles.

        These questions go to the heart of Israel’s viability as a legitimate state within the Western democratic world. You continue to duck a reasonable discussion of this issue. And you are in serious denial about your overexcited ethnocentrism and ethnic xenophobia.

      • Ellen on October 11, 2012, 11:32 am

        Woody, well said!

      • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 12:02 pm

        hophmi,

        Let’s conduct a little exercise to help you understand the concepts of “ethnic nationalism” and “ethnocentrism.”

        Review the last 25 blog posts of both Jeffrey Goldberg and Andrew Sullivan and compare the number of ethnic nationalist and ethnocentric posts by each author. Let’s see what numbers you come up and what numbers I come up with. Let’s establish clear guidelines for defining the characteristics of ethnic nationalist and ethnocentric posts.

        Show us your critical thinking skills in action.

      • eljay on October 11, 2012, 12:44 pm

        >> eljay, I don’t disagree. My point was merely that it is laughable for hoppy to complain about this conspiracy theory — which has zero practical effect to anyone — but not complain when people cite to ancient religious stories as grounds for the theft of Palestine — when those stories are not based on any facts at all and which vastly affect people’s lives for the worse.

        Understood. And I agree that hophmi should be more consistent with his disdain for unsupported “facts”.

      • Citizen on October 11, 2012, 3:49 pm

        @ hophmi
        Say it aint’ so, Joe.
        Wash, rinse, repeat: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/07/13/somers-monologue-say-it-aint-so-joe-and-the-freeh-report-says-he-did/

        In between, facts surrounding Truman’s unilateral recognition of Israel would also be claimed as nutjob conspiracy theory–except Truman left a diary.

      • seanmcbride on October 10, 2012, 1:12 pm

        Hophmi,

        1. Have you had any contacts or communications with ADL officials or employees during the past five years?

        2. Are you currently in contact with or communicating with any ADL officials or employees?

        3. How many Americans have you verbally attacked over the last decade on behalf of Jewish nationalism and Israel?

        Note: none of these questions are rhetorical in nature.

        Your agenda on Mondoweiss over the span of 4,000+ comments is in perfect consonance with the ADL’s agenda. You give the impression that you are engaging in systematic thought police enforcement on behalf of the ADL.

        Regarding “conspiracy theories”: I was well ahead of the curve in debunking numerous official conspiracy theories during the last decade:

        1. Saddam was behind 9/11? Nope.

        2. Saddam possessed WMDs? Nope.

        3. Saddam was behind the 9/11 anthrax attacks? Nope.

        4. Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 anthrax attacks? Nope.

        5. Steven Hatfill was behind the 9/11 anthrax attacks? Nope.

        5. Iran threatened to wipe Israel off the map? Nope.

        Who would have guessed that the Vietnam War was fought on the basis of a deliberate lie (the Gulf of Tonkin)?

        Who would have guessed that the Muslim terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were under the control of the FBI?

        Over the years Israel has repeatedly been caught telling one lie after another about its various bungled intelligence operations: the Lavon Affair, the USS Liberty attack, Jonathan Pollard, the Dubai assassination, etc. — a pattern of behavior that has inflicted serious, and probably irrecoverable damage on its credibility.

        Regarding the JFK assassination: I don’t believe the official story, but I don’t claim to know who was behind it, nor do I subscribe to any “conspiracy theories” on the issue. I continue to look at and evaluate new facts and information on that subject as they come to light.

        Did Israel in fact consider John F. Kennedy to be an obstacle to developing its nuclear warfare capabilities in the early 1960s? Certainly that is a topic of significant relevance for Mondoweiss. We need to know much more about the history and current status of Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

      • hophmi on October 10, 2012, 1:52 pm

        “1. Have you had any contacts or communications with ADL officials or employees during the past five years?”

        You’ve asked this question several times now. It is irrelevant and excessively personal. But I’ll answer it again: I know ADL officials quite well because, as I say, I’ve attended my share of ADL events over the years, mostly on civil rights issues. I don’t count the number of contacts because I stopped reporting them to my handlers in Major League Baseball years ago. Did you know that Joe Girardi is now actually the agent in charge of bring down the number 4 guy in Al-Qaeda? I don’t know how the guy does it. I mean, he manages the Yankees and fights the War on Terror at the same time. I know, you’re thinking: It must be easy because they always get the number 3’s. But ah, you never hear about the number 4, or as MLB calls it, Al-Qaeda’s bench coach. Some people are so good at multitasking. Wait a minute – maybe that’s why Bobby Valentine was fired!

        “2. Are you currently in contact with or communicating with any ADL officials or employees?”

        Why yes! I know some ADL people. Their code names are Winky, Dinky, and Dodd. Winky is like my bestie in the ADL.

        “3. How many Americans have you verbally attacked over the last decade on behalf of Jewish nationalism and Israel?”

        Verbally attacked? I’ve never spit on anybody.

        “Note: none of these questions are rhetorical in nature.”

        LOL. Unfortunately.

        “Your agenda on Mondoweiss over the span of 4,000+ comments is in perfect consonance with the ADL’s agenda. You give the impression that you are engaging in systematic thought police enforcement on behalf of the ADL.”

        Thank you! I always appreciate it when someone complements me on a job well done.

        It happens not to be in consonance with the ADL agenda. I’m significantly to the left of them, particularly on issues like the Park 51 mosque, which, as you know, I strongly supported. I actually disagree with a lot of Abe Foxman’s tactics, which I think sometimes make problems worse than they are and only give certain antisemites free publicity.

        “Regarding “conspiracy theories” . . . ”

        Like the one about JFK being assassinated by the Mossad?

        ” I was well ahead of the curve in debunking numerous official conspiracy theories during the last decade:”

        Oy. I hate to tell you that many of these things were not actually conspiracy theories. They were simply mistaken intelligence analyses. You see, one can based a conclusion on facts and be wrong. A conspiracy theory when you lack the facts to support your conclusion, which you draw by making faulty assumptions and ever-more attenuated inferences.

        “1. Saddam was behind 9/11? Nope.”

        Didn’t survive much past the first few weeks after 9/11.

        “2. Saddam possessed WMDs? Nope.”

        Not a conspiracy theory, but simply the collective view of most the world’s intelligence agencies.

        “3. Saddam was behind the 9/11 anthrax attacks? Nope.”

        Not widely believed either.

        “4. Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 anthrax attacks? Nope.”

        Reasonable conclusion when it happened, but also not widely believed after a couple of weeks.

        “5. Iran threatened to wipe Israel off the map? Nope.”

        Not a conspiracy theory, but a mistranslation that started with the Iranian official press and a fair conclusion given over three decades of similar rhetoric.

        Here is what you are way behind on:

        1. Blaming Israel for 9/11.
        2. Blaming Israel for the JFK assassination.
        3. Talking about 9/11 as an inside job.

        Etc.

        In short, you struck down a lot of straw men that were not widely believed, and promoted a lot of crap that has been debunked, so maybe you have a megalomaniacal belief in your own intelligence. You have some screws loose, that’s for sure.

        Mostly, you amuse me, so please continue.

      • seanmcbride on October 10, 2012, 3:00 pm

        This is the number one question that people should be asking about Israel’s nuclear weapons capabilities, and especially taking into account the Samson Option: does Israel have the means to deliver nuclear weapons by means of airplanes, backpacks, boats, briefcases, cars, drones, packages, ships, suitcases, trucks, vans, etc., as well as by missiles? How many apocalyptic zealots occupy high positions within the Israeli government?

      • Chu on October 10, 2012, 5:54 pm

        “Their code names are Winky, Dinky, and Dodd. Winky is like my bestie in the ADL.”

        Why waste your time on this, Sean? Hophmi is a basket-case. Who else would squat in a chat room and write such pathetic drivel. He’s having fun because he is low on friends, and he thrives on creating enemies. It’s sad what some people are into.
        He problably lacks a real personality, which is why he clings to Israel and everything it encompasses in his small sphere of the world.

        I laughed the other day when Hophmi was attempting to say that Israel’s is so great because of their film directors and classical musical influence in the world.

        The guy misses the big picture. So what, let him contemplate how great Israel is. It’s part of his shallow identity. And Hophmi, what a stupid name…

      • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 11:03 am

        hophmi wrote:

        I know ADL officials quite well…

        1. Is the ADL building dossiers on Philip Weiss, Annie Robbins, Alex Kane, Scott McConnell, Max Blumenthal, Adam Horowitz and other people associated with Mondoweiss, including Mondoweiss commenters?

        2. Does the ADL share its dossiers with other Jewish and Israeli organizations and agencies, including Mossad?

      • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 11:04 am

        hophmi,

        Towards which nation in the world do you feel the strongest loyalty?

      • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 11:17 am

        In response to my question:

        How many Americans have you verbally attacked over the last decade on behalf of Jewish nationalism and Israel?”

        You responded:

        Verbally attacked? I’ve never spit on anybody.

        It’s interesting that you raised the issue of spitting, since spitting on cult outsiders is a huge issue in Israeli culture. People here should check out these Google searches on the subject:

        1. israel spitting
        2. israel spitting anne barker
        3. israel spitting christians
        4. israel spitting cross
        5. israel spitting jerusalem
        6. israel spitting judaism
        7. israel spitting orthodox
        8. israel spitting site:forward.com
        9. israel spitting site:haaretz.com
        10. israel spitting site:jpost.com
        11. israel spitting women

        But you didn’t answer the question: how many times have you verbally attacked, insulted and abused people whom in your mind are your ethnic, religious and nationalist enemies? The Mondoweiss archive turns up hundreds of instances in which you have indulged in this obnoxious behavior.

        Why do you do it? Why are nearly all ethnic and religious nationalists abusive, xenophobic, paranoid, angry, etc.?

        The vast majority of Americans are not ethnic or religious nationalists and they don’t attack their fellow Americans from a passionate attachment to a foreign nation. You are wildly out of step with the American cultural and political mainstream.

        By the way, your general verbal abusiveness and hostility come from the same ugly mental place that produces all that vile spitting in Jerusalem. You’re the product of primitive cult programming.

      • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 11:42 am

        Chu wrote:

        Why waste your time on this, Sean? Hophmi is a basket-case.

        He may be a basket-case, but he is a very typical Zionist — there are many thousands of zealous pro-Israel activists out there who exhibit his psychology and who are inflicting enormous damage on the American political system. Hophmi’s views are shared by influential players like Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, Dennis Ross, William Kristol, Eric Cantor, Joe Lieberman and many, many other militant Zionists.

        Shouldn’t we try to probe their minds and figure out what makes them tick? Certainly their “arguments” need to answered and taken apart.

      • Donald on October 11, 2012, 12:52 pm

        ” Saddam possessed WMDs? Nope.”

        “Not a conspiracy theory, but simply the collective view of most the world’s intelligence agencies.”

        I’m mostly staying out of this argument, but the above is nonsense. It was clear simply from reading the back pages of the NYT and other newspapers (I forget the name of the chain which did the really good job debunking the WMD claims) that there was no strong evidence for Saddam having WMD’s. The most you could say was that maybe he had them, but the evidence was feeble at best. The Bush people cherrypicked the data and presented that and the mainstream press went along with some honorable exceptions–this is quite different from saying that the world’s intelligence agencies were all less capable of analysis than I was, and I’m not claiming much for myself here.

        What you’re presenting is the Bush Administration’s excuse for their lies and misrepresentations of the evidence. Note again–I’m not saying that one could have said for sure what Iraq had. But it was clear that the Bushies were greatly exaggerating the evidence they did have, and yes, that’s the sort of thing that conspiracy theorists do. This was one of the worst conspiracy theories in recent history, worst in the sense that it led to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 12:54 pm

        “I laughed the other day when Hophmi was attempting to say that Israel’s is so great because of their film directors and classical musical influence in the world. ”

        At me, or at the people who asserted that Israel had no accomplishments?

      • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 1:35 pm

        Donald,

        Neocons like Paul Wolfowitz have already admitted that they fastened on to a false Iraqi WMDs conspiracy theory (one that they themselves didn’t believe) as the most convenient excuse and pretext to push Americans into a war against Iraq — this as the opening move in a long-term strategic campaign, largely outlined in the infamous Clean Break paper, to use American military power to crush all of Israel’s enemies in the Mideast.

        Hophmi swallowed this bogus conspiracy theory promoted by the neocons hook, line and sinker. As for me, all of their crude propaganda and lies have struck me as laughable nonsense from the start — I seem to be impervious to their con games and psyops. They are so incredibly transparent about what they are up to — they are all about Israel and nothing but Israel. The American interest figures into their calculations not in the least.

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 2:58 pm

        “Towards which nation in the world do you feel the strongest loyalty?”

        I resent both the question and the number of times you’ve asked it, despite my answering it many times now.

        I’m a proud American, and it is to America that I feel the greatest allegiance.

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 3:21 pm

        “Neocons like Paul Wolfowitz have already admitted that they fastened on to a false Iraqi WMDs conspiracy theory (one that they themselves didn’t believe) as the most convenient excuse and pretext to push Americans into a war against Iraq ”

        Not true. You distort what Wolfowitz said. Wolfowitz said that WMDs was merely the theory everyone could agree on, so that is what they used to justify the war. There were many other bases, including the use of WMDs by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, atrocities against the Kurds, support for terrorism, and American oil interests. All were part of the picture.

        “Hophmi swallowed this bogus conspiracy theory promoted by the neocons hook, line and sinker.”

        Actually, I would not have gone to war with Iraq over WMDs. My basis for support was humanitarian and internationalist, same as Paul Berman.

        “As for me, all of their crude propaganda and lies have struck me as laughable nonsense from the start ”

        Uh-huh. But the idea that the Mossad killed JFK does not strike you as nonsense.

        ” They are so incredibly transparent about what they are up to — they are all about Israel and nothing but Israel. The American interest figures into their calculations not in the least.”

        You have not a single fact – not one – to support this antisemitic thesis. There is nothing, not a single document, that suggest that these guys cared about nothing else besides Israel.

        As I’ve said many times before, your worldview essentially boils down to garden variety antisemitism. Coupled with the paranoia antisemites often exhibit.

      • Woody Tanaka on October 11, 2012, 3:25 pm

        “I’m a proud American, and it is to America that I feel the greatest allegiance.”

        And yet you didn’t answer his question. He asked about loyalty and you answered with allegiance. Two different things.

      • Donald on October 11, 2012, 4:08 pm

        “Hophmi swallowed this bogus conspiracy theory promoted by the neocons hook, line and sinker. ”

        Yeah. I’m not prepared to state which reasons were the most important for our Iraq invasion, but it certainly wasn’t the intelligence supporting the case for Iraqi WMD’s, because that was transparent BS. Below I have linked to an article by Michael Massing that appeared in the New York Review of Books years ago. The chief question that interests Massing is why the mainstream press did such a horrible job, acting in many cases as little more than a conduit for Bush Administration propaganda and lies. (The newspaper chain that did a good job exposing the truth behind the propaganda while it was happening was the Knight-Ridder group.) I mean, it was obvious even at the time if you dug just a little beyond the front page headlines that the WMD case was a huge piece of hype. The early primitive days of the leftwing blogosphere were in large part about the con job that was taking place before our eyes and in case hophmi reads this, no, I’m not talking about far left sites or 9/11 truther nonsense or any of that sort. I mean just normal everyday liberals, screaming about the insane idiocy that we were about to plunge into.

        And again, I personally would not have been prepared to bet back in 2002-2003 on whether Iraq had WMD’s, but it was just freaking obvious the Bush Administration was engaged in wild exaggerations of the strength of their case. You could even compare what Colin Powell was saying before 9/11 and what he was saying afterwards. Hophmi was apparently one of the millions of Americans bamboozled into thinking that the Bush Administration and others were arguing the WMD threat in good faith.

        link

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 4:37 pm

        “And again, I personally would not have been prepared to bet back in 2002-2003 on whether Iraq had WMD’s,”

        That was my position as well, and I think, many intelligence agencies. I believed as you did, that the Bush Administration was exaggerating the threat, because even if he had been correct, the presence of WMDs in Iraq would not in and of itself have justified an attack. This was a guy we had basically contained. We didn’t need to expend troops and treasure on him unless there were other compelling reasons. That is why my basis was always humanitarian in nature.

      • Citizen on October 11, 2012, 4:39 pm

        @ hophmi

        RE: “Here is what you are way behind on:

        1. Blaming Israel for 9/11.
        2. Blaming Israel for the JFK assassination.
        3. Talking about 9/11 as an inside job.”

        1. Original text of 9/11 Commission Report concluding hijacker motivation was blowback from biased re Israel, changed in final public report to generic statement that all US foreign policy involves blowback. (Specific reference to US biased policy re Israel remains in the body content of the final 9/11 report.)

        2. US policy against Israel getting the bomb shown by JFK letter to Israeli PM shortly before assassination of JFK, re Israel’s building the bomb: http://rense.com/general24/bmb/

        3. 9/11 facts implicating Israel, incl inter alia, dancing van Israelis, art students Israelis, Bibi’s initial gut public reaction it was good for the Jews,etc.

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 4:44 pm

        Of course, you link to a Holocaust denial site.

        It is well known that there was friction between JFK and Ben-Gurion. There is no evidence of Israeli involvement in the assassination. None. Zero.

        Everything else is long discredited conspiracy theory.

      • annie on October 11, 2012, 4:46 pm

        your link doesn’t work. here’s the letter, allegedly:

        July 5, 1963

        Dear Mr. Prime Minister (Levi Eshkol of Israel):

        It gives me great personal pleasure to extend congratulations as you assume your responsibilities as Prime Minister of Israel. You have our friendship and best wishes in your new tasks. It is on one of these that I am writing you at this time.

        You are aware, I am sure, of the exchange which I had with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion concerning American visits [i.e.: inspections] to Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27th. His words reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that I know is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine. We welcomed the former Prime Minister’s strong reaffirmation that Dimona will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation also of Israel’s willingness to permit periodic visits [inspections] to Dimona.

        I regret having to add to your burdens so soon after your assumption of office, but I feel the crucial importance of this problem necessitates my taking up with you at this early date certain further considerations, arising out of Mr. Ben-Gurion’s May 27th letter, as to the nature and scheduling of such visits.

        I am sure you will agree that these visits should be nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project. As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government’s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel’s effort in the nuclear field.

        Therefore, I asked our scientists to review the alternative schedules of visits we and you had proposed. If Israel’s purposes are to be clear beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit early this summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months. I am sure that such a schedule should not cause you any more difficulty than that which Mr. Ben-Gurion proposed in his May 27th letter. It would be essential, and I understand that Mr. Ben-Gurion’s letter was in accord with this, that our scientists have access to all areas of the Dimona site and to any related part of the complex, such as fuel fabrication facilities or plutonium separation plant, and that sufficient time be allotted for a thorough examination.

        Knowing that you fully appreciate the truly vital significance of this matter to the future well-being of Israel, to the United States, and internationally, I am sure our carefully considered request will have your most sympathetic attention.

        Sincerely,

        John F. Kennedy

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 5:29 pm

        “And yet you didn’t answer his question. He asked about loyalty and you answered with allegiance. Two different things.”

        I’m loyal to America. What country are you loyal to, Woody? Let’s have everybody here weigh in on the question.

      • Woody Tanaka on October 11, 2012, 6:05 pm

        “I’m loyal to America. What country are you loyal to, Woody?”

        LMAO. I’m on record for calling for American ball players to be stripped of their citizenship if they play for another country in a meaningless baseball tournament. If you can’t figure that I’m loyal to the US, then you’re not paying attention.

      • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 7:42 pm

        hophmi wrote:

        I’m a proud American, and it is to America that I feel the greatest allegiance.

        I think you are lying once again, as is your wont. In your 4,000+ comments on Mondoweiss you have never analyzed Mideast politics from the standpoint of the American interest — only from the standpoint of the Israeli interest, and that with considerable emotion and fanaticism.

        Your analysis of Mideast politics doesn’t remotely resemble that of authentic American patriots — minds like Anthony Zinni, Martin Dempsey, Andrew Bacevich, Stephen Walt, Michael Scheuer, Philip Giraldi, Paul Pillar, Michael Lind, Chas Freeman, Jimmy Carter, John Mearsheimer, Patrick Lang, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Ron Paul, Scott McConnell, Paul Craig Roberts, etc.

        Stop lying to us, and stop lying to yourself. Your thousands of comments here speak eloquently about your real agenda.

      • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 8:12 pm

        hophmi wrote:

        You have not a single fact – not one – to support this antisemitic thesis. There is nothing, not a single document, that suggest that these guys [neoconservatives] cared about nothing else besides Israel.

        You may be the last person on the face of the planet who doesn’t yet know that the neoconservatives who were the key ringleaders of the Iraq War are all pro-Israel militants and Likud Zionists. Dozens of mainstream books have been written on the subject over the last decade.

        I knew all about the Israel-centric agenda of the neocons early on because some of them had been my professors and classmates, and because I had read much of their work in Commentary and other journals.

        Anyone who wants to dig into this subject in depth can use these Google searches and hit the mother lode:

        1. abram shulsky israel OR jews
        2. bret stephens israel OR jews
        3. charles krauthammer israel OR jews
        4. daniel pipes israel OR jews
        5. david frum israel OR jews
        6. david wurmser israel OR jews
        7. dore gold israel OR jews
        8. douglas feith israel OR jews
        9. eliot cohen israel OR jews
        10. elliott abrams israel OR jews
        11. irving kristol israel OR jews
        12. john podhoretz israel OR jews
        13. michael ledeen israel OR jews
        14. norman podhoretz israel OR jews
        15. paul wolfowitz israel OR jews
        16. richard perle israel OR jews israel OR jews
        17. robert kagan israel OR jews
        18. william kristol israel OR jews

        And there are many, many more — this is just the tip of the iceberg.

        And let’s be clear about this — it is the neocons *themselves* who keep dragging “the jews” into political controversies — they are obsessed with that subject.

        Neoconservatives are responsible for engineering the worst foreign policy disaster in American history precisely because they put the Israeli interest far above the American interest. And they are still up to their old tricks: for the last few years they have been working furiously to push Americans into a self-destructive war against Iran.

      • Donald on October 11, 2012, 8:22 pm

        “That is why my basis was always humanitarian in nature.”

        Well, that should teach you (and millions of other pro war liberals) to be a lot more skeptical about about humanitarian wars. Human Rights Watch, which had supported the Kosovo intervention I think, and probably the Libyan one recently (I’m not sure) was opposed to the Iraq War –without going back to look up exactly what they were saying, it was something to the effect that Saddam’s worst atrocities had been committed years earlier (the Anfal campaign in the late 80’s and then the crushing of the Shiite and Kurdish rebellions after the Gulf War) and a war in 2003 could not be justified as something that was stopping an ongoing genocide or mass slaughter.

        My point being that HRW has this tendency to support military intervention when they think it will stop atrocities and whatever one thinks of that, they were very skeptical about the humanitarian argument for Iraq. And they were right. Somewhere between 100,000 and 1 million civilian dead (I tend to favor something in-between as most likely) and 4 million or so internal or external refugees. Quite a humanitarian undertaking.

      • HemiFaulk on October 11, 2012, 8:37 pm

        They do such a horrible job because they have become tools of a major yet hidden propaganda machine.

        See this feller here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays and maybe go watch BBC for The_Trap or the riveting thriller The_Century_of_the_Self to find out just how pervasive propaganda is in this here country. Though really these documentaries don’t document the present issues as much as they show how we got to where we are. To think some of the major world events are random chaotic occurrences is utterly stupid, as I commented on some posts right after the Libyan attacks happened, and no I don’t have a single contact within the intelligence community but I am fairly well read, though I was born in the South this does not make me an automatic dumbass or racist(much to some leftists’ chagrin I am sure), but I formed my opinions based on available information and common sense and years of research.

        New_Kid_in_Town

      • Citizen on October 12, 2012, 5:28 am

        @ seanmcbride

        Yes indeed, hophmi’s thousands of comments on this web site do speak eloquently about his real agenda.

      • Woody Tanaka on October 12, 2012, 6:43 am

        “I’m loyal to America”

        So if America got into a war with Israel and you were drafted to be he guy to drop the atom bomb over the Western Wall and Tel Aviv, you would do so happily? Remember, in this hypothetical, your country needs you to do this to win the war and minimize American casualties.

      • hophmi on October 12, 2012, 10:55 am

        “So if America got into a war with Israel and you were drafted to be he guy to drop the atom bomb over the Western Wall and Tel Aviv, you would do so happily?”

        I’m not answering questions like this, which are not being posed to anybody else here.

        Most of you have opposed every war America has been involved in the last two generations. None of you would have run to fight in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. A number of you criticized American military action supported by the vast, vast majority of the US populace, such as the killing of Osama bin Laden. So I assume if you, Woody, were drafted to be the guy to kill bin Laden, or even drop a single bomb on a Taliban convoy in Afghanistan, you would not do so happily. In fact, the rhetoric of some of you leads me to believe that you would not even have dropped a bomb on a Nazi convoy willingly. Your unwillingness, or anyone else’s, to do so is not taken by me as a reflection of your patriotism. I don’t think most of you like it when your patriotism is questioned, which it is frequently on the right. Do not question mine again.

        I would not drop a bomb on anybody willingly, and I would not support any war effort if I did not think it was in the American national interest.

        I owe none of you an exercise of patriotism, and will heretofore answer no further questions like this.

      • American on October 12, 2012, 11:22 am

        “I owe none of you an exercise of patriotism, and will heretofore answer no further questions like this.”…hoppie

        You don’t have to…we know the answer.

      • seanmcbride on October 12, 2012, 11:24 am

        hophmi,

        Towards which political ideology do you feel the stronger intellectual commitment and emotional connection: Americanism or Zionism?

      • American on October 12, 2012, 11:50 am

        “And let’s be clear about this — it is the neocons *themselves* who keep dragging “the jews” into political controversies — they are obsessed with that subject.”…sean

        I would break it down a bit better than that. Based on my observation, and on looking at the former positions of gentile Neocons stance of hostility toward other countries…I would say that gentile Neocons are always ready to declare a war, but they would be just as happy to attack Korea or Russia or China..iow, it doesn’t matter to them who the enemy is as long as they have US enemies they can start a war with.
        For the Jewish neocons however, they are the ones who led the gentile Neos to the ME as a enemy in Israel’s behalf…..they drummed up ‘The Green Peril” in the early 90’s and picked the target ME countries and fed it to the US neos.
        The Jewish groups have been working on Iran since the Shah was deposed and if you read Clean Break and PANAC you can see that the countries they picked out like Iraq and Syria all ultimately lead to Iran and any other ME country the US doesn’t have full control of and that is in the way of Israel’s goal of being the sole power and regional Hegemon in the ME.

        911 gave the neo’s a clear highway to attack the ME…..couldn’t have been better for the Israelis….and to me the jury is still out on just how much some Israeli ops had to do with it or knew about it before it happened.

      • hophmi on October 12, 2012, 11:51 am

        “Towards which political ideology do you feel the stronger intellectual commitment and emotional connection: Americanism or Zionism?”

        “Americanism is an ideology or belief in devotion, loyalty, or allegiance to the United States of America or to its flag, traditions, customs, culture, symbols, institutions, or form of government. A belief in Americanism is a preference for all things or most things having to do with the United States. In some cases it can be a view of superiority of the United States over other systems.”

        How many here prescribe to the idea that the US is superior to all other systems?

        I am a strong proponent of the American values of pluralism and tolerance. I do not believe that in every respect, the US system is superior to all others, as Americanism posits. I like, for instance, aspects of Scandinavian socialism, particularly its strong support for unions, teachers, and universal health care, though I am doubtful that these ideas could work as well in the United States, and thus, I would not necessarily favor it here.

        Americanism kind of sounds like a Tea Party idea, or the kind of thing that leads Republican Presidential candidate to repeat more than necessary that we are the greatest country on earth until the phrase has no meaning. I love my country, but I’m not so arrogant to believe that every other society has to operate the same way. I feel no need to wrap myself in the flag. Apparently, it seems that you do, or at least want others to.

        I also sympathize with Zionism, to the extent that I understand it as a movement for self-determination for the Jewish people culminating in the creation of an independent state. I think it’s a perfectly reasonable ideology given the long history of Jews living as a minority and being frequently persecuted for their beliefs by Christian majorities, and sometimes, though less frequently, by Muslim majorities. But if I were an Israeli, I would work to make the Jewish state more tolerant toward its minorities within the Green Line, to end the occupation of territories over the Green Line, and to bring about a Palestinian state. That is what I generally do from the Diaspora.

        In terms of which I feel a stronger intellectual and emotional attachment? That’s a strange question. I feel a stronger intellectual attachment to the American system of pluralism, and would favor it as a general principle. That is one reason why I live here. But again, I am not a proponent of idea that the American system is appropriate everywhere. Europe certainly does not reflect American values of pluralism, free speech, or tolerance. Neither does Israel. Not every society is the same.

        Does this answer your question?

      • hophmi on October 12, 2012, 11:52 am

        “You don’t have to…we know the answer.”

        Says the guy who has enough of an inferiority complex to make “American” his pseudonym here.

      • seanmcbride on October 12, 2012, 11:54 am

        American,

        You don’t have to…we know the answer.

        4,000+ comments rather tell the tale about his real agenda, don’t you think? :)

      • hophmi on October 12, 2012, 12:08 pm

        “4,000+ comments ”

        You keep referring to the number of comments. It’s just like the google searches. It’s not a substantive argument. You’ve made thousands of comments here as well. Can I assume from that you care more about Palestinians than Americans? Or more about Jews, whom you’re clearly obsessed with, than anyone else?

      • American on October 12, 2012, 12:10 pm

        “to make “American” his pseudonym here.”….hoppie

        LOL….. well American doesn’t stand for a lot these days…. but it sure as hell beats Israeli.

      • Woody Tanaka on October 12, 2012, 12:19 pm

        “I’m not answering questions like this, which are not being posed to anybody else here. ”

        You don’t have to. We already know the answer.

        “So I assume if you, Woody, were drafted to be the guy to kill bin Laden, or even drop a single bomb on a Taliban convoy in Afghanistan, you would not do so happily.”

        Then you’re an idiot. If my country called on me to kill bin Laden, I would have happily done so. Unlike some here, I’m no pacifist.

        “In fact, the rhetoric of some of you leads me to believe that you would not even have dropped a bomb on a Nazi convoy willingly.”

        Because you’re a silly little bigot who thinks that everyone who thinks non-glorious thoughts about isreal is a Nazi.

        ” Do not question mine again.”

        I’ll do whatever I want.

        “I would not support any war effort if I did not think it was in the American national interest.”

        And no doubt, there are no circumstances under which you would find taking action against israel would be in the American interest. How convenient.

      • seanmcbride on October 12, 2012, 12:25 pm

        Hophmi wrote:

        Can I assume from that you care more about Palestinians than Americans?

        I have made it crystal clear that the only reason I am involved in the great Mideast debates is from a concern about the *American* interest. I think that Israel and the Israel lobby may well succeed in destroying the United States by pushing it into a self-destructive war with much of the world.

        In none of your 4,000+ comments have you expressed the slightest concern for the American interest — for you, it’s all about Israel 24×7 — that and waging a bitter and relentless war against your ethnic and religious enemies, who seem to be everywhere. It’s all so very “Old Testament.”

      • seanmcbride on October 12, 2012, 12:44 pm

        hophmi,

        Does this answer your question?

        No, it doesn’t.

        Americanism is an ideology which values individualism and meritocracy without regard to ethnicity or religion.

        Zionism is an ethnic and religious nationalist ideology that is in radical conflict with fundamental American values.

        Zionism as an ideology bears much more in common with Nazism, Italian Fascism, the Confederacy and apartheid South Africa than it does with enlightened (and Enlightenment) Americanism.

        The closest analogues of Jewish nationalists in American culture are white nationalists like David Duke and Kevin MacDonald.

        White Protestant nationalism would be a perfect analogue of Zionism. Do you support white Protestant nationalism in the United States? White Christian nationalism in Europe?

        The minds of most American pro-Israel activists are severely scrambled — and they are going to be undone by their indefensible self-contradictions. Bank on it. They are hoisting themselves on their own petard. Many very bright Jews during the early debates about Zionism predicted that this dilemma would eventually develop — and they got it right.

      • hophmi on October 12, 2012, 12:57 pm

        “I have made it crystal clear that the only reason I am involved in the great Mideast debates is from a concern about the *American* interest.”

        Oh, you have? So have I. The difference between you and me is that you cannot see any other policy as being in the American interest other than the one you support, so you assume that those who disagree are not pro-American. That’s an old game, usually played by hard-right Republicans.

        “In none of your 4,000+ comments have you expressed the slightest concern for the American interest”

        Actually, I have many times expressed my view that it is in the American interest to maintain a strong relationship with Israel. So you’re simply wrong.

      • hophmi on October 12, 2012, 1:01 pm

        “Then you’re an idiot. If my country called on me to kill bin Laden, I would have happily done so. Unlike some here, I’m no pacifist.”

        That’s not the point. If your friend believed that killing bin Laden was wrong, would you consider him insufficiently patriotic if he refused to do it?

        See, you just don’t get it.

        “I’ll do whatever I want.”

        I’m sure you will, but as I’ve told you before, outside of this bubble, most people would find you noxious.

        “And no doubt, there are no circumstances under which you would find taking action against israel would be in the American interest. How convenient.”

        I can’t think of any today. I would not say it’s impossible that some scenario might arise in the future. If Israel launched a terroristic campaign against the United States and dropped a nuke on New York, then I’d say America should retaliate, and I’d join the effort.

      • Woody Tanaka on October 12, 2012, 1:41 pm

        “That’s not the point. If your friend believed that killing bin Laden was wrong, would you consider him insufficiently patriotic if he refused to do it?”

        It depends on why. If he were a pacifist, then no. For example, if he wouldn’t do it because he agreed with Bin Laden’s goal of harming the United States, then yes, I would think him insufficiently patriotic. Or if he wouldn’t do it because he believed that by harming Bin Laden it would be good for the US, but bad for israel, then yes, I would think him insufficiently patriotic.

        “as I’ve told you before, outside of this bubble, most people would find you noxious.”

        LMAO. Actually I don’t think you said that before. But even so, the fact of the matter is that most people find me to be quite nice, even charming and very, very few people I’ve ever met have found me to be dislikable.

        But if it makes you feel better to think otherwise, go ahead. It’s false, so it’s of no moment to me, and who am I to take that pacifier away from you?

        “I can’t think of any today.”

        Paint me shocked.

        “If Israel launched a terroristic campaign against the United States and dropped a nuke on New York, then I’d say America should retaliate, and I’d join the effort.”

        LMAO. No you wouldn’t. You would deny that israeli was doing it, or pretend that it was an accident, and that they thought they were dropping a nuke on Cairo and merely hit the Liberty New York by accident.

      • seanmcbride on October 12, 2012, 1:44 pm

        hophmi,

        Nothing could be more destructive for the American interest than getting sucked into an endless succession of multi-trillion dollar wars on behalf of building Eretz Yisrael and fulfilling the biblical dreams of Likud Zionists.

        That was the subtext of much of the Biden/Ryan debate last night — Americans (and the American national security establishment especially) are sick and tired of neocon-instigated wars. Not even Paul Ryan dared to suggest that the United States should rush into the war against Iran for which Benjamin Netanahu and his Zionist supporters in America have been furiously agitating.

        Americans have learned a very painful lesson from the failed Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, which have come close to bankrupting the United States.

        Can you point us to any of your past writings on the Internet in which you have opposed those self-destructive wars from the standpoint of defending the American interest?

      • American on October 12, 2012, 1:52 pm

        “Actually, I have many times expressed my view that it is in the American interest to maintain a strong relationship with Israel”..hoppie

        Yes we know…and the only people who say that are Israel -first zionist or bought politicians. The US Military, the US CIA and the US FBI all say the opposite….that Israel is a liability to the US; in US security, in foreign affair and in domestic affairs.
        Case closed…you are what you are.

      • hophmi on October 12, 2012, 1:56 pm

        “Americanism is an ideology which values individualism and meritocracy without regard to ethnicity or religion.”

        OK, you have a different definition of Americanism than this one:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_%28ideology%29

        How about we use definable terms instead of labels with political overtones to avoid confusion? Individualism and meritocracy have pretty clear definitions. Americanism really does not.

        See, Sean, it’s very difficult to argue with someone who mistakes facts for ideology. This post is another in which you make a lot of assertions, but no real facts.

        So I’ll try again to deal with what I have here.

        I do not buy your dichotomous positing of Americanism and Zionism. Zionism simply is not so strictly defined as you would like it to be. It is merely a theory of self-determination. The political ideology of Israel’s government is something different. I think any honest analysis would conclude that Israel generally protects the individual rights of its citizens, at least within the Green Line, even if one religion is favored. I’d also argue that Israeli society is fairly meritocratic, though few societies are as meritocratic as the United States. European society certainly does not subscribe to the same notions of individual rights and meritocracy as the US does. In the opinion of people like Tom Segev, a post-Zionist, today’s Israel is actually much more individualistic than its earlier Zionist founders, who practiced forms of socialism and collectivism, were, and much more like the US than it was at its founding.

        You can make anachronistic and decontextualized arguments that the Herzlian or Jabotinskian vision of Zionism shares commonalities with collectivist and corporatist ideology that were more popular in their times, but it doesn’t mean very much, and it usually involves a major twisting of what they actually wrote and believed, and how their ideas were applied. Here, for instance, people quote Edwin Black’s book all the time and ignore the frequent disavowals of their interpretation by Black himself.

        You can also repeat buzzwords about ethnicity and nationalism, but they aren’t facts, and your repeating them isn’t going to make them any more true. A state with ethnic roots just isn’t very unusual.

        As I’ve said before, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference to me how you define modern Europe. You say there is a parallel between white nationalist ideology and modern Israel. I find that nonsensical. The fact of the matter is that white nationalism is what Europe is. They may not practice formal apartheid or white nationalism in the strict sense, but they certainly subscribe to it on some level.

        Europe is, what, about 90% white? How did that happen? Surely, people of every race and ethnicity want to be part of the industrialized world. The elites of the third world send their children there to study. Has Europe integrated its Muslim populations? No. Have they invited people to make their societies more racially and religiously diverse? No. Who are the politicians that draw 1/4 of the vote across Europe? White nationalist politicians.

        And what do you have in the Middle East? A bunch of countries that practice ethnic exclusion of one form or another. In most of the Gulf Emirates, a small number of superwealthy tribesmen are the first-class citizens, and everyone else is second or third-class with limited rights. Forget about the fact that Saudi Arabia is a totalitarian state, where women can’t walk in the street alone. They’re also not very ecumenical or diverse. How many Palestinian citizens of Saudi Arabia are there? How are those Shias doing?

        Sure, Israel favors one ethnicity over another, but the idea that this is in any way special in this world is just nonsense. It’s routine, and Israel’s society is multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural. Europe’s a white nationalist creation. It’s never going to be anything but a bastion of Christianity, and whenever that cultural basis is threatened in any way, as it is today by a growing European Muslim population, Europeans react with racist talk and votes for anti-immigrant politicians.

      • hophmi on October 12, 2012, 2:50 pm

        “Nothing could be more destructive for the American interest than getting sucked into an endless succession of multi-trillion dollar wars on behalf of building Eretz Yisrael and fulfilling the biblical dreams of Likud Zionists.”

        You’re entitled to your opinion. I don’t think there’s a risk of that happening, and if you’re referring to Iran, I don’t see how that has anything to do with “building Eretz Yisrael.” So it’s yet another straw man.

        “That was the subtext of much of the Biden/Ryan debate last night — Americans (and the American national security establishment especially) are sick and tired of neocon-instigated wars.”

        I don’t believe anyone of any repute in the US government or the security establishment believes that the Iranian issue is about the “expansion of Eretz Yisrael.”

        “Not even Paul Ryan dared to suggest that the United States should rush into the war against Iran for which Benjamin Netanahu and his Zionist supporters in America have been furiously agitating.”

        That is not what they have been advocating. At all. Netanyahu has spoken about a red line. He has not, even once, to my knowledge, suggest that America should rush into a war with Iran.

        “Americans have learned a very painful lesson from the failed Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, which have come close to bankrupting the United States.”

        So are you asserting that Afghanistan and Iraq were about “Eretz Yisrael?” Please be clear. Was Afghanistan about “Eretz Yisrael”? Yes or no? Was Iraq about “Eretz Yisrael?” Yes or no? Was killing Osama bin Laden about “Eretz Yisrael?” Yes or no?

      • hophmi on October 12, 2012, 2:52 pm

        “The US Military, the US CIA and the US FBI all say the opposite”

        Oh please. None of these agencies take this view. There are those within those agencies that are critical of the US-Israel relationship, but none express the view that there shouldn’t be a strong US-Israel relationship.

        You distort and are full of it, as usual.

      • hophmi on October 12, 2012, 2:55 pm

        “It depends on why. If he were a pacifist, then no. For example, if he wouldn’t do it because he agreed with Bin Laden’s goal of harming the United States, then yes, I would think him insufficiently patriotic. Or if he wouldn’t do it because he believed that by harming Bin Laden it would be good for the US, but bad for israel, then yes, I would think him insufficiently patriotic. ”

        Well, I don’t hold any of those views, and I find your hypotheticals more than a little ridiculous and obnoxious.

        “LMAO. Actually I don’t think you said that before. But even so, the fact of the matter is that most people find me to be quite nice, even charming and very, very few people I’ve ever met have found me to be dislikable. ”

        What a coincidence. Me too. But we’re talking about the net here.

        “LMAO. No you wouldn’t. You would deny that israeli was doing it, or pretend that it was an accident, and that they thought they were dropping a nuke on Cairo and merely hit the Liberty New York by accident.”

        Let’s stay in reality, Woody. It’s not me who has a conspiratorial explanation for everything, like the idea that the Mossad killed JFK, or that the Israelis were behind 9/11, it’s some other people in here.

      • Woody Tanaka on October 12, 2012, 3:30 pm

        “Well, I don’t hold any of those views”

        Learn to read in context. I’m not saying you hold these views. I’m demonstrating how being opposed to taking the action is a possible, but not by itself sufficient, basis to find opposition to the action to be worthy of questioning of his patriotism.

        “”Let’s stay in reality, Woody. It’s not me who has a conspiratorial explanation for everything, like the idea that the Mossad killed JFK, or that the Israelis were behind 9/11, it’s some other people in here.”

        So then what is your position on the Liberty? Purposeful attack or do you buy the ridiculous explanation that it was an “accident”? I’m guess you have would exuse israel’s attack on the Liberty so why wouldn’t you excuse a hypothetical israeli attack on New York?

      • Mooser on October 10, 2012, 2:09 pm

        “Why does the moderator let crap like this through?”

        Go for it, Hophmi! That’s the kind of objective self-examination which leads on to wisdom. Okay, that’s enough, don’t touch yourself there. That much self-knowledge you don’t want.

      • Mooser on October 10, 2012, 2:14 pm

        “Why does the moderator let crap like this through?”

        It’s not enough for you to write the crap, you’ve got to insult The Moderators (plural, Hophmi, there’s two floors of ’em at Mondoweiss Tower 1) too?

        I’m sure your efforts to police Mondoweiss (we all know how concerned you are with its welfare) will not go unapreciated. Perhaps it will result in a nice Christmas card from the Wiess’s, an original creation by Ethan Heitner. Such nachos you’d get from it!

      • Ellen on October 11, 2012, 3:37 am

        Hop, there are two things that stand out on your response to Sean.

        1. The pattern of ridicule and sarcasm in an attempt to demean Sean instead of honestly addressing his questions.

        2. Your contradictions. For example: First you say that conspiracy theories are not based in facts and then you go on to say that the idea that Sadam had WMDs was not a copsiracy theory just because it was the view of most of the world’s intelligence agencies.

        Besides the fact that it is not true that most of the world’s intel agencies believed it, international inspectors on site refuted it as well only to be demonized and ridiculed.

        The idea that Iran wants to “wipe Israel of the map” is not based on fact and even according to your own definition, nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

        Tragically, the US and Israel based their defense and war policy on paranoid delusions resulting in disasters like the Irak attack and invasion.

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 10:29 am

        “1. The pattern of ridicule and sarcasm in an attempt to demean Sean instead of honestly addressing his questions.”

        Why should I address the same questions over and over again, particularly when they’re not in good faith? What does my participation or lack thereof with the ADL have to do with the history of the I-P conflict? It’s just the latest attempt to find out details of my personal life, and frankly, I’m suspicious of it.

        A great deal of what Sean says is patently ridiculous, like his latest posts on conspiracy theories about Israel being involved in the assassination of JFK. So I’ll ask you point blank, Ellen, do you think such theories are a valid use of our time here?

        Are these beliefs that you share?

        He regularly suggests that we conduct google searches that turn up mostly white supremacist literature.

        He regularly uses lists of terms as substitutes for arguments.

        And he regularly uses ad hominem attacks when he’s challenged.

        The man really thinks that Jewish organizations are after him. He’s completely paranoid.

        Listen Ellen, I’ve been here awhile. It’s clear to me that as long as someone is pro-Palestinian, whatever he says, no matter how outlandish, will be defended by others, whether it’s a defense of the Iranian regime, assertions that 9/11 was an inside job, that JFK was murdered by the Mossad, whatever.

        You’re entitled to your opinion, but none of this will help the Palestinian get a state.

      • Ellen on October 11, 2012, 11:24 am

        Hop.

        Why should I address the same questions over and over again, particularly when they’re not in good faith? Then be an adult and ignore it. Instead you ridicule and defame. It is a pattern you display here.

        Instead of addressing the points I make, you bring up new ones with accusations of what I might or might not think, veiled as questions about my beliefs.

        Then you go onto projections that Seans request for Google searches bring up supremacist literature???

        And you continue with it, painting him as a paranoid suggesting he thinks Jewish organizations are after him? Projection much?

        As your your last point Listen, Ellen…. blah blah where you then make a blanket assertion that anyone is is “Pro Palestinian” will defend anything no matter how outlandish. This is yet another defamation, meant to discredit anyone who is “Pro Palestinian,” whatever that is.

        (By, the way, what does Pro Palestinian mean to you. Please explain that as a basis of discussion. )

        And you do not support this aspersions with anything, but go onto rant about various conspiracy theories.

        You end up your reply to me blabbering about my opinion and if it will help establish a Palestinian state.

        I never ever addressed the question of statehood for Palestinians ever on this site, let alone the post you responded to. You have no idea of my thoughts.

        All you demonstrate is an inability to debate and instead use diversion and ridicule while demeaning others.

      • Cliff on October 11, 2012, 11:37 am

        Hoppy said:
        “[…]our time here[…]”

        Only recently you said you’d rather this entire issue not be discussed at all so who the hell are you to include yourself among the active member-base/userbase of Mondoweiss?

        Just like the Zionist Organization of America agent provacateurs and anti-democratic radical nationalists – you seek only to subvert all forms of rational debate concerning your favored State.

        Here’s something that sounds conspiratorial but is true:
        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/10/complaint-alleging-anti-semitism-at-uc-berkeley-claims-palestine-activism-creates-echo-of-nazi-regime.html/comment-page-1#comment-507034

        Zionist Jews exploit the litigious nature of our society for their own political agendas. Much like big corporations. Hence, it’s entirely reasonable for a non-tribe member to look at the bullshit your cult pulls and feel outraged and to seek change somehow.

        We aren’t the ones exploiting the American legal system and engaging in ‘lawfare’ (a term cynically applied to Palestinian solidarity activists and Palestinians in general simply for seeking the enforcement of justice concerning the violation of their basic human rights).

        No, it’s people like you. You come here and smear everyone in sight with the antisemitsm canard to such an absurd and hysterical extent that if someone accidentally writes ‘no accomplishments’ – you FEIGN shock and INTENTIONALLY misunderstand their comment as antisemitic.

        That’s how pathetic and petty you are. And out there on college campuses, your ideological allies are pulling the same shit except they are backed by Zionist organizations with plenty of money to throw around.

        It’s akin to Sheldon Adelson slapping someone with a SLAPP lawsuit. Adelson is guilty in the scenario, but it doesn’t matter. He has the money to keep the lawsuit going and the target – the non-tribe member [and this can of course include NON-Zionist Jews] – doesn’t and that is his or her downfall. They can’t afford to fight the Zionist in court.

        An example is made of them.

        Similarly, these Zionist college campus witch-hunts are designed to strike fear in Arab students, Muslim students, and generally anyone supporting the Palestinian cause or sympathetic with the Palestinians.

        It has nothing to do with antisemitism. We live in the most philo-Semitic society in the world. Jews are one of the most successful minorities in the country and vis a vis the theater if identity politics, Jews also have the most political capital out of every other ‘group.’

        Once again, you are full of ****.

      • Ellen on October 11, 2012, 11:44 am

        Oh, and another last thing Hoppy.

        Sean ended his post on this subject with

        Regarding the JFK assassination: I don’t believe the official story, but I don’t claim to know who was behind it, nor do I subscribe to any “conspiracy theories” on the issue. …

        Did Israel in fact consider John F. Kennedy to be an obstacle to developing its nuclear warfare capabilities in the early 1960s? Certainly that is a topic of significant relevance for Mondoweiss. We need to know much more about the history and current status of Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

        To repeat We need to know much more about the history and current status of Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

        That is a reasonable statement, especially when Israel is screaming about Iran and it’s alleged bomb. (Nothing more than a conspiracy theory– according to your own definition — as the assertion is not based on fact.)

        The world does, indeed, deserve transparency about Israel’s nuclear program. And the record is that both John and Robert Kennedy were seeking just that. As Sean points out, this is an important discussion.

        Question: Were you alive when Kennedy was President?

      • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 12:38 pm

        Ellen wrote to hophmi,

        All you demonstrate is an inability to debate and instead use diversion and ridicule while demeaning others.

        Thanks for exercising so much patience in deconstructing the blatant mental and logical glitches which mar all of hophmi’s overexcited and emotional posts — 90% of which consist of personal attacks and abuse ungrounded in any facts whatever. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel, but it has to be done, apparently over and over again because he keeps coming back and running round and round in the same small circles.

        It’s impossible to win an argument with an ethnic and/or religious nationalist cultist — they don’t operate in the realm of facts and logic. They are true believers who have attached their egos and sense of self firmly to a myth. God is on their side. Any threats to that myth threaten them at the very ground of their being — thus their perpetual hysteria and hostility towards most of the world, which doesn’t share their cult beliefs and never will.

        This is the way it is.

      • Rusty Pipes on October 11, 2012, 12:41 pm

        Hophmi is a dedicated hasbarist. There are many possible inducements (ideological, monetary, social, etc.) to motivate a person to became a hasbarist, but is it worthwhile to pursue the particular cause for any given online persona?

        Phil’s reason for tolerating the disruptive presence of this particular hasbarist is his choice. In the meantime, the most illuminating use of response to him is as you suggest:

        Certainly their “arguments” need to answered and taken apart.

      • Rusty Pipes on October 11, 2012, 12:46 pm

        Quite a diversionary response by hophmi to avoid Ellen’s second point.

      • Chu on October 11, 2012, 12:54 pm

        Hophmi:
        You’re entitled to your opinion, but none of this will help
        the Palestinian get a state.

        There are so many problems with this statement. It reveals who you are.
        You should seek therapy.

      • Chu on October 11, 2012, 1:05 pm

        Good points Cliff. Hophmi is a depressing person, who aims to suck the energy out of the cause for creating the successful Palestinian state.

        That says a lot about him and other Zionists d-bags.

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 3:22 pm

        “Good points Cliff. Hophmi is a depressing person, who aims to suck the energy out of the cause for creating the successful Palestinian state. ”

        And yet you keeping flapping your mouth.

        You’re not helping the Palestinian create a successful state.

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 3:27 pm

        “Thanks for exercising so much patience in deconstructing the blatant mental and logical glitches which mar all of hophmi’s overexcited and emotional posts — 90% of which consist of personal attacks and abuse ungrounded in any facts whatever. ”

        Today’s it’s 90%?

        “It’s like shooting fish in a barrel, but it has to be done, apparently over and over again because he keeps coming back and running round and round in the same small circles.”

        I agree. You always have to shoot down crazy people who says things like “The Mossad killed JFK.”

        “It’s impossible to win an argument with an ethnic and/or religious nationalist cultist — they don’t operate in the realm of facts and logic.”

        It’s actually impossible to win an argument when your MO is to post long lists of google searches and then to carry on like a 2-year-old each time someone disagrees with you.

        You’re in no position to tell others about facts, Sean, because they are frankly foreign to your way of thinking.

        “They are true believers who have attached their egos and sense of self firmly to a myth. ”

        Such as the idea that the Mossad killed JFK.

        “God is on their side.”

        Actually, I’d say fact, logic, and history are on my side; I claim no audience with any god.

        “Any threats to that myth threaten them at the very ground of their being — thus their perpetual hysteria and hostility towards most of the world, which doesn’t share their cult beliefs and never will.”

        Do you know what irony is, Sean? Or hypocrisy? Look them up on google, and then read your own comments, and then read your frequent questions to me about the ADL, and then your reactions when I make fun of you and you take it completely serious, and then let me know about “hysteria” and “hostility.”

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 3:47 pm

        “Phil’s reason for tolerating the disruptive presence of this particular hasbarist is his choice. ”

        Phil tolerates me here because, frankly, his opinion of me is a lot higher than it is of people like Sean, because Phil, misguided as he may be from my point of view, is not a total whackjob like Sean is, and like a good number of the commentators here are. And I think Phil realizes that my heart is in the right place, even if we ultimately disagree on what the outcome of the conflict should be. Phil generally respects people who criticize Israel but believe in the two-state solution, as Peter Beinart does. I have respect for Phil, even though I very much disagree with his point of view and his worldview. As I’ve said many times, I believe Phil’s major mistake is to generalize his experience in a way that runs roughshod over other Jews without really considering their point of view.

        But there are some really crazy people here, no doubt mostly Western activists, because they are always the most unhinged. There’s Sean, who thinks the ADL is out to get him. There’s sanjeev, who has not yet noticed that Phil stopped paying attention to his (what is it? 50?) attempts to get Phil to alter a post to reflect sanjeev’s understanding of Norman Finkelstein. There are people here who repeatedly claim that 9/11 was an inside job. There are people who post links to neo-Nazi websites. There are people here who not only make Nazi/Jewish comparisons, but seemingly delight in doing it and do little else.

        The worst Phil has ever done is to selectively quote from articles he cites, and to perpetuate theories of Jewish power that at least dovetail on some level with work done by those in the mainstream, even if Phil takes them much further than others do and draws conclusions that are not supported by the facts. But Phil isn’t nuts. I could easily have a conversation with him if I wanted to. The same goes for Alex Kane. I can respect people with a partisan political agenda. I understand where they’re coming from.

        But some of the others around here? I think I’d honestly walk away if I had to have a conversation with some of you people in person. Some of you really sound like you belong under a doctor’s care.

      • Ellen on October 11, 2012, 4:04 pm

        Hop, “Today’s it’s 90%? ”

        Go ahead bore into a expression of speech that means “most.” mine it for all it is worth. Make THAT your point of debate. It is a diversion from the substance of his argument. You know that well.

        And keep on haranging with your assertions and distortions in your effort to put YOUR words into Sean’s.

        And then, as you try to once again dismiss and ridicule Sean with ” when I make fun of you and you take it completely serious…”

        This IS serious. And a word of advice if you want to be taken seriously: don’t make fun and ridicule others. You only demean yourself.

      • Citizen on October 11, 2012, 4:50 pm

        @ hophmi
        The question is, not how long will anyone help the Palestinian freedom fighters get a state, but how long will the lone superpower USA enable Israel’s international transgressions without international accountability.

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 5:28 pm

        Ellen, if you credit a guy who claims Israel assassinated JFK, it’s your problem.

      • Ellen on October 11, 2012, 5:59 pm

        I did not credit anyone.

        And if you are claiming that Sean claimed Israel assassinated JFK, that is a lie and your delusion. He never claimed that no matter how hard your try to pin that onto him . (again the pattern of defaming posters here.)

        Also the taking this delusion ( or lie?) and pinning it onto me as “my problem” is part of the pattern of your discourse. You have failed to debate with truth, but instead stick to distortions and defamation of others.

        It is really interesting to watch.

        Btw, above you state that you are an American with an allegiance to USA. I have a passport so have a degree of civil loyalty within the confines of modern civil law.

        I have lost a nephew in Afganistan. My sister’s son. He never imagined he would be there. The last photo I have of him is smoking a cuban cigar I sent him.

        But it is not like this holy thing. My own children hold different passports. But we are one family…and quite tight, if I may add.

        So I am curious. What is this Israel thing? Is a nation state your spiritual identity? If so, is that greater than your passport identity?

        Would you send your children to fight and die with the I D F for ideas of blut und boden?

        This is a serious subject and none of your debating partners deserve ridicule.

      • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 7:32 pm

        hophmi wrote:

        You always have to shoot down crazy people who says things like “The Mossad killed JFK.”

        You are such a habitual and brazen liar that you will lie in a thread in which your lies are easily exposed.

        That is *not* my position on the Kennedy assassination. My position is that, like most Americans, I don’t believe the official story but also don’t believe in any particular conspiracy theories or speculations. I *am* interested in looking at and connecting all the well-grounded facts about the case that various schools of Kennedy assassination investigators have managed to turn up.

        The four parties that have been most often mentioned as suspects in the Kennedy assassination are the military-industrial complex, the CIA, the Italian Mafia and Israel/Mossad — often in complex combinations and alliances. No one should hesitate to take into account and analyze all the proven facts of the case that are known to date.

        Why do you lie like this so often? You lack the intellectual strength to conduct an effective debate, so you rely heavily on smears and personal attacks to try to muddle through. Pathetic. And your infantile behavior is typical of many pro-Israel activists.

        As for a refutation of the main book which explores the possible Israeli angle on the Kennedy assassination, where is it? Let’s see the URL for this refutation and I will read it carefully. Unlike you, I am interested in thoroughly examining all the facts and arguments concerning controversial issues.

        That book overall has received a positive response on its Amazon page, including 24 five-star reviews:

        http://www.amazon.com/Final-Judgment-Missing-Assassination-Conspiracy/dp/0974548405

        Which is not to say that I support the book — merely that I would look forward to seeing an intelligent debate on the book, one which sorted out all the provable facts from mere speculations.

        What I have found most interesting about the work of researchers investigating the Israeli angle on John F. Kennedy (his career in general, not just the assassination) is their uncovering of useful information about the origins and early development of Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

        One needs to correlate this information with what we know about Israel’s theft of nuclear weapons materials from the United States — a project in which Benjamin Netanyahu was reportedly involved (this new revelation came to light just recently).

      • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 7:51 pm

        hophmi,

        “Phil tolerates me here because, frankly, his opinion of me is a lot higher than it is of people like Sean….”

        Ah, so now you speak for Philip Weiss, as well as all Americans, “the Jews,” the world, etc. Perhaps Phil himself will come forward to support your claims about his opinions.

        I suspect the reason you are here is that you provide a useful foil — an opportunity to demolish Zionist arguments over and over again with the greatest of ease. (I probably shouldn’t let the cat out of the bag.)

        Hophmi: are your associates at the ADL building dossiers on Phil and all the main personalities on Mondoweiss? And do they share their dossiers with other Jewish and Israeli organizations and agencies? I haven’t yet seen your replies to those questions.

      • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 7:57 pm

        hophmi wrote:

        Ellen, if you credit a guy who claims Israel assassinated JFK, it’s your problem.

        I suspect that Ellen doesn’t hold in high regard someone who will insult her intelligence by blatantly lying to her face.

        Unlike you, Ellen can parse plain English — she correctly described my views on this controversy. She is smart. She is intellectually honest. You, on the other hand, rarely describe anyone’s views with accuracy or truthfulness because you are an exceptionally nasty hasbarist.

      • annie on October 11, 2012, 8:03 pm

        sean, why is it so expensive? over $70 used. jeez loise

      • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 8:21 pm

        Annie,

        Could the fact that so much effort has been exerted by ADL types like hophmi to censor the book account for its scarcity and steep price? I am not sure. There may be a digital copy of the book kicking around on the Internet if one looks around.

        An acquaintance sent me a copy of the book on her own initiative some years ago. I’ve read sections of the book, but not the entire book. The sections I read seemed to be well-researched and carefully documented. It’s a serious book.

        I would be interested to see a debate on the substance of the book by well-informed parties on both sides of the issue. I haven’t had time to research the controversy on my own.

      • Ellen on October 12, 2012, 4:57 am

        Hoppy, there you go again.

        Ellen, if you credit a guy who claims Israel assassinated JFK, it’s your problem.

        A lie used to defame others because you have no argument. When you do that, the debate is lost.

        1. He never made such a claim. You are projecting that claim. (Again, you continue to lie here on what others state. When those statements are only yours.)

        2. you uses that lie of his claim to smear into me, in an attempt to discredit me.

        Why? Because you obviously cannot honestly address the substance of what he or others say.

        All you are doing is making yourself and your cause (whatever that may be) absolutely ludicrous.

      • Citizen on October 12, 2012, 5:31 am

        @ Ellen
        Yes, you nailed hophmi’s regular pattern.

      • Chu on October 12, 2012, 12:43 pm

        Hophni,

        Ellen’s figured out your MO. I have to agree that she exposes what you
        so often do. Do you learn this behavior in law school?

      • hophmi on October 12, 2012, 1:10 pm

        “A lie used to defame others because you have no argument. When you do that, the debate is lost.

        1. He never made such a claim. You are projecting that claim. (Again, you continue to lie here on what others state. When those statements are only yours.) ”

        Big deal. He stated it in a comment without adopting it. He just “askin’ questions,” right? Ellen, I really couldn’t care less whether Sean formally adopted that particular belief; he’s done nothing to disabuse us of the notion that he holds it. He’s adopted others that are just as preposterous, from the idea that 9/11 is an inside job to the idea that the ADL is out to get him. That’s in addition to the fact that he frequently attributes ideas to me that I do not hold, asserting that I am some kind of political extremist, which I am not.

        “2. you uses that lie of his claim to smear into me, in an attempt to discredit me.”

        Ellen, you defended the guy. That reflects on your credibility, poorly.

        “Why? Because you obviously cannot honestly address the substance of what he or others say. ‘

        Then learn to read. I’ve addressed Sean’s pugnacious and ridiculous questions again and again. When he has put substance in his arguments, I’ve addressed them. Most of his “arguments” contain little or no substance. They are either lists of google searches or they are ideological blather laden with assumptions that are either demonstrably false (in which case I explain why) or of the when-did-you-start-beating-your-wife variety.

        Just be honest, Ellen. If it’s pro-Palestinian, you’re going to accept it, no matter how much actual substance is there, and if it’s not, you’re going to criticize it. If you were smart, you’d disavow people like Sean who turn being pro-Palestinian into being either a bigot or being a whackjob.

        “All you are doing is making yourself and your cause (whatever that may be) absolutely ludicrous.”

        Yes, Ellen, you know what? I’m not real responsive to people around here who tell me how ludicrous I am, particularly people like you who defend conspiracy theorists like Sean. Tell it to the pope. Or better yet, tell it to a mainstream audience who is not made up exclusively of co-travelers. Good luck.

      • seanmcbride on October 12, 2012, 1:24 pm

        hophmi,

        the idea that the ADL is out to get him.

        That is yet another lie, one of your many lies.

        These are the two questions I asked you:

        1. Is the ADL building dossiers on Philip Weiss, Annie Robbins, Alex Kane, Scott McConnell, Max Blumenthal, Adam Horowitz and other people associated with Mondoweiss, including Mondoweiss commenters?

        2. Does the ADL share its dossiers with other Jewish and Israeli organizations and agencies, including Mossad?

        You still haven’t answered them.

      • seanmcbride on October 12, 2012, 2:02 pm

        hophmi wrote:

        in addition to the fact that he frequently attributes ideas to me that I do not hold, asserting that I am some kind of political extremist, which I am not.

        More gobbledegook. I asserted, in very precise terms, that your 4,000+ comments on Mondoweiss demonstrate that you are obsessively ethnocentric and that you are an aggressive (and often abusive) ethnic nationalist. These are indisputable statements of fact. I also pointed out to you that the vast majority of Americans are not ethnic nationalists, and in fact emphatically reject ethnic nationalism in their politics.

        I offered you an opportunity to come to a mutual understanding of what ethnocentrism and ethnic nationalism are all about, but so far you have declined the invitation:

        Let’s conduct a little exercise to help you understand the concepts of “ethnic nationalism” and “ethnocentrism.”

        Review the last 25 blog posts of both Jeffrey Goldberg and Andrew Sullivan and compare the number of ethnic nationalist and ethnocentric posts by each author. Let’s see what numbers you come up and what numbers I come up with. Let’s establish clear guidelines for defining the characteristics of ethnic nationalist and ethnocentric posts.

        Show us your critical thinking skills in action.

        What’s the problem? Do you possess any critical thinking skills?

      • hophmi on October 12, 2012, 2:44 pm

        “More gobbledegook. I asserted, in very precise terms, that your 4,000+ comments on Mondoweiss demonstrate that you are obsessively ethnocentric and that you are an aggressive (and often abusive) ethnic nationalist.”

        LOL. Stating that I’ve posted a lot of comments and attaching a couple of politically loaded terms to your statement is not “precise.” It’s the definition of imprecision.

        “These are indisputable statements of fact. ”

        Then you have a poor understanding of what a fact is. A fact is not your subjective judgment.

        “I also pointed out to you that the vast majority of Americans are not ethnic nationalists, and in fact emphatically reject ethnic nationalism in their politics.”

        I disagree with you. I think many Americans practice a measure of ethnic and religio-nationalism in their politics. These days, you see it when they discuss immigration and talk about how America will be less than half white in coming years. What do you think that’s about? You also hear it a bit when Americans discuss affirmative action and suggest that whites are experiencing discrimination. You hear it when conservatives talk about a War on Christmas.

        “I offered you an opportunity to come to a mutual understanding of what ethnocentrism and ethnic nationalism are all about, but so far you have declined the invitation”

        That’s because your terms were silly. Jeff Goldberg is an international correspondent specializing in the Middle East. Andrew Sullivan is a blogger who focuses mostly on domestic affairs. Why would I enter that kind of debate with you? You’ll impose your own subjective definitions in order to make sure that the conclusions match the hypothesis and then claim every subjective statement is a fact. I don’t want to dignify that brand of thinking.

        “What’s the problem? Do you possess any critical thinking skills?’

        Do you possess any thinking skills, period?

      • hophmi on October 12, 2012, 3:03 pm

        “That is yet another lie, one of your many lies.”

        So you don’t believe the ADL is after you? Whew. Good. I was afraid you were on to us.

        I think you’re lying. When I started to joke around with you about it, you suggested that everyone should take it seriously. Or should I go back and quote your comments, or your paranoid questions, that you repeated over and over and over again about the minute details of my activity in the ADL and how many contacts I’ve had, and all that crap.

        “1. Is the ADL building dossiers on Philip Weiss, Annie Robbins, Alex Kane, Scott McConnell, Max Blumenthal, Adam Horowitz and other people associated with Mondoweiss, including Mondoweiss commenters?”

        I have no clue. I only thing I can say is that I highly doubt the ADL would waste time on anonymous commenters on the net. If they keep track of anyone, it will be through publicly available statements. But I am telling you again, this really is not what the ADL is or does. I can tell you one thing – they certainly keep a dossier on Pamela Geller, because they criticize her all the time.

        “2. Does the ADL share its dossiers with other Jewish and Israeli organizations and agencies, including Mossad? ”

        Not to my knowledge, and I don’t know what you’re considering a dossier. Do you know of any sharing between the ADL and Mossad? I assume you have a factual basis for your question.

      • seanmcbride on October 12, 2012, 4:48 pm

        hophmi,

        I think many Americans practice a measure of ethnic and religio-nationalism in their politics.

        Really. Then it should be easy for you to name some non-Jewish ethnic nationalists in American public life who are aggressive proponents of German nationalism, French nationalism, Italian nationalism, Irish nationalism, white Christian nationalism, etc. Who are they?

        I can quickly come up with the names of a few hundred prominent Jewish nationalists and pro-Israel activists in American public life — people like Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Goldberg, Douglas Feith, Charles Krauthammer, Abraham Foxman, Daniel Pipes, etc. Who are their equivalents for other ethnic groups?

        David Duke comes to mind. Louis Farrakhan. Who else?

  5. jon s on October 9, 2012, 2:56 pm

    A fascinating and insightful letter, amazing that JFK wrote it at age 22! Written in 1939, he almost forecasts the partition plan of 1947: a Jewish area, an Arab area, Jerusalem under a special regime.
    On the other hand I wonder where he got the “information” that the Jews were bombing their own facilities…

    • ColinWright on October 9, 2012, 4:45 pm

      jon s says: “…A fascinating and insightful letter, amazing that JFK wrote it at age 22! Written in 1939, he almost forecasts the partition plan of 1947: a Jewish area, an Arab area, Jerusalem under a special regime.
      On the other hand I wonder where he got the “information” that the Jews were bombing their own facilities…”

      I don’t know how amazing it is that JFK would forecast partition. My impression was that the Peel Commission had already recommended just that.

      • mig on October 10, 2012, 12:51 am

        @ColinWright

        My impression was that the Peel Commission had already recommended just that.

        Yup, and both, palestinians and jews rejected that partition plan..

      • jon s on October 10, 2012, 3:48 pm

        Mig,
        There was a difference: mainstream Jewish leadership acceped partition in principle , but rejected the specific map drawn up by the Peel commission.
        In effect they were saying:
        1. We agree to the establishment of a Jewish State in part of Mandate Palestine.
        2. We don’t accept the boundaries proposed by the Commission.
        3. Let’s negotiate.
        The Palestinian leadership, on the other hand, rejected partition in principle, as they did in 1947, and as the extremists on both sides still do today.

      • Woody Tanaka on October 10, 2012, 7:25 pm

        “There was a difference: mainstream Jewish leadership acceped partition in principle , but rejected the specific map drawn up by the Peel commission.”

        In other words, the Jews said: we’ll gladly accept what is someone else’s and what doesn’t belong to us as a starting point for taking it all. But we want more. And we’ll argue over getting even more.

      • mig on October 10, 2012, 7:50 pm

        @jon s :

        Mig,
        There was a difference: mainstream Jewish leadership acceped partition in principle , but rejected the specific map drawn up by the Peel commission.
        In effect they were saying:
        1. We agree to the establishment of a Jewish State in part of Mandate Palestine.
        2. We don’t accept the boundaries proposed by the Commission.
        3. Let’s negotiate.
        The Palestinian leadership, on the other hand, rejected partition in principle, as they did in 1947, and as the extremists on both sides still do today.

        There is no difference. Rejected. By both. That “in principle” is nice and cute & lovely indeed, while both sides rejected plan.

        http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/eb5b88c94aba2ae585256d0b00555536?OpenDocument

      • jon s on October 10, 2012, 2:05 am

        Colin,
        I wrote “amazing” regarding his age. The Peel Commission had , indeed, recommended partition, but in 1939 JFK knew that those recommendations were dead. So it is remarkable , in my view, that he realized, despite the failure of the Peel plan, that the principle of partition was sound. (And still is, in my opinion)

      • Mooser on October 10, 2012, 2:22 pm

        “So it is remarkable , in my view, that he realized, despite the failure of the Peel plan, that the principle of partition was sound. (And still is, in my opinion)”

        Eggs-ackly! It’ll be just like dividing a gold mine for everybody! Israel gets the gold, the Palestinians get the shaft.

        But of course, we all must recognise that partition is based on the Zionist principle of keeping what you have stolen. Is that why they call it a Jewish State, because it unfailingly hews to Zionist principles?

      • Citizen on October 12, 2012, 5:35 am

        @ Mooser
        Bingo!

    • American on October 9, 2012, 5:55 pm

      “On the other hand I wonder where he got the “information” that the Jews were bombing their own facilities…”….jon

      The British knew almost everything the Israelis were doing including smuggling weapons into other ME countries, telling Jews there they were about to be massacred and creating incidents for Jews in Iraq, Iran and etc.. in order to get them to flee to Israel….and to get the British to ‘airlift’ Jews from other ME states to Israel.

      Everything you need to know about Palestine-the ME- the Jews and Israel you can find in these book bound documents from the British National Archives.
      If you don’t want to order them then go the British National Archives site and search and you can download to your computer any reports you want to read.

      Zionist Movement and the foundation of Israel 1839-1972
      http://www.archiveeditions.co.uk/titledetails.asp?tid=124

      Palestine and Transjordan Administration Reports 1918–1948
      http://www.archiveeditions.co.uk/titledetails.asp?tid=73

      • Mooser on October 10, 2012, 2:25 pm

        Here’s a wonderful presentation from Lawrence of Cyberia, complete with wonderful pictures of old Palestine, and some very relevant sections of the British Archive reports.

      • American on October 10, 2012, 4:19 pm

        Mooser…

        your link isn’t working, can you try it again?

      • moonkoon on October 11, 2012, 8:43 pm

        … your link isn’t working, can you try it again?

        This one perhaps. It is a rebuttal of the zionist’s claims to agricultural supremacy. :-)
        http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2010/03/palestinians-made-the-desert-bloom.html

      • jon s on October 10, 2012, 3:32 pm

        American,
        Since we’re discussing a letter from 1939, your use of the term “Israelis” is anachronistic.
        The stories of Israeli agents staging provocations in order to “encourage ” Jewish immigration have been circulating for years, are unproved, and probably wrong. The best-known of these rumors has Israeli agents setting off bombs in Iraqi synagogues. Given the situation of Iraqi Jews at the time, it’s highly doubtful that they needed such “encouragement.
        In any case, these are also events that occured a decade after JFK’s letter.

      • American on October 11, 2012, 12:39 pm

        jon s says:
        October 10, 2012 at 3:32 pm

        American,
        Since we’re discussing a letter from 1939, your use of the term “Israelis” is anachronistic.
        The stories of Israeli agents staging provocations in order to “encourage ” Jewish immigration have been circulating for years, are unproved,””

        Regarding calling them Israelis in 1939, I thought it more polite than to call them Jews, implying all Jews, although I suppose I could have called them zionist.

        Regarding the ‘unproven” stories of the zionist creating chaos to get Jews in ME ocuntries to flee to Israel….I think I will take the word of the British officers and British intelligence “on the ground” at the time these events took place and can be found in the National Archives over your ‘opinion’.

        If you can find a “official’ report or document that contridicts these other official reports and documents show it to us…….until then you saying it isn’t so is worthless and your own uninformed and unresearched opinion.

        I gave you the sources to go to…go do your homework.

    • tree on October 10, 2012, 6:01 am

      A fascinating and insightful letter, amazing that JFK wrote it at age 22! Written in 1939, he almost forecasts the partition plan of 1947: a Jewish area, an Arab area, Jerusalem under a special regime.

      I’m rather surprised at how ignorant of Israeli history you are. Partition had already been broached by the Peel Commission in 1936, and was not some prophetic forecast of Kennedy’s. In fact he as much as acknowledges that in his letter, which you clearly did not read.

      On the other hand I wonder where he got the “information” that the Jews were bombing their own facilities…

      Again, you seem to be lacking any historical knowledge. The 1939 McDonald White Paper, which sought to place quotas on Jewish immigration and limit land sales, was vigorously protested by the Zionist Jews in Palestine. In fact, Jewish riots broke out, and the Irgun and Lehi, which had perpetrated atrocities against Palestinian Arab civilians since 1937, mostly by way of bombs, sought to sabotage and attack British forces in 1939 in response to the White Paper. The White Paper was adopted by the British and publicized in late May 1939. Kennedy was in Palestine right after the White Paper came out.

      You also seem to be misunderstanding what Kennedy said. It was not Jewish or Zionist “facilities” that were bombed by those two Jewish terrorist groups. It was British telephone and electrical lines which were disrupted in Jewish neighborhoods, since these were the easiest places for the Irgun and Lehi to disrupt them. Public British Mandate reports on the violence mention the 13 time bombs on June 8, 1939, so JFK must have written his letter on the following day, the 9th of that month.

      7 JUNE 1939
      Outrages by Jewish extremists have continued. On 7th June 2 bomb explosions in telephone manhole at Tel Aviv damaged a number of telephone lines. 2 bombs also exploded on railway line near Tel Aviv station doing little damage. On same date Jew shot dead an Arab in Jerusalem.
      FO 37l/23244

      8 JUNE 1939
      On 8th June about 2200 hours 13 time bombs exploded Jerusalem all (?directed) at electric light system. 5 transformers damaged but little interruption to lighting service. On 9th June Jewess arrested placing time bomb near central prison Jerusalem.
      FO 371D3244

      15 JUNE 1939
      Early this morning 3 Arabs were shot at by an unknown Jew at Jaffa, one of them being killed and two wounded. Shortly afterwards 2 bombs were thrown by 3 Jews at an Arab shack. One exploded harmlessly and the other failed to explode. Following these incidents Military Commander of the Southern District has prohibited traffic into and out of Tel Aviv from 12 noon today until 7 p.m. tomorrow. Last night 17 Jews were arrested in Tel Aviv for curfew breaking.
      FO 371/23244

      17 JUNE 1939
      This morning two Jews in Tel Aviv fired with revolvers on a party of Arabs in a cart while a third threw a bomb. One Arab was slightly injured. FO 37 ID3244

      19 JUNE 1939
      A bomb exploded in Haifa Vegetable Market at 0600 hours this morning killing 18 Arabs including 6 women and 3 children and wounded 24. Further bomb explosions occurred in a telephone kiosk in Hadar Hacarmel and in a telephone cable manhole.
      FO 37 ID3244

      29 JUNE 1939
      Following the killing and wounding of a number of Arabs in six separate shooting attacks by Jews this morning the Military Commander of the Southern District has prohibited all traffic to and from Tel Aviv and Rehovoth and Petah Tikva from noon today until 4 p.m. tomorrow. They all occurred about 0500 hours as follows. One Arab fatally shot by an unknown Jew in the Jaffa Road; another in King Solomon’s Street Tel Aviv. In the former (groups omitted) was wounded by a stray bullet.

      Three Arabs fired upon, two being killed one wounded by two unknown Jews near Rarnatgan.

      Two Arabs fired upon, one being killed one wounded by two unknown Jews outside Petahtikva.

      A party of Arabs fired upon in Rehovoth by unknown, four being killed one wounded.

      Four Arabs fired upon two being killed two wounded by unknown near Rishon Lezion Settlement.

      FO 371/23244

      30 JUNE 1939
      Just before 1000 today a bomb of Jewish origin exploded in an Arab cafe in Jerusalem wounding one Arab dangerously 4 severely and six slightly. As a consequence the military Commander has ordered that all Jewish cafes in Jerusalem shall be closed every evening at 8 p.m. until further orders. In addition all Jewish traffic in and out of Jerusalem by the Jaffa road is stopped from noon today until 6 p.m. on Sunday.
      FO 371/23244

      3 JULY 1939
      Following explosion of a time bomb in an Arab Cafe in Haifa yesterday afternoon killing one Arab and injuring 35, the Military Commander has closed all Jewish places of entertainment there such as Cinemas, Cafes, Dance Halls etc. for an indefinite period and has prohibited all Jewish taxis and private motorcars from entering or leaving town planning area of Haifa.
      FO 371/23244

      4 JULY 1939
      Two Jews threw a bomb into an Arab Lorry near Rahavia quarter of Jerusalem early this morning. Three Arabs were injured the Jews escaping to Rahavia. As a punishment the Military Commander has ordered that all Jewish traffic unless granted a special pass will be prohibited from using Ramleh Jerusalem road until four tomorrow.
      FO 37 ID3244

      6 AUGUST 1939
      On night 6th August party of Jews demolished Arab houses in Beit-Lidd. Houses had been marked by police dogs following land mine explosion on 29th July which wounded 5 Jews. This is the second incident of this type in Haifa area.
      FO 371/23245

      9 AUGUST 1939
      On 9th August new police coastal patrol launch was sunk at sea by explosion. One British sergeant killed one British and one Jewish constable injured. Explosion believed due to Jewish time bomb.
      FO 37 ID3245

      26 AUGUST 1939
      On 26 August two British Police Inspectors were killed by a landmine outside their house in Jerusalem. Outrage unquestionably planned by Revisionist Military Organization. One of the victims was employed on Jewish Affairs in C.I.D. Headquarters and had been previously threatened. Active measures being taken against extreme Revisionists.
      W O 1691148

      http://www.palestine-encyclopedia.com/EPP/Chapter04_2of2.htm

      Zionist terrorism abated somewhat during WWII, but picked again with a fury in 1946, aimed at Palestinian civilians as well as the British Mandatory government, British military forces, and even the British government in London.

      • jon s on October 10, 2012, 4:05 pm

        Tree,
        Indeed, the Jews regarded the White Paper as a cruel act of treachery by the British. The year was 1939, and exactly at the time that war was approaching, and millions of Jews desperately needed to escape from Europe- the British were closing the gates.

        In 1939 the Lehi didn’t exist yet. Terrorist attacks were carried out by the Irgun, and condemned by the mainsteam leadership. Assuming that JFK was referring to those bombings – I stand corrected.

      • Woody Tanaka on October 10, 2012, 7:18 pm

        “the British were closing the gates.”

        They weren’t the British’s gates to open in the first place.

  6. Dan Crowther on October 9, 2012, 3:29 pm

    Well, I guess JFK is out of the Free Gaza Movement

  7. Avi_G. on October 9, 2012, 3:41 pm

    P.S. A smart friend has pointed out to me the phrase at the beginning of the letter, in which JFK says to his father: “Dear Dad: I thought I would write you my impressions on Palestine while they were still fresh in my mind, though you undoubtedly, if I know the Jews, know the ‘whole’ story.” This is anti-Semitic dogwhistling. JFK’s father was famous for his anti-semitism. JFK is saying that “the Jews” have already gotten to his father with the hasbara. And so he is telling him the real story… Complicated.

    It’s hard to tell the difference between Jews and Zionists when 99.9% of Jews in the West are supportive of the Zionist colonial project — liberal or otherwise.

    • Rusty Pipes on October 9, 2012, 4:34 pm

      JFK generalizes about both “the Jews” and “the Arabs” in the letter, although he does recognize some differences of opinion among both groups. Near the end of the letter he says:

      The question is further complicated by the fact that both groups are split among themselves. There is the strongly orthodox Jewish group, unwilling to make any compromise, who wished to have a government expressing this attitude, there is the liberal Jewish element composed of the younger group who fear these reactionaries, and wish to establish a very liberal, almost communistic form of government, and there are the in betweens who are willing to make a compromise. There are even further lines cutting these groups, but they do manage to present a united front now; if and when they get their claims, then the breakup will start.

      • American on October 9, 2012, 7:04 pm

        We still have those three groups…..the ubers, the liberals and the go along to get alongs.
        I think we had stronger Jewish “opposers” to zionism and Israel in the beginning, in the 40’s.
        But they got mowed down by the zio mafia.

  8. Les on October 9, 2012, 4:21 pm

    From MJ Rosenberg.

    Mainstream Jewish organizations are expressing their outrage over the letter to Congress from church leaders asking the Congress regarding “Israeli government’s compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies,” that govern aid provided by US taxpayer dollars.

    http://mjayrosenberg.com/2012/10/09/mainstream-jewish-organizations-earn-israel-first-designation-again/

    • Rusty Pipes on October 9, 2012, 5:55 pm

      Good for MJ for picking up on this:

      Think about it. The church groups are asking only that the disbursement of U.S. aid be “contingent on the Israeli government’s compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies.”

      Now, the organizations may not know this but the disbursement of all domestic assistance (Social Security, food stamps, subsidies to farmers and everyone else) is contingent on “compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies.” Moreover, the current economic situation has put all those programs under scrutiny, and most have sustained cuts which have cost many Americans (including cops and teachers) their jobs. The one program exempt from scrutiny and from cuts is the aid to Israel program. In fact, every budget slashing proposal passed or pending in Congress exempts Israel and only Israel (no, the U.S. military is not exempt while the Israeli military is).

      And now AIPAC’s satellite organizations are screaming at church groups for simply asking that we subject Israel to the same process that we subject Americans too.

      As far as the Presbyterian signer is concerned, this letter to congress is a follow up to an action from this summer’s General Assembly. Good to see that many other denominational leaders joined in this statement.

      • Rusty Pipes on October 10, 2012, 4:52 pm

        Actually, this has been Presbyterian policy since 2010: On Seeking Compliance to U.S. Government Policy in the Use of Military Aid by All Parties in the Middle East.:

        The Presbytery of Chicago respectfully overtures the 219th General Assembly (2010) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to take the following actions:

        1. Express its enduring and heartfelt commitment to security, justice and lasting peace for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

        2. Express its support for the U.S. government policy of carefully vetting the funds distributed to foreign countries in ways that ensure peaceful development and are consistent with international law, human rights protections, and U.S. foreign policy, namely:

        a. the US Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 which prohibits giving assistance to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of human rights violations;

        b. the U.S. Arms Export Control Act of 1976 which prohibits using U.S. weapons against civilians and civilian infrastructure, and

        c. the U.S. foreign policy insofar as it pertains to recommendations for steps toward peace, in this instance, between Israelis and Palestinians.

        3. Call for the allocation of U.S. military aid funds to be contingent on compliance with the above-mentioned statutes and/or to the peace process.

        4. Express its extreme disappointment with the U.S. government that while the State of Israel has been found not to comply with the above statutes, it continues to be the recipient of U.S. military aid.

        5. Direct the Stated Clerk of the PC(USA) to communicate these recommendations to all members of the U.S. Congress, in particular the chairs of the Foreign Relations Committees for the House and Senate and to all appropriate members of the U.S. administration, including the president, vice-president, secretary of state and secretary of defense.

    • American on October 9, 2012, 6:59 pm

      I loved this part of the Jewish committe’s letter…LOL

      ““Most Americans, including most Christians support a strong U.S. Israel relationship and recognize that foreign aid is a wise American investment. This is also the view of the leaders of both parties in both houses of Congress and both candidates for president,” said Gutow. “Those signatories to this letter are out of sync with these mainstream values”

      It occurs to me that I said a long, long time ago, on here probably, that if the zio Israel firsters start a war with Americans they would lose. Well, in their colossal idiocy and arrogance they have started that war ….with American Christian churches, of all institutions and groups…..really really stupid.
      The Christian Churches are obviously not accepting the one and only fail safe Zio Eternal Holocaust Excuse for Israel……THAT in itself should be a big red flashing Stop sign for the zios. Talk about ‘out of sync’?…the zios are deaf, dumb and blind to the signals being sent out.

      • Mooser on October 10, 2012, 2:37 pm

        http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/pew-poll-religion.php

        As the Rabbi asked, when informed about the impending asteroid….

      • American on October 10, 2012, 4:39 pm

        “As the Rabbi asked, when informed about the impending asteroid….”” Mooser

        Doesn’t matter….I am one of the most lackadaisical christians and church goers you can find and I still get bombarded by all my stalward church going friends about everything the churches are doing.
        Out here in real land the church goers are the most politically active and their grapevine and gossping reaches everyone….you can’t avoid it.
        Dollars to doughnuts I will hear about this from one of them before the week is out.

    • ColinWright on October 9, 2012, 7:04 pm

      Les says: “Mainstream Jewish organizations are expressing their outrage over the letter to Congress from church leaders asking the Congress regarding “Israeli government’s compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies,” that govern aid provided by US taxpayer dollars.”

      Well, that is an outrage. I suppose next they’ll be expecting Israel to abide by its own commitments and conform to international law.

  9. American on October 9, 2012, 6:10 pm

    “”Dear Dad: I thought I would write you my impressions on Palestine while they were still fresh in my mind, though you undoubtedly, if I know the Jews, know the ‘whole’ story.” This is anti-Semitic dogwhistling. “..Phil

    I don’t think that is anti semitic dogwhistling. I think JFK is saying he is sure JFK Sr. has been assailed,propagandized and pushed like every other US person of influence by the zionist “with their version of the truth’ for their agenda.
    Iow, the pushy, devious and not necessarily truthful or honorable zionist ubers. That the zionist were these things was said by almost everyone, even Truman after his dealings with them. Remember..if it’s true it’s not anti semitic.
    I think the people, Jews and gentiles both, who objected to and denigrated the zionist in the 40’s were very smart and prescient about exactly what the zios were and what they were up to and what the Jewish state would eventually become under the zionist rule.

    • Citizen on October 12, 2012, 5:54 am

      @ American

      That’s my take too. He’s saying essentially: “Here’s what I discovered. You will see it conflicts with what I’m sure you’ve been told is the whole essential story.”

  10. DICKERSON3870 on October 9, 2012, 11:51 pm

    RE: “Kennedy is mostly on the Arab side in this letter. He reflects their long history in the land and the arrogance of the Zionist immigrants, their desire to dominate. He largely describes the Jewish immigrants in colonial terms (cultural superiority, desire for economic domination), but also recognizes that they are “refugees” from the Nazis. ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: Dare I say: “Like an Iron Wall”?!?! As in Jabotinsky’s “Iron Wall”. We’re not talking about Martin Buber and/or Judah Magnes! ! !

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Iron Wall (essay)]:

    “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)” is an essay written by Ze’ev Jabotinsky in 1923. It was originally published in Russian, the language in which Jabotinsky wrote for the Russian press.[1]
    He wrote the essay after the British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill prohibited Zionist settlement on the east bank of the Jordan River, and formed the Zionist Revisionist party after writing it.[2]
    Jabotinsky argued that the Palestinian Arabs would not agree to a Jewish majority in Palestine, and that “Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.”[1] The only solution to achieve peace and a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, he argued, would be for Jews to unilaterally decide its borders and defend them with the strongest security possible.

    ♦ References
    1. ^ a b Jabotinsky, Ze’ev (4 November 1923). “The Iron Wall”. – http://www.jabotinsky.org/multimedia/upl_doc/doc_191207_49117.pdf
    2. ^ Zionist Freedom Alliance – Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky – http://www.zfa.org.il/articles/jabotinsky.html

    ♦ External links
    Lustick, Ian S. (2007). “Abandoning the Iron Wall: Israel and ‘The Middle Eastern Muck'”. Middle East Policy (Middle East Policy Council) (Fall 2007). – http://mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/abandoning-iron-wall-israel-and-middle-eastern-muck

    SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Wall_(essay)

    P.S. ENTIRE ESSAY: The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs), By Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1923 – http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm

  11. hophmi on October 10, 2012, 11:36 am

    Let’s remember that Joe Kennedy was an antisemite who supported Hitler.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Sr.#Evidence_of_Anti-Semitism

    Let’s also note that the rhetoric of “America First” committees in the run-up to World War II, committees on which Joe Kennedy and Charles Lindbergh were active, is strikingly similar to the rhetoric of those who accuse those of favoring strong US-Israel ties as being “Israel-firsters.”

    I don’t think it is accurate at all to suggest that JFK is “mostly on the Arab side,” though if that is your definition of being an “honest broker,” I think we can now see the obvious bias of that particular term; honest broker is code for pro-Arab. He calls for a two-state solution. He recognizes that the economic achievements of the Jews provoked feelings of inferiority amongst the Arabs.

    If anything, he supports the idea that the British were indeed pro-Arab, not pro-Jewish, and his letter is, if anything, pro-British. Marc Ellis would call JFK an Empire Catholic.

    • Woody Tanaka on October 10, 2012, 12:37 pm

      “Let’s also note that the rhetoric of ‘America First’ committees in the run-up to World War II, committees on which Joe Kennedy and Charles Lindbergh were active, is strikingly similar to the rhetoric of those who accuse those of favoring strong US-Israel ties as being ‘Israel-firsters.'”

      LMAO. No, it’s not. Do you known ANYTHING about history, hoppy?

      “honest broker is code for pro-Arab.”

      Uh, no. The US has praised itself as being an honest broker while being a fully-owned subsideary of the Zionist lobby.

      “He calls for a two-state solution.”

      Not quite. He calls for two autonomous districts with self-government so long as they do not interfere with each other. (Plus the corpus separatum.) The present-day two-state solution, to the zios atleast, envisions one state and a bantustan with no power, in which the Jewish state will dominat the Palestininan state.

      “He recognizes that the economic achievements of the Jews provoked feelings of inferiority amongst the Arabs.”

      No, he recognized that the Jews had economic ADVANTAGES, no achievements, and they were seeking to use that power to steal the entirety of Palestine and Jordan over the objections of those whose land it was, and planned to lord over the natives. And of course the Arabs recognized that they were in an economicly inferior position to foreign hordes using their money to impliment their devilish zionist plans.

      “If anything, he supports the idea that the British were indeed pro-Arab, not pro-Jewish, and his letter is, if anything, pro-British.”

      His letter is pro-British, but you’re mad if you think that the letter supports the nonsensical claim that the British were pro-Arab. That’s nuts.

      • Mooser on October 10, 2012, 2:42 pm

        “strikingly similar to the rhetoric of those who accuse those”

        Damn, that Hophmi can write! Has anyone ever forged such an unbreakable chain of irrefutable insinuation? And Zola thought he was hot stuff!

    • Cliff on October 10, 2012, 2:41 pm

      What hoppy is saying is that if you are against the Jewish colonial project in Palestine and theft of Palestinian land and resources then…

      Verb, noun, antisemitism/Nazi.

      This is a rendition of the imbecile’s previous slippery-slope, wherein he slandered all Palestinians as being Hitlerians vis a vis the Grand Mufti.

    • MRW on October 11, 2012, 7:10 am

      Let’s also note that the rhetoric of “America First” committees in the run-up to World War II, committees on which Joe Kennedy and Charles Lindbergh were active, is strikingly similar to the rhetoric of those who accuse those of favoring strong US-Israel ties as being “Israel-firsters.”

      So?

      We’re Americans.

    • ColinWright on October 12, 2012, 3:52 pm

      hophmi says: “…I think we can now see the obvious bias of that particular term; honest broker is code for pro-Arab…”

      I’d say that remark calls for an award. 5 chutzbah points.

  12. hophmi on October 10, 2012, 1:04 pm

    “LMAO. No, it’s not. Do you known ANYTHING about history, hoppy?”

    Yeah, lots. The line America Firsters used back then was that the Jews were trying to drag us into war. The line people who level the charge of Israel-firsters use is that the Jews dragged us into one war and are trying to drag us into a second.

    Seems pretty similar to me.

    “Uh, no. The US has praised itself as being an honest broker while being a fully-owned subsideary of the Zionist lobby.”

    Actually, I don’t think many administration officials have called themselves honest brokers. As used here by Phil, the term means “pro-Arab.” If honest broker means pro-Arab, than self-styled honest brokers should just come out and say so, as Phil did here.

    “Not quite. He calls for two autonomous districts with self-government so long as they do not interfere with each other. (Plus the corpus separatum.) ”

    Yes, it was 1939 and the statement was made in the context of British plans floated at the time. You can explain to me how autonomy would have worked with the British in charge. I think we all know the answer to that one. JFK was favoring two states.

    “No, he recognized that the Jews had economic ADVANTAGES, no achievements, ”

    Sorry, but that is not what he said. He said: “[The Arabs] realize the superiority [of the Jews] and fear it.” He says right before that that even with Jewish advantages, Arabic cultivation practices “could not under any circumstances probably have competed with the Jews.”

    Your “Jews had no achievements” alternate reality just isn’t going to cut it, Woody.

    “And of course the Arabs recognized that they were in an economicly inferior position to foreign hordes using their money to impliment their devilish zionist plans. ”

    Wow, what a complete racist you are. “Foreign hordes.” Disgusting.

    • Cliff on October 10, 2012, 2:48 pm

      Really, the line about ISRAEL-firsters is referring to Jews? People who are just Jewish?

      That is the main identifier?

      Ethnicity and religion matter so much in American politics and so it’s entirely reasonable for people to be divided along those lines within a political context if there is some nuance in the explanation.

      And there is – its not about some random Jew on the street. It’s about fascist, racist, pro-colonial/pro-Apartheid, ethno-religious nut cases like yourself dragging us into war after war. It’s about people like you who tell us, and we’re American by the way (and I’m a second generation Indian who doesn’t constantly hate on non-Indians), that there is no daylight between Israel and the US as you bulldoze our citizens when they stand up for justice.

      **** you hophmi. You’re first and foremost a coward and a Zionist. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass that you’re Jewish.

      I’m 27 years old and have barely met any Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians in my entire life. So don’t project your MENTAL ILLNESS and insecurity on your political enemies simply because they think you – as a person, because of your actions – are trash.

      • hophmi on October 10, 2012, 3:17 pm

        “Really, the line about ISRAEL-firsters is referring to Jews? People who are just Jewish?”

        Pretty much. Do you not read the blog? A good deal of the blog is dedicated to perpetuating the idea that Jews have become a powerful minority in the United States, as evidenced by the rise of prominent Jews in government. The allegation frequently made here is that a cabal of neoconservatives Jews, all with strong links to the Likud party in Israel, pushed the US into War with Iraq with the primary purpose of making the Middle East safer for Israel. And now the same types are pushing the US to war with Iran.

        “And there is – its not about some random Jew on the street. It’s about fascist, racist, pro-colonial/pro-Apartheid, ethno-religious nut cases like yourself dragging us into war after war. ”

        I see, so it’s only some of the Jews. One day, you’ll understand that people like me don’t allow people like you to make those distinctions, just as the African American community doesn’t accept the conservative argument that it’s only those “activist” black people they don’t like, you know, the “militant” ones.

        “and I’m a second generation Indian who doesn’t constantly hate on non-Indians”

        That’s great. So is it OK with you if I decide to take the view that the damn Indians are leading us toward World War III with their nuclear machinations in Southeast Asia? Oh, not all Indians. Just the cabal of right-wing ones, which I’ll proceed to define as including most Indians. And I’m going to make sure and blur the lines every so often so you get the impression that I could do without Indians at all, or least that I could not care less what happens to Indians. I’ll say things like, “those Pakistanis are great, especially the ones who hate the Indians the most” and “the Mumbai attacks were totally India’s fault,” like the way you guys do with terrorist attacks which kill Israeli civilians. I’ll trumpet those Indians who have the most horrible things to say about India, like you guys do with Neturei Karta, Israel Shahak, Norman Finkelstein, and a host of others. Maybe I’ll find a few, like Shahak, who say lots of nasty things about Hinduism.

        How will you feel then?

        “I’m 27 years old and have barely met any Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians in my entire life.”

        I’ll remember that the next time I decide whether you deserve to taken seriously or not.

        “So don’t project your MENTAL ILLNESS and insecurity on your political enemies simply because they think you – as a person, because of your actions – are trash.”

        Having met few Jews, Palestinians, or Arabs, I think you honestly know little about what you’re talking about.

      • Cliff on October 10, 2012, 6:36 pm

        Hoppy said:
        Just the cabal of right-wing ones, which I’ll proceed to define as including most Indians.
        —-

        That’s right, just the ones that are actually relevant to the political context that every rational and sincere person engaged in this issue comprehends.

        The rest of your comment is worthless.

        I don’t have to know any Jews, Muslims, etc. to comment on this issue.

        People laud Finkelstein because of his polemical style, his reputation for being a ‘forensic scholar’ (self-titled but true nonetheless) and sure, because of Jewish identity politics to a degree.

        There are plenty of Jews involved in this issue though. And not all of them are as popular as Finkelstein.

        The infatuation with Jewish this and that is self-infatuation. It is initiated and perpetuated by narcissists like you. Anti-Zionists are the reaction.

        You are the only one here who keeps pushing antisemitic canards to further a political agenda. Phil and the MW regulars make nuanced arguments regarding Jewish identity and Jewish power.

        You do not. In fact, underneath all your hysterical verbiage is a very dumb person who has severely poor reading comprehension skills.

        Spend less time being a whiny ***** and more time actually proving your thesis (you know, citing what Phil is saying or whoever your haranguing at any given time).

        Oh and don’t even try to say Woody said ‘no accomplishments’ – it was a typo you looser! LOL

      • Woody Tanaka on October 10, 2012, 7:27 pm

        “Pretty much. Do you not read the blog? A good deal of the blog is dedicated to perpetuating the idea that Jews have become a powerful minority in the United States, as evidenced by the rise of prominent Jews in government. The allegation frequently made here is that a cabal of neoconservatives Jews, all with strong links to the Likud party in Israel, pushed the US into War with Iraq with the primary purpose of making the Middle East safer for Israel. And now the same types are pushing the US to war with Iran. ”

        You’re an idiot. Most Israel-Firsters in the US aren’t even Jews, they’re Evangelical Christians.

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 10:07 am

        “You’re an idiot. Most Israel-Firsters in the US aren’t even Jews, they’re Evangelical Christians.”

        Ad hominem. Anyway, you must not read the blog, because despite that fact, the author of the blog frequently points out that the driving forces are Jewish.

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 10:16 am

        “That’s right, just the ones that are actually relevant to the political context that every rational and sincere person engaged in this issue comprehends.

        The rest of your comment is worthless.”

        Yet you continue to respond to it.

        “I don’t have to know any Jews, Muslims, etc. to comment on this issue.”

        No, you don’t. As we lawyers say, it simply goes to the weight of what you say, not its admissibility.

        “People laud Finkelstein because of his polemical style, his reputation for being a ‘forensic scholar’ (self-titled but true nonetheless) and sure, because of Jewish identity politics to a degree.”

        Most actually criticize him for his polemical style, because polemical and scholarly are sort of opposites. It’s just fun to watch you guys complain about him, whereas when you thought he could do no wrong, you denied he was a polemicist and denied he was a hothead.

        “The infatuation with Jewish this and that is self-infatuation.”

        I have no such infatuation. It’s you who seems to be infatuated, along with others here.

        “You are the only one here who keeps pushing antisemitic canards to further a political agenda. Phil and the MW regulars make nuanced arguments regarding Jewish identity and Jewish power.”

        I’m not the only one, but if the shoe fits… The arguments lack nuance, actually. That’s the problem with most of them.

        “You do not. In fact, underneath all your hysterical verbiage is a very dumb person who has severely poor reading comprehension skills. ”

        Another ad hominem. YAWN.

      • MRW on October 11, 2012, 9:50 pm

        @hophmi

        The allegation frequently made here is that a cabal of neoconservatives Jews, all with strong links to the Likud party in Israel, pushed the US into War with Iraq with the primary purpose of making the Middle East safer for Israel. And now the same types are pushing the US to war with Iran.

        Allegations?

        No. Reporting.

    • American on October 10, 2012, 4:28 pm

      @ hoppie

      “Sorry, but that is not what he said. He said: “[The Arabs] realize the superiority [of the Jews] and fear it.” He says right before that that even with Jewish advantages, Arabic cultivation practices “could not under any circumstances probably have competed with the Jews.”

      Hmmm……let me think here. Native Jews were living in the same land as Palestines before European Jews got there..right?
      So if Jews are so superior why didn’t they come up with ‘cultivation practices? Why did Jews have to bring the practices the Jews didn’t invent and GOT FROM EUROPEAN PRACTICIES?
      I mean if Jews are so superior all on their own…why no advanced cultivation practices before other Jews got there and brought WHAT THEY LEARNED FROM NON JEWS?

      Really hoppie you have such a need to be seen as superior because you’re Jewish that I can ‘t regard it as anything but a really deep, deep seated inferiority complex you try to cover by bragging on your phantom superiority.

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 10:05 am

        “Hmmm……let me think here. Native Jews were living in the same land as Palestines before European Jews got there..right?”

        A tiny community of them, yes.

        “So if Jews are so superior why didn’t they come up with ‘cultivation practices? Why did Jews have to bring the practices the Jews didn’t invent and GOT FROM EUROPEAN PRACTICIES?”

        I have no idea. No, I don’t think that’s accurate. They may have used their European educations to devise new practices, but most European Jewish emigres did not come to the Middle East with crop cultivation experience.

        “I mean if Jews are so superior all on their own…why no advanced cultivation practices before other Jews got there and brought WHAT THEY LEARNED FROM NON JEWS?”

        YAWN. They clearly didn’t learn that much from the non-Jews, who seemed not to be so great at it. Your argument is circular. What happened is that Jews arrived, formed collectives, and solved some of these problems. The Arabs got jealous.

        “Really hoppie you have such a need to be seen as superior because you’re Jewish that I can ‘t regard it as anything but a really deep, deep seated inferiority complex you try to cover by bragging on your phantom superiority.”

        Tell it to someone who cares. As usual, you’re changing the subject because you know you’re wrong and want to shoot off a cheap shot. The assertion was that Arabs thought Jews superior because they received more funding from abroad, and that this made them resentful. JFK’s letter says that what made Arabs feel inferior not just because Jews had a funding advantage, but because they knew, even if that funding advantage had not been there, they would still have been unable to compete.

    • MRW on October 11, 2012, 7:12 am

      The line America Firsters used back then was that the Jews were trying to drag us into war. The line people who level the charge of Israel-firsters use is that the Jews dragged us into one war and are trying to drag us into a second.

      Really? News to me. Was it true?

    • Woody Tanaka on October 11, 2012, 9:54 am

      Well, hopper, my long response wasn’t posted. Here’s the short one:

      “Seems pretty similar to me.”

      Nope. Learn some history.

      “I don’t think many administration officials have called themselves honest brokers.”

      Then you’re not paying attention. Google it.

      “Sorry, but that is not what he said.”

      Yes, it is. He recognized that the Arabs recognized the Jews’ advantages in access to capital. He opined based on that recognition, but the recognition has nothing to do with the supremacist nonsense you’re peddling.

      “Your ‘Jews had no achievements’ alternate reality just isn’t going to cut it, Woody.”

      Really, hoppy?? You’re reduced to picking on a clear typo. If you think that I mean that the Jews had no achievements, by dropping the “t” in the word “not” then you are more of a fool than I thought you were.

      “Wow, what a complete racist you are. ‘Foreign hordes.’ Disgusting.”

      Nothing racist about it. “Foreign” — They were clearly foreign, as the number of Jews in Palestine at the start of the zionist project was miniscule, nearly non-existant. They were primarily European people, going to someone else’s land — land to which they had no connection save for religious stories set in Palestine — and steal it. That’s why immigration was such a big issue; the zionists were not native to the land and had to immigrate from elsewhere. So clearly they were “foreign.”

      And “Horde” — given the acts they undertook in taking over someone else’s land and driving them out — committing the ongoing Nakba — I’d say that “horde” is probably a kind description of them.

      So clearly “Foreign Horde” is perfectly appropriate.

  13. Mooser on October 10, 2012, 2:48 pm

    “Your “Jews had no achievements” alternate reality just isn’t going to cut it, Woody.”

    Obviously, you schmendrick he meant “not”. Typing in a hurry, he left out a letter. Okay, now I’ve seen everything. An inference of anti-Semitism based on a typo! Hophmi, you don’t abrade the bottom of the hogshead, you tunnel under it.

    • seanmcbride on October 10, 2012, 3:09 pm

      Obviously, you schmendrick he meant “not”. Typing in a hurry, he left out a letter. Okay, now I’ve seen everything. An inference of anti-Semitism based on a typo! Hophmi, you don’t abrade the bottom of the hogshead, you tunnel under it.

      That, Mooser, is what is known in the biz as a “keeper.” :)

      I am willing to bet that hophmi on a typical day thinks more often about his ethnic, religious and nationalist enemies than he thinks about sex — and that, as any reputable psychologist will tell you, just isn’t natural.

      • MRW on October 11, 2012, 7:13 am

        My riposte was going to be too vulgar . . . .

      • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 10:18 am

        “I am willing to bet that hophmi on a typical day thinks more often about his ethnic, religious and nationalist enemies than he thinks about sex — and that, as any reputable psychologist will tell you, just isn’t natural.”

        You must be a really bad gambler. One day, maybe you’ll learn the difference between a fact and an assumption.

  14. ColinWright on October 11, 2012, 5:59 am

    Be fair. Consider what Hophmi has to work with. Could you build a better case for Israel?

    These guys only sound like morons because they’re trying to defend the indefensible. They may be perfectly intelligent otherwise. For example, I imagine you could explain the concept of a stock option to them without undue difficulty.

    Well…some of them really are morons. But you see my point. Nobody could sound intelligent trying to defend Israel. All Hophmi’s got to work with are faulty comparisons, non-existent facts, ad hominem attacks, and accusations of anti-semitism. He does what he can…

    • seanmcbride on October 11, 2012, 9:29 am

      These guys only sound like morons because they’re trying to defend the indefensible.

      Actually, my impression is that people who are emotionally drawn to ethnic and religious nationalism (like hophmi), especially in an overexcited and fanatical way, do tend to be “morons” — usually at a primitive stage of personal and intellectual development. There is always a strong whiff of infantilism and cult brainwashing about them. They lack critical thinking skills and a wide-ranging curiosity about the world. They tend to rant and mechanically regurgitate canned propaganda.

      Hophmi has the weakest mind of any commenter I’ve encountered on Mondoweiss. He is also the commenter who is most mired down in narcissistic and solipsistic ethnocentrism and ethnic nationalism.

    • hophmi on October 11, 2012, 10:00 am

      “Consider what Hophmi has to work with. Could you build a better case for Israel?”

      I have no trouble doing it. I don’t expect to convince everyone here, especially the hardcore partisans on the other side.

      ” All Hophmi’s got to work with are faulty comparisons, non-existent facts, ad hominem attacks, and accusations of anti-semitism. He does what he can…”

      No faulty comparisons. You may not accept them, but I can assure you that plenty do. I am not the one doing the lion’s share of ad hominem attacks here. You’re projecting.

      • Ellen on October 11, 2012, 12:01 pm

        Hoppy,

        “hardcore partisans on the other side. …”

        Is it really a partisan thing? Is it all about taking sides?

        This is something I do not understand. I mean, you know, we take sides in a game, but that is really all.

        Aren’t we all on the same side? Is it possible for you to think in a universal way?

      • Citizen on October 12, 2012, 6:30 am

        @ Ellen

        You asked hophmi, “Aren’t we all on the same side? Is it possible for you to think in a universal way?”

        Hophmi said in retraction, earlier in this thread:

        “I see, so it’s only some of the Jews. One day, you’ll understand that people like me don’t allow people like you to make those distinctions, just as the African American community doesn’t accept the conservative argument that it’s only those “activist” black people they don’t like, you know, the “militant” ones.”

      • ColinWright on October 11, 2012, 2:22 pm

        hophmi says: ‘…I have no trouble doing it…’

        Well, my hundred word challenge still stands. I’m mildly surprised no one has tried to meet it; is it actually impossible to write one hundred consecutive words in support of Israel without lying at least once?

        Maybe you can do it. Have a go.

      • Mayhem on October 11, 2012, 10:37 pm

        @Colin, no problem at all.
        This Saudi based report at http://www.arabnews.com/arab-spring-and-israeli-enemy should suffice to meet your bogus challenge, throwing in a slab of criticism of the arab side of the equation to boot.

      • ColinWright on October 12, 2012, 3:56 pm

        Mayhem says: “@Colin, no problem at all.
        This Saudi based report at link to arabnews.com
        should suffice to meet your bogus challenge, throwing in a slab of criticism of the arab side of the equation to boot.”

        Well, I went so far as to click on the link and read through the first three paragraphs — nothing in support of Israel at all.

        Perhaps you could post the excerpt that you feel supports Israel without lying at least once for one hundred consecutive words? If you are going to claim you’ve fulfilled the challenge, the least you can do is post your entry.

      • Mayhem on October 12, 2012, 8:11 pm

        @Colin, try this para toward the end of the article. You can hardly pull the hasbara excuse to fend off this one.

        Finally, if many of the Arab states are in such disarray, then what happened to the Arabs’ sworn enemy (Israel)? Israel now has the most advanced research facilities, top universities and advanced infrastructure. Many Arabs don’t know that the life expectancy of the Palestinians living in Israel is far longer than many Arab states and they enjoy far better political and social freedom than many of their Arab brothers. Even the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip enjoy more political and social rights than some places in the Arab World. Wasn’t one of the judges who sent a former Israeli president to jail is an Israeli-Palestinian?

Leave a Reply