Trending Topics:

David Cameron and liberal Zionist groups try to shore up support for Iran deal

Israel/Palestine
on 39 Comments

PutinThe diplomats are meeting in Geneva, and the Israeli Prime Minister, shown meeting with his Russian counterpart, continues to try and stick a spoke in the wheels of American deal-making with Iran:

Netanyahu is evidently referring to a series of tweets from the account linked to Iran’s Supreme Leader. Several are viciously critical of Israel and the lobby, but others directly attack the U.S.

Other leaders are being diplomatic. The British are trying to save the deal. David Cameron tweets that he is the first British PM to call an Iranian president in more than a decade, and the Iranian president reciprocates:

Liberal Zionist groups have come out strongly on behalf of the Obama administration. J Street:

J Street reiterated Wednesday its strong support for efforts by the United States and its partners in the P5+1 to reach an agreement with Iran that could serve as a significant first step in efforts to prevent the Iranians from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
… J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami [said a deal] “should be welcomed by the whole world, including Israel, as a major step toward averting the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran without resorting to military action.”…

While Peace Now’s Lara Friedman also urged her membership to call their Senators to oppose amendments to the Defense authorization act that would tighten sanctions on Iran. Great message:

I am outraged by efforts by some in the Senate to undermine the Obama Administration’s ongoing diplomacy with Iran.

…If there is even the slightest chance that diplomacy can resolve U.S. concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, I believe it would be reckless and grossly negligent for the Senate to undermine that chance.The American people want a diplomatic solution with Iran, not more war.

The neoconservatives are panicking as they find themselves battling for purchase in the US establishment. Lee Smith at Tablet says that the Obama administration embodies J Street policy. True; though it can never say so publicly.

Then he says that the administration is anti-Semitic!

American officials apparently feel that trafficking in stereotypes about Jewish deceptiveness and appetite for blood is fair play because of the size of the stakes involved.”

How did Smith get there? Here’s his evidence:

the administration and its allies have outflanked both the Israeli prime minister and America’s pro-Israel lobby with a very nasty public campaign of its own…

During a Senate briefing last week, Sec. of State John Kerry effectively called the Israelis liars

And he says that by having AIPAC carry the water on his abandoned Syria policy, Obama hung AIPAC out to dry. I agree; Obama meant to expose AIPAC. But Smith says this was anti-Semitic, as it exposed the lobby group

to the typical anti-Semitic charges—Jewish war-mongering on behalf of Israel—but it did much worse, in helping to paint AIPAC as an over-eager lackey

Then Smith brings in Laura Rozen of Al Monitor, as part of his anti-Semitic claim:

Al-Monitor’s Laura Rozen tweeted that Mark Dubowitz, an official at the Washington-based think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who has been instrumental in building support for the Iran sanctions regime in Congress, was taking his “talking points” from Israel. If you’re not 100 percent behind Obama, you just want to send American boys off to die for Jewish causes.

Adam Kredo  had reported that tweet:

Foreign policy reporter Laura Rozen tweeted, and then deleted… “I do not think Israel is being well served by people they have picked on U.S. side to promote their talking points.”

Lee Smith argues that weakening the special relationship with Israel is a way of marginalizing Jews– because our power in the U.S. derives from Israel:

the power of American Jews doesn’t rest on their control of oilfields, advanced fighter planes, and other traditional sources of geopolitical power. It rests on their connection to Israel and Israel’s connection to them.

So now Chuck Schumer and Eliot Engel and Jeffrey Goldberg and Dennis Ross and Jerrold Nadler will lose power.

Israel will be fine on its own…. [But] The first and most noticeable impact will be on the institutions and all of the personages who have served as mediators and interlocutors on behalf of the relationship between Israel and the United States government. Someone else will fill the vacuum left by America’s exit from the Middle East, and that means that Israel’s significant foreign interlocutors—the ones who will get red-carpet treatment in Jerusalem and key interviews with sitting prime ministers—will no longer be found in the United States but elsewhere. Russian rabbis, like Berel Lazar, or French MPs, like Meyer Habib, will play the role that John Hagee or Chuck Schumer once did because of their access to key decision-makers in Moscow and Paris.

Smith has a point about the full employment program for “all of the personages who have served as mediators and interlocutors on behalf of the relationship between Israel and the United States government.” Jeffrey Goldberg gets key interviews with prime ministers and presidents because he embodies the lobby. Ari Shavit is having a brilliant career because he’s necessary to the amour-propre of liberal Zionists, he makes them feel idealistic again. But Israel didn’t give them that power, the incredible rise of American Jewry, and the lobby, gave some Jews that power. As David Remnick said the other day, Jewish Americans supplied the influence and pressure on behalf of Israel inside American foreign-policy-making circles. (Out of a religious devotion to the Jewish state, which is now ebbing inside American Jewish life.)

Oh and look at this: Illinois Senator Mark Kirk frankly described the influence of AIPAC inside our Congress during a call to supporters that Salon’s Eli Clifton and Ali Gharib managed to get access to:

The Illinois Senator was unsure whether he would succeed in ramming through new sanctions. He said Majority Leader leader Harry Reid, whose procedural powers have reportedly held up the amendment, was sending mixed signals to the Senate Banking Committee, “which [per Kirk transcript] is always where AIPAC wanted this legislation written because it has such a potential for bipartisan support in the senate banking committee”—one of Kirk’s assignments.

“Plan B is marking up in the banking committee with something that [AIPAC chief] Howard Kohr and AIPAC have gotten us floor time from Harry to do an amendment to the upcoming NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] whose debate is coming up as early as this week,” Kirk told his supporters on Monday, apparently not anticipating Reid’s block. (Neither AIPAC nor Reid’s office responded to requests for comment. Reid announced today he supports passing new sanctions after the Thanksgiving recess.)

I seem to remember that Gharib left the Center for American Progress after he got in trouble for tweeting that Kirk was the Senator from AIPAC. Yeah, a canard. In this incident, AIPAC has plenty of power over the Majority Leader, too.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

39 Responses

  1. November 21, 2013, 12:45 pm

    The French continue to add insult to injury –
    “French President Francois Hollande said in an interview aired Wednesday that the Palestinian demand that Israel recognize the right of return makes no sense. Speaking to French-Jewish radio Radio J during his flight back to Paris after a three-day visit to Israel and the West Bank, Hollande said Israel could never agree it.

    “The right of return is part of the negotiations, but we cannot ask Israel to accept refugees, all refugees , it would not make sense,” said Hollande. “It would not be accepted by the Israelis.”
    http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/middle-east/131120-un-israeli-settlements-are-an-obstacle-to-peace

    • Theo
      Theo
      November 22, 2013, 9:15 am

      Hollande has the worst rating of any french president since WWII and he grasps at straws, hoping for support from the jewish community.
      Nationalists are gaining support in France and Hollande will pay dearly for this new kissing friendship with Netanyahu. It is not wise to go against all other members of the UN SC and european EU partner states.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      November 23, 2013, 7:38 pm

      Yes, zero chance the Israelis would accept it. Zero.

  2. American
    American
    November 21, 2013, 1:17 pm

    ”Lee Smith argues that weakening the special relationship with Israel is a way of marginalizing Jews– because our power in the U.S. derives from Israel:”

    I hardly know whether to laugh or cry when I see the delusions these people have.
    Their mental processes are one of the biggest mysteries in the world.
    When I was a kid there was a local man who wasn’t quite right in the head and he would sit on a sidewalk bench that we walked by frequently and talk very loudly to himself. At first we tried to figure out what he was saying and talking about. We never could make sense of it so finally we just quit paying any attention to his ramblings.
    Thats where I am with these people.

  3. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    November 21, 2013, 1:29 pm

    Sen. Mark Kirk: “AIPAC wanted this legislation written because it has such a potential for bipartisan support in the senate banking committee”—one of Kirk’s assignments.”

    I’ve often wondered how America’s oligarchy actually works — oligarchy, “The Establishment”, which I call The BIGs (BIG-BANKS, BIG-OIL, BIG-DEFENCE, BIG-PHARMA, BIG-HEALTH-INSURANCE, BIG-ZION, etc.). In particular, I’ve wondered if there are cross-relations between them. Why, I might wonder, would BIG-BANKs support BIG-ZION?

    Could it be that the CEOs of the BIG-BANK membership are also members of the BIG-ZION group? And use the BANKs’ money to support hardline-Israeli causes? Or is there a reason why pro-Zionist senators might flock to the Banking Committee?

    (One wouldn’t think Sen Kirk would wish to lend support to old antisemitic canards about Jews and banking, but isn’t Sen Kirk just about doing it?)

    • American
      American
      November 21, 2013, 2:04 pm

      “”Why, I might wonder, would BIG-BANKs support BIG-ZION?””

      Big Banks, big corp anythings, dont give a damn about countries or loyalties –only profits.
      Not to say that some ‘individuals within’ the big banks might not minipulate the bank for their loyalty to Israel.
      But for the Bank itself and all it’s directors to use the bank for Israel? That would have to include some grand scheme that landed them in a country equal to the US economy and as unregulated and without leaving any of their money behind. They’d be killing their milk cow unless they could arrange that.

    • pabelmont
      pabelmont
      November 21, 2013, 2:06 pm

      BTW, MJR echoes this post, (seeming to intend to nail Sen. Kirk), saying that the pro-Israel vote includes Christian Evangelicals but the pro-Israel money is all Jewish.

      And it’s not like there would be anyone to take their place on this issue. The only interest opposing an Iran deal it is the lobby and its euphemistic cutout, the neocons. The Christian right opposes it too but, unlike Team AIPAC, it does not give campaign contributions based on this issue and it has zero influence among Democrats. On matters related to Israel, only the lobby matters.

      • American
        American
        November 21, 2013, 2:26 pm

        @pablemont

        A lot of lib zionsist and others want to claim that the Christ-Zios are the real influence on DC for Israel but they aren’t, their orgs cant make political donations.
        The best the C-Zios can do to influence congress is to elect nutcases in their districts like old testment bible thumpers Cruz and Gohmert.
        You’re never gonna see a herd or even 6 congressperps line up as speakers for the Christian Zionst Conferences and do the donkey for them and Israel like they do at the AIPAC conference.
        No money in it.

  4. American
    American
    November 21, 2013, 1:40 pm

    Apparently Netanyahu got no where with Putin. If Saudi couldnt bribe Russia on Syria what does Israel think it has to offer Russia for Iran?
    Israel has frequently played the Jewish influence lobby card with other nations, offering US favors to them for their return favors to Israel. But I am sure Putin is paying close attention to the US-Lobby battle going on now.
    The Isr and Saud strategy now appears to be one of desperately throw shit on the wall and hope some of it sticks.

    Israeli leader lobbies in Russia against Iran deal

    (snip)
    After failing to convince Washington that global powers are pursuing a bad deal, Netanyahu flew to Moscow to meet President Vladimir Putin as envoys from Russia, the United States, China, France, Britain and Germany met Iranian negotiators in Geneva.
    He and Putin, however, gave few details of their meeting in the Kremlin. Putin said they had discussed Iran in detail and added only that he was hopeful of a positive result from the talks in Geneva. There was no sign that Russia had shifted its position on Iran in any way.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/20/us-iran-nuclear-israel-russia-idUSBRE9AJ17K20131120?feedType=RSS&feedName=Iran&virtualBrandChannel=10209&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=59365

  5. American
    American
    November 21, 2013, 1:52 pm

    Opps…….just had another hysterical vision.
    Russia pretends to accept Israel as an ally and pretends to collude with Isr on a huge false flag attack on some US asset to get the US to go after some country that Isr wants knocked off and Russia pretends it wants cleared out of AQL or other terriers.
    Except it’s a set up by Russia who informs the US so it catches Isr red handed killing Americans.
    Pouff!……a US ‘ally’ Israel bites the dirt. Russia comes out smelling like a rose.

  6. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    November 21, 2013, 2:40 pm

    Senator Mark Kirk [Likud] is going to lose this one, if it is accepted by the US that Iran cease 20% enrichment and confine themselves to enriching only enough 3 to 5% uranium to fuel their reactors with increased safeguards, I think the US will allow this, and then find a form of words to overcome the different opinions over the meaning in the NPT of who can and cannot enrich, then I think a deal is on the cards, the Iranian side have shown flexibility, also the US side needs the co operation of the Iranians in the coming Afghanistan withdrawal and subsequent political arrangements there, and also in Syria, a win win scenario could come about for both sides, so long as they ignore the warmongers, who will never gain traction in the war weary US in any case.

    • braciole
      braciole
      November 21, 2013, 7:04 pm

      There is no ambiguity, the NPT is explicit on this one:

      Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes….

      So the Iranians can enrich for peaceful purposes, and anyone who says otherwise is just making shit up.

      BTW, is Lee Smith threatening the United States?

      the power of American Jews doesn’t rest on their control of oilfields, advanced fighter planes, and other traditional sources of geopolitical power. It rests on their connection to Israel and Israel’s connection to them.

      Israel has nuclear weapons, most likely thermonuclear weapons, so is he suggesting they might be used to reinforce Israel’s position vis-a-vis Washington?

  7. Krauss
    Krauss
    November 21, 2013, 3:13 pm

    Obama’s second term has truly been as disastrous for the Israel Lobby as many of its hardliners feared.
    This, if anything, is the most sweetest irony of the Obama era.

    Lee Smith is absolutely right that Obama wanted AIPAC out in the open, exposed for their treasonous agenda. The lie that they work for America in any way is just that; a filthy lie.

    One part of the reason why I think Bibi has gone so nuclear(pun unintended) is, well, for one he truly opposes any Iran deal. But second, Bibi is a very cautious man. He talks tough but he is far more averse to using military force than his “liberal” Zionist contemporaries in Israel.

    He’s going ballistic precisely because he knows that AIPAC will be behind him 100%.
    This was not inevitable in previous years. Yes, toughen the sanctions but don’t go so far as to competely alienate the American president.
    Part of this was that in Obama’s 1st term, AIPAC was more focused on destroying any real chance of getting the 2SS done.
    Obama still had a lot of political power during those early, heady days and AIPAC knows that once any president gets to his or her 2nd term, their power is diminished and you can start the charade again, set it up for failure and then blame the victims, the usual pattern. Why is AIPAC’s research director joining Martin Indyk on his team? The same role as Dennis Ross had.

    This has allowed AIPAC to focus on Iran.

    AIPAC themselves have been humiliated by Obama during the Syria debate and he is in his 5th year, his polls are bad, now the knife is being thrust in his direction, giving the signal to Bibi.
    The irony, of course, is that a Democratic president can do these things a way a Republican WASP simply cannot. When you have 70% of Jews voting Democratic, there are inherent limits you can do, because so much of this conversation is driven by fears inside the Jewish community. If you had a WASPy Republican doing these things, the vast majority of Jews would go after him. A black liberal Democratic president, its harder for hardline elements within the Jewish community. And you have J Street too.

    Secondly, and perhaps most crucially, Obama has been serially underestimated by both Bibi and the lobby. This has been a consistent pattern throughout his term. Friedman did a great column the other day, and his most potent paragraph was the final one, asking, Is Israel prepared to bomb Iran every 6 months? A great question encapusalating the rub of the issue. Obama has the upper hand here and the American people are on his side in the sense that they don’t want a war.

    But it goes further than that. Obama could play nice, he could act in a way as to not expose AIPAC and allow its defeats be hidden from the public. But after 5 years of outrageous smears, why would he play nice? He’s not merely punishing AIPAC in the contemporary sense, he is tarring them, finally, in the mud of treason that they have so long deserved. And because it is working, they are furious. Let them drown in their rage and hatred.

  8. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    November 21, 2013, 3:50 pm

    RE: “American officials apparently feel that trafficking in stereotypes about Jewish deceptiveness . . . During a Senate briefing last week, Sec. of State John Kerry effectively called the Israelis liars” ~ Lee Smith

    FOR A NICE EXAMPLE OF ISRAEL’S DECEPTIVENESS AND USE OF LIES, SEE: “How Israel Out-Foxed US Presidents”, By Morgan Strong (A Special Report), ConsortiumNews.com, 5/31/10

    [EXCERPT] ● Secret Nukes and JFK
    . . . Even as it backed down in the Sinai [following its invasion in 1956], Israel was involved in another monumental deception, a plan for building its own nuclear arsenal.
    In 1956, Israel had concluded an agreement with France to build a nuclear reactor in the Negev desert. Israel also signed a secret agreement with France to build an adjacent plutonium reprocessing plant.
    Israel began constructing its nuclear plant in 1958. However, French President Charles de Gaulle was worried about nuclear weapons destabilizing the Middle East and insisted that Israel not develop a nuclear bomb from the plutonium processing plant. Prime Minister Ben-Gurion assured de Gaulle that the processing plant was for peaceful purposes only.

    After John F. Kennedy became President, he also wrote to Ben-Gurion explicitly calling on Israel not to join the nuclear-weapons club, drawing another pledge from Ben-Gurion that Israel had no such intention.
    Nevertheless, Kennedy continued to press, forcing the Israelis to let U.S. scientists inspect the nuclear reactor at Dimona. But the Israelis first built a fake control room while bricking up and otherwise disguising parts of the building that housed the plutonium processing plant.
    In return for allowing inspectors into Dimona, Ben-Gurion also demanded that the United States sell Hawk surface-to-air missiles to the Israeli military. Kennedy agreed to the sale as a show of good faith.
    Subsequently, however, the CIA got wind of the Dimona deception and leaked to the press that Israel was secretly building a nuclear bomb.
    After Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon Johnson also grew concerned over Israel’s acquiring nuclear weapons. He asked then-Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
    Eshkol assured Johnson that Israel was studying the matter and would sign the treaty in due course. However, Israel has never signed the treaty
    and never has admitted that it developed nuclear weapons. [For details, See “Israel and The Bomb” by Avner Cohen.] . . .

    ENTIRE REPORT – http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/053110.htm

  9. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    November 21, 2013, 4:01 pm

    RE: “Lee Smith argues that weakening the special relationship with Israel is a way of marginalizing Jews– because our power in the U.S. derives from Israel . . .” ~ Weiss

    NOTE THIS EXCERPT REGARDING THE “SPECIAL [ONE-WAY] RELATIONSHIP”:

    . . . In response to Seidemann’s warning about the reaction of the international community to Israel’s unilateral moves in Jerusalem, the [Israeli] official “reassured” him by saying, “America is in decline and Europe doesn’t count.” As stated, the official declared that he represents the prime minister’s position. . .

    SOURCE – http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/11/jerusalem-two-state-solution-building-plans-netanyahu.html

  10. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    November 21, 2013, 4:17 pm

    RE: “I seem to remember that Gharib left the Center for American Progress after he got in trouble for tweeting that Kirk was the Senator from AIPAC. Yeah, a canard.”

    MY COMMENT: My goodness! Where did Gharib ever get such a canard?!?!*

    * FROM opensecrets.org (11/21/13):

    Pro-Israel: Money to Congress

    • Senators (top 20)
    • All cycles
    Candidate ////// Amount
    Lieberman, Joe (I-CT) $2,281,424
    Kirk, Mark (R-IL) $1,706,933
    Levin, Carl (D-MI) $1,661,835
    Specter, Arlen (D-PA) $1,376,605
    Obama, Barack (D) $1,371,325
    McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $1,339,348
    McCain, John (R-AZ) $1,303,682
    Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $1,234,741
    Wyden, Ron (D-OR) $1,058,857
    Durbin, Dick (D-IL) $954,203
    Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $866,149
    Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) $861,013
    Cardin, Ben (D-MD) $824,865
    Harkin, Tom (D-IA) $822,685
    Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA) $807,666
    Daschle, Tom (D-SD) $797,141
    Kerry, John (D-MA) $718,535
    Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) $717,621
    Nelson, Bill (D-FL) $707,461
    Reid, Harry (D-NV) $699,784

    SOURCE – http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=Q05&recipdetail=S&sortorder=A&cycle=All

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      November 21, 2013, 7:43 pm

      Mark Kirk and Joe Lieberman. Two aggressive stooges of Aipac. Any connection to these figures?

      • DICKERSON3870
        DICKERSON3870
        November 24, 2013, 2:09 am

        It’s strictly a coincidence!!! All that money does is buy “access”!
        And I’ve also got this nice bridge I’d like to sell you.

  11. American
    American
    November 21, 2013, 5:04 pm

    Holy Moley!
    I hope whoever Kirk’s next opponant is he uses this statement against him.
    Like Schumer, Kirk declares serving Israel ‘is the reason’ he ran for the senate.
    Then further down he says the ‘American people” wont accept the US treating Israel this way.
    Obviously Kirk doesnt know any Americans.

    “It’s the reason why I ran for the Senate, [it] is all wrapped up in this battle. I am totally dedicated to the survival of the state of Israel in the 21st century,” said Kirk, whose office framed the call as an update on Iran’s nuclear program and Kirk’s efforts to pass additional sanctions. “This has been very much a one-senator show, unfortunately,” he said of his confrontational, public approach.’’

    http://www.salon.com/2013/11/21/exclusive_gop_senator_unloads_in_private_call/?source=newsletter

  12. piotr
    piotr
    November 21, 2013, 5:19 pm

    “The Israelis gave that to me this morning,” Kirk said, “and the administration very disappointingly said discount what the Israelis say and I think that was wrong as a policy matter. I think the Israelis have a very good intelligence service.

    “This administration like Neville Chamberlain is yielding a large and bloody conflict in the Middle East involving Iranian nuclear weapons that will now be part of our children’s future.”

    ======

    Apart from quite new claims about Neville Chamberlain (did he yield a large and bloody conflict in the Middle East to children?) and the nice “children angle” (do not forget about the children! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k ) I found it interesting that Sen. Kirk trusts info passed by Israel more than American intelligence.

  13. bilal a
    bilal a
    November 21, 2013, 6:07 pm

    Lee Smith’s winy exposition on Hudson -Weekly Standard , chicken hawk,projection:

    “. If you’re not 100 percent behind Obama, you just want to send American boys off to die for Jewish causes.”

    “This not only exposed the organization to the typical anti-Semitic charges—Jewish war-mongering on behalf of Israel—but it did much worse”

    ie Israel needs :

    “to plug in elsewhere,” and will—in Russia, or China, or somewhere else.”

    in whino veritas

  14. RoHa
    RoHa
    November 21, 2013, 7:11 pm

    It shows how bad things are when a British Conservative Prime Minister seems to be the closest to sanity. Really depressing.

  15. RoHa
    RoHa
    November 21, 2013, 7:14 pm

    “the power of American Jews doesn’t rest on their control of oilfields, advanced fighter planes, and other traditional sources of geopolitical power. It rests on their connection to Israel and Israel’s connection to them.”

    So American Jews should hold disproportionate power in the US?

    And that power should stem from a foreign country?

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      November 23, 2013, 7:40 pm

      It rests on their wealth and organisation.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 24, 2013, 7:25 pm

        But it seems to me the quotation from Smith suggests that the power should come from Israel. (And that it should be disproportionate.)

  16. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    November 21, 2013, 7:35 pm

    I get it now. To have power in the US ,while being Jewish ,power has to come from Israel Israel make me relevant in US. I get access to decision making process because of Israeli influences. With that influence,power,access to decision making echelon of the higher ups among the higher up, I serve as interclcutor for Israel. Israel rolls out the red carpet for me. I see, my purpose in life is to carry forward the vision and the views of the Jewish state. That is why I go to US public and ask for vote but never divulge the goings -on . If some one calls me out on that I tell the antisemite to get off my sacred ground .
    But I am sad. My job will be outsourced to France,Phillipnes,India,China.
    American market is facing strong competition for Isareli services . The factory will move . The warehouse here in US where I work will be remembered as the 21 st century.’s first victim of rising new Anti semitism.

  17. James Canning
    James Canning
    November 21, 2013, 7:41 pm

    Bravo, David Cameron, for telephoning Rouhani. Good show.

    • just
      just
      November 21, 2013, 8:06 pm

      In these days when making a phone call is so ludicrously easy and cheap, compared to even 40 yrs ago, I feel just a bit sick for applauding this. This should be the norm, not the exception.

      Any positive will do, though.

      ( I’ll feel better when a fair deal is reached, Netanyahu and his evil agenda is kicked to the curb, and our relations with Iran are normalized… and the focus goes back to an agenda that includes freedom and justice for Palestinians who remain at the end of the spear of merciless Zionists.)

    • amigo
      amigo
      November 22, 2013, 5:58 am

      I wonder if the Americans were listening in .

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        November 22, 2013, 9:01 am

        We promised we wouldn’t. ;) X

  18. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    November 21, 2013, 7:56 pm

    But Israel confuses me. Do we get power from Israel or not? It seems Chuck a schumer gets but Mark Duvovitz does not. He does not get the talking point from Israel
    So how does he exercise the power? Does he create his independent talking points ?
    Does it so happen that all the time he says what Israel wants without him getting the approval or insider information? Is it telepathy? Or is it some kind supernatural phenomena that he happens to know what Israeli position – talking point is- it is confusing.
    I also don’t get it – Israel says Iran has got, will get,about to get the nukes and says
    Syria has used sarin , says Iraq sent the WMD to Syria, says, they worry of Alquida , says that they prefer AlQuida to Basher Assad. But instead of remembering and chronicling the narrative or the assertions ( from Israeli ) , I just call it untrue false,and intentional or intentionally repetitive distortions, or decide to simplify further , I will be termed antisemtite ,but only towards the end of my summarizing , when Kerry calls them liar.
    Interesting.

    This is the power of talking point,here lies the power of brevity, the power of one liner punch line , the sharper ,clear painful,and real it gets . It sinks in the heart and the brain same time like a magic bullet . Liar. You are now antisemite.

  19. ToivoS
    ToivoS
    November 21, 2013, 8:26 pm

    I guess we will know more about how much damage AIPAC and Israel has done to a potential peace agreement with the Iranians. It is weird to be rooting for the success of Cameron, J Street and Kerry all at the same time. But this is the road to avoiding another unnecessary war.

    I have been optimistic for over a year now that an acceptable agreement will be reached, but I have started to worry in recent days. Maybe we will be able to celebrate a twofer — a victory for peace and a defeat for AIPAC!

  20. just
    just
    November 21, 2013, 8:52 pm

    My goodness, could it be that Netanyahu is actually being somewhat respectful in his stance and handshake with Putin?

    Looks like he might be just a bit deferential for once. Our leaders certainly have not been granted the same……..

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      November 21, 2013, 9:00 pm

      “Looks like he might be just a bit deferential for once.”

      Only the really foolhardy will not be polite to Putin.

      “Our leaders certainly have not been granted the same…”

      Compared with Putin, they’re a bunch of wimps.
      .

      • piotr
        piotr
        November 22, 2013, 7:45 am

        Israel is full of Putin-wannabes. Obama-wannabe? not so much.

        Putin developed frosty receptions to fine art form. On the even of attack on Iraq, Berlusconi went to Moscow to convince Putin to vote for in in UNSC. Putin invited him for a lunch in his dacha. Outdoors. In February. Near Moscow. Photo op was priceless, Berlusconi in thick furs and smiling with a painful grimace.

  21. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    November 22, 2013, 12:39 pm

    Tablet is lying but this is not the first time.

    We heard it before and we seen it before .
    AIPAC, Jeiwsh lobby, Israel, ADL, JINSA and all other affliates worked hard agianst US interest for waging wars against Iraq for many mnay yeras . Once it did not work out,they absolved themselves of all responibilities., blamed it on Oil interest, on Bush Father-complex, on Bush revenge ( his father was on thge list of Saddam), on democracy builidng impulses , on CIA,and Intelligence, on American tendency for revenge, on everything excepting themselves.

    Now Syrian adventure or lack of adventure is being moulded same way in same cast— Obama wanted us (AIPAC) to help him get Congressioanl approval for war, he wanted Jewish groups to help him out- that is the new refrain , the new truth, the new facts, and the neoocns are anguishing over it, for failing to see the dirty traps obama set up for them.

    But long before Obama signed on, the Jewish group had already signed on to this adventures. The story was not told in 2013 , it was told and repeated in 2011, 2012, and it was done with Iran on mind as main show.
    But Tablet comes out now with this –“Next, the White House got AIPAC to support the president’s decision to wage a short and limited campaign of air strikes against Bashar al-Assad to enforce Obama’s red line regarding the Syrian dictator’s use of chemical weapons. This not only exposed the organization to the typical anti-Semitic charges—Jewish war-mongering on behalf of Israel—but it did much worse, in helping to paint AIPAC as an over-eager lackey that jumped to do the White House’s bidding on an issue that arguably had nothing to do either way with Israel’s national interest or the concerns of its supporters”-http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/153309/obama-and-american-jewish-power?all=1

    Wow!! AIPAC has been angling for wars from 2011, it was ( or some other names serving Isreali inetrests ) setting and defining “Red Lines”, it’s mentors -Israel was supplying false informations and manufcatured clips and created intercepts of gas atatcks on civilians, it owner , Isarel was bombing Syria ( 3 this years ), and was training the militias , Israel publicly expressed prefereneces for Al Quida to basher Al Assad.

    Now this scholar come out to telll the world that Obama has exploited and misused the Jewish lobbies and Israel.

    It is essential who is doing the talking and fron where he is doing the talking from.
    Hudson Institute and Weekly Standard are well known for fact- free encyclopedic knowledge of Israel and it’s enemies.

  22. subconscious
    subconscious
    November 25, 2013, 11:54 pm

    “… was responded to with chants of “Death to America”— PM of Israel … Netanyahu is evidently referring to a series of tweets from the account linked to Iran’s Supreme Leader.” How is it so evident that it’s about tweets if Israeli PM mentions Death-to-America chants? And how did the author miss the reports of Khamenei’s speech the day before (w/ their usual chants), but not his tweets?
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/11/20/iran-nuclear-talks-geneva-israel/3649815/

    The Supreme Leader is trying to maintain the radical pose even if he’s going along w/ the current negotiations, in order to maintain credibility w/ the hardliners, who are his most devoted subjects, and perhaps also not to appear softer than Israel’s hostile posturing. He’ll probably make such hardline speeches even if the negotiations proceed on course, which should provide Netanyahu w/ ample propaganda opportunities.

    • subconscious
      subconscious
      November 26, 2013, 1:14 am

      Since I brought up Kh.’s own tract on religious obligations, checking it out through the link @ http://www.majdedez.com/?p=3595 states that, even though clerics differ on such a designation, Khamenei doesn’t consider “people of the Book” as “najes” by nature.

Leave a Reply