Trending Topics:

‘Survival and well-being of the Jewish state’ is a national security interest of U.S., Indyk says

News
on 129 Comments

Former Middle East mediator Martin Indyk spoke at the Aspen Ideas Festival a couple of days ago, interviewed by Jeffrey Goldberg. This interchange begins at about 2:50 in the video above.

Indyk: What’s true about John Kerry– God bless him– is that he has this conviction, if we don’t do something to reverse the trends we’ve talked about, that the window will close on the two state solution. And that will be very bad for Israel.

Goldberg: OK. Very bad for Israel. But is that a primary national security concern of the United States?

Indyk: Yes. Because we have a deep and abiding commitment to the survival and well being of the Jewish state….

Goldberg: Apart from that, Is it a national security concern of the United States? That is an emotional, spiritual, historical attachment–

Indyk: It’s a national interest of the United States. It’s a vital interest of the United States, that successive presidents have declared, including President Obama.

(Also in the Goldberg interview, at 2:00 or so, Indyk says that Israel will cease to be a Jewish state if it annexes the West Bank and gains millions of Palestinian citizens. So that’s a US national security interest, to stop Israel from changing its character?)

Notwithstanding his commendable question, Jeffrey Goldberg is a longtime supporter of Israel, and once moved there and served in its army. Martin Indyk has long served U.S. presidents, pressed on Clinton by the Israel lobby group AIPAC. At Aspen, Tom Friedman interviewed Salam Fayyad, introduced by Walter Isaacson. The presence of Jews in the U.S. establishment, many of whom are sympathetic to Zionism, is obviously a factor in the structural premise that Indyk states so baldly above. And therefore my question: How important is it when Jews, recognizing the welcome we have gotten as a religious minority in the U.S., walk away from Zionism as an answer to our situation in the west?

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

129 Responses

  1. just
    just on July 5, 2014, 11:48 am

    I think it’s vital that Jews everywhere run away from Zionism.

    As for our relationship with Israel: It is a dangerous one that threatens US national security.

    (‘Jewish state’ is what Israel wants to be according to the Zionists; apartheid state is what it is)

    • Pat Nguyen
      Pat Nguyen on July 5, 2014, 11:38 pm

      @Just, how about you stop telling Jews what to do

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on July 6, 2014, 12:21 pm

        Pat Nguyen,

        @Just, how about you stop telling Jews what to do

        Pat,

        1. Most people probably assume from your handle that you are Vietnamese — which may well be wrong. Can you clarify where you are coming from on Mideast issues in terms of religion, ethnicity and nation of citizenship?

        2. With regard to your request — “stop telling Jews what to do” — does that work in reverse? Should Jewish organizations (like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents) stop telling Christians, Americans, Europeans, Arabs, Muslims and other groups what to do?

        3. Who, currently, are your favorite experts on Mideast and Israeli politics? Who do you recommend that we read?

        If this thread is closed, you can pursue this discussion here:

        https://friendfeed.com/mondoweiss-on-friendfeed

      • Mooser
        Mooser on July 6, 2014, 12:24 pm

        “@Just, how about you stop telling Jews what to do”

        Yeah, cause Zionists never, ever do that! No sir, if there’s one thing a Zionist won’t do, it’s tell Jews what to do!!!

        You guys really should take the day off.

      • Pat Nguyen
        Pat Nguyen on July 6, 2014, 3:14 pm

        @Mooser, “whatsboutyouery” does not make an argument

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on July 6, 2014, 7:26 pm

        Pat Nguyen,

        Regarding the three points here:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/survival-national-interest.html/comment-page-1#comment-681196

        Any response?

      • Shingo
        Shingo on July 6, 2014, 10:10 pm

        “whatsboutyouery” does not make an argument

        Neither does double standards or hypocrisy.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on July 6, 2014, 8:21 pm

        @Just, how about you stop telling Jews what to do

        Just is giving sound advice and more and more Jews are taking it. Let’s hope you wake up and shake of your cult brainwashing.

  2. seafoid
    seafoid on July 5, 2014, 11:51 am

    The jewish state is very unwell. It’s not America’s job to fix it. Not that it could anyway. Sovereignty means responsibility.

    • Walid
      Walid on July 5, 2014, 1:22 pm

      seafoid, OT but still Israel-related, the other day you asked who was buying the jihadists’ oil? Article from a few days back by Thierry Meyssan at Voltairenet in which he explains how it’s being done and raises a serious question: how can these terrorists sell oil on the international market so monitored by Washington? He noted how quickly the US Navy intercepted the “Morning Glory” when Libyan rebels tried to sell oil 3 months ago and he recalls how during the Libyan conflict, NATO authorized Qatar (that is to say, Exxon-Mobil) to sell oil from the ” territories liberated by al-Qaeda”.

      IS, ISIS or whatever it’s called, now controls the 2 main pipelines from Iraq to Turkey’s Ceyhan terminal, from which Israel received a full shipload of oil last week. Meyssan explains that with the new setup and Kurdistan announcing it’s ready to sell at $57.50/barrel, the winners are the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia.

      http://www.voltairenet.org/article184382.html

      • Citizen
        Citizen on July 5, 2014, 1:40 pm

        The beneficiary of dividing up Iraq is Israel. Kurd oil to be piped to Israel. US VP is on record as favoring division of Iraq. Always was an Israeli goal, as well as PNAC’s. PNAC’s voice still loud and clear in the US mainstream media.

      • Walid
        Walid on July 6, 2014, 8:50 am

        “The beneficiary of dividing up Iraq is Israel.”

        Current routing of the oil from Kirkuk to Israel is via a pipeline that skirts the Iran border, runs across Turkey to the terminal at Ceyhan. From there is loaded on tanker ships to Askelon, Israel where it’s either stored or piped through the 254 km trans-Israel pipeline to Eilat for overseas distribution.

        Ideally, the routing (along with a natural gas pipeline from Qatar) should have crossed Syria instead of Turkey, but Syria’s Assad got in the way, which explains America’s obsession with dumping Assad.

        Interestingly, Syria’s very first military coup in 1949 was instigated and coached by the CIA because Syria had refused to allow the Trans-Arabian Pipeline to cross its territory. That coup in 1949 was the CIA’s first international operation. Immediately after the bloodless coup, the new USA-installed leadership ratified the pipeline contract. Today, we are having a repeat performance for the sake of pipelines masquerading under the guise of bringing democracy to yet another country that didn’t ask for it.

        Getting back to the current Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline, Irbil is paying transportation fees to both the ISIS and Turkey at $1/barrel transported. Debka estimates ISIS is making $1billion/yr from the Syrian oil fields and probably double or triple that amount from the Iraqi ones.

        Why is it that the US is letting ISIS make all this money off the oil? ISIS appears to have friends in high places.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on July 5, 2014, 5:15 pm

        Israel is all set up in Kurdistan; wants the US to support all factions in Iraq, the better to divide and conquer–US VP supports this division of Iraq into three parts in public. Israel will pump oil from Kurdistan directly to Israel.

    • Citizen
      Citizen on July 7, 2014, 10:42 am

      @ seafoid
      Chomsky does not seem to me to agree with your claim that’s it not America’s job to fix sick Israel (by fixing itself first; otherwise American supporters of BDS are open to the counterclaim of being hypocritical). Seems to me Chomsky says he sticks to his original Zionist youth leader’s view of a Zionism with its heart in the right place (including against imperial capitalism).

      Chomsky seems ignorant of the fact that when Aramaco was still governed by Rockefeller oil-control/profit interests it was against US government rubber-stamping of Israel.

  3. justicewillprevail
    justicewillprevail on July 5, 2014, 11:59 am

    So Indyk couldn’t actually answer the question, but just repeat it as a statement with no rationale whatsoever. This is a mantra, part of the cult worship, which is why it has no logic or reason, and according to these people is not open to debate. Funny that no other country comes into this blind faith category – isn’t that singling out Israel for special treatment?
    Does this unquestioning commitment include supporting the revenge ethos of Israel so amply demonstrated by the burning of young boy? The undemocratic nature of Israel and the support of apartheid? Because if it does, then the American people ought to hear why it is important to shower Israel with money and arms in order to maintain this garrison state. Just saying it is a ‘deep commitment’ avoids all of these questions which they have a responsibility to answer – if they believe in democracy, freedom of speech and accountability, of course.

    • Citizen
      Citizen on July 5, 2014, 1:41 pm

      I think calling Israel a democracy is slightly pathetic. I’ve heard it many times. I want to remind all of us that in the ‘Israeli democracy’ half of the people living within Israeli-controlled territories are living in open-air prisons – Gaza is an open air prison and it’s not a state, it’s still under Israeli control as we know; the West Bank is an open air prison and when Israel feels like it – like in the last week – it enters the West Bank, it killed, it arrested. It’s not a democracy, it’s a Jewish democracy and in practice it is a terrorist state.

    • seafoid
      seafoid on July 5, 2014, 3:41 pm

      Say there are a large number of Munchkins in the top 1% and there’s a state of Munchkins in the Pacific. Does the money mean the Munchkin state is important to US security ?

      • hophmi
        hophmi on July 5, 2014, 5:01 pm

        Is the Munchkin state is one of the world’s most important strategic regions? Is it the only functioning democracy in a sea of backwardness and internecine conflict? Does the Munchkin state enjoy the support of the vast majority of people in the US?

        All question you might want to try and answer, rather than your antisemitic analysis that it’s all about a bunch of rich Jews.

      • seafoid
        seafoid on July 5, 2014, 5:07 pm

        Singapore is more strategically situated and has no Munchkins. Israel is of zero importance to US security.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on July 5, 2014, 5:21 pm

        Israel is not strategically important to oil dependent nations, nor is it in control of vital traffic regions like Egypt is. At least since the end of the USSR, it’s not a US “aircraft carrier” but rather a heavy anchor, an albatross around the neck of the USA. And it’s not in any way comparable to the USA as a democracy unless you travel back in time to the Jim Crow South USA. Americans are fed BS about Israel daily from the US government and main media, and the real facts are withheld from the US public daily. Thus, the US “vast majority of people” are totally ignorant about the reality of Israel.

      • Walid
        Walid on July 6, 2014, 10:24 am

        “Israel is not strategically important to oil dependent nations, nor is it in control of vital traffic regions like Egypt is.”

        Not according to US estimates or at least how it views Israel. In the same way the Brits wanted to stick around to keep an eye on the canal, the US is happy having Israel there next door to it doing the watching over it. Money-wise, the $4 billion or so America spends on Israel is actually a good investment considering the jobs that are maintained in the US because of a part of it and the actual savings to the US of not having to post a permanent force to police the general area; to maintain an equivalent military force of about 70,000 servicemen that Israel has, the US would have to spend much more than the $4 billion based the cost on what the US is spending overseas, which is about $1 million/soldier/yr. The senator wasn’t wrong, Israel is actually a very cheap-to-operate carrier for the US. America doesn’t do anything that’s not first and foremost good for America, not even for Israel. Seafoid’s observation that America will be dropping its support for Israel as soon as the oil dries up makes sense and between the current race of America rushing to lose its dependency on Mideast oil and the oil actually drying up, this time is coming fast.

      • justicewillprevail
        justicewillprevail on July 5, 2014, 6:56 pm

        But we’ve just been told Jewish anti-zionism is all about a bunch of rich Jews. Which is it? Hint: maybe it’s zero to do with their cultural group and is just about their attributes and values as human beings – and on that score they are a catastrophic intrusion into the Middle East.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr on July 5, 2014, 9:19 pm

        ” and on that score they are a catastrophic intrusion into the Middle East.”

        this is the same argument “rational” and/or ‘liberal’ Arabs have been giving for why Israel doesnt belong in the ME since before Israel was even a nation. Its old hat and completely ignores the long history of conquest, re-conquest and occupation of the land by outside groups-of which many if not most of the Palestinians are at least partially related if not wholly related to.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on July 6, 2014, 2:08 am

        Its old hat and completely ignores the long history of conquest, re-conquest and occupation of the land by outside groups-of which many if not most of the Palestinians are at least partially related if not wholly related to.

        That’s been exposed repeatedly as complete and utter rubbish, but don’t let that stop you.

      • braciole
        braciole on July 5, 2014, 9:43 pm

        Firstly, it’s not a democracy. Secondly, it’s done all it can with help from states such as those that are members of the GCC and the United States to make certain that no neighbouring state is a democracy. Democracy is as big a threat to Israel as it is to the existence of despotic absolute monarchs of the GCC.
        Perhaps you can explain to me why Israel, a country that should oppose anti-Semitism everywhere is so close to the rabid anti-Semites who control the GCC.

      • RoHa
        RoHa on July 6, 2014, 1:53 am

        “the long history of conquest, re-conquest and occupation of the land by outside groups”

        Much of it pretty catastrophic.

      • Donald
        Donald on July 6, 2014, 12:08 pm

        “Is it the only functioning democracy in a sea of backwardness and internecine conflict?”

        It’s long past time where people stop thinking that “functioning democracy” is an excuse for barbarism. The fact that Israel is a “functioning democracy” just means the citizens of Israel have democratically chosen to behave very badly. I agree that the Mideast in general is full of bad governments that abuse human rights, but Israel is just another flavor of horrific governance with a Western democratic gloss.

        If you wanted to argue that Israel should be treated by the same standards we use in treating other governments with bad human rights records, I’d tend to agree. The US often supports lousy governments–we’d then have the usual argument about Israel that we’d have about many other places. Israel is “special” because there’s a large contingent of American Jews and Christians who insist on pretending that a place that is in some ways worse than apartheid South Africa is some sort of shining beacon because its people vote in governments that commit massive human rights violations. This then generates a counter-reaction, and we see the same arguments repeated ad nauseam at this blog.

  4. Ron Edwards
    Ron Edwards on July 5, 2014, 12:19 pm

    Gaahhh. “national interest” … “historic ties” … “attachment” … “emotional, spiritual” … This nonsense rhetoric has been going on for 40 years almost to the day.

    No one will call it out for what it is: co-opting Cold War rhetoric at its most propagandist and tying it to a specific and limited political interest, particularly one associated with ethnic and (il-)legal privilege. It’s a well-tested strategy. Many special-interest groups bought status within U.S. political system by swearing themselves to the cause of satrapies scattered around the world, each one enforced by U.S. military presence. Polish-Americans did it, largely through the control of the Chicago Tribune. Cuban-Americans did it, through their seizure of the Florida electorate. Mormons did it, first through the FBI, and then throughout the intelligence apparatus. Evangelical Christians got there eventually, perfuming over the stink of the John Birch Society while hijacking its patriotic rhetoric. Every such group does this by elevating U.S. military action to the pinnacle of political achievement.

    A sector of Jewish Americans came to it a bit late, finally managing to paper over the well-entrenched perceived association between Judaism and communism from the 1910s through the 1960s. The “Cold War II” (the SALT-SALT II transition) was their chance, associated with the advent of that cunning idiot Richard Pipes to policymaking circles. It meant splitting from effective activism, e.g. labor and civil rights, in all but name and in the most tepid middle-road lip-service, suddenly adopting “leftist” as an epithet.

    Indyk came in on the next wave, a product of the New and Huge AIPAC of the 1980s, a grinning cheerleader for Israel’s atrocious war in Lebanon, a deliberate architect of these “ties,” and Goldberg is one of its indocrinated devotees.

    Neither of them can identify anything specific to which their airy abstractions refer. Neither of them can answer the question, “What are Israel’s borders?” Neither of them can point to a single benefit to the U.S. arising from a single policy either has recommended or helped to engineer. Listening to them echo their single, base (in every sense) policy under the guise of discussion is simply sickening: an exercise in deceit and the unrestrained urge to violence.

    • MHughes976
      MHughes976 on July 5, 2014, 12:45 pm

      These were forces on the American scene but maybe there were deeper ones at work internationally, which swept us Euros along without resistance. Continuation of imperialism by other means? Anti-Islamism smouldering on from the Crusades and resentment over Byzantium?

    • Walid
      Walid on July 5, 2014, 1:47 pm

      Ron, to that unhealthy or unholy association, you must now add the involvement of terrorist organizations that drift in and drift out of the US’ and Israel’s Machiavellian machinations somewhat like the auroras; they’re there but they’re not there, now you see them and now you don’t.

      • Ron Edwards
        Ron Edwards on July 5, 2014, 2:06 pm

        Hi Walid, I already have. Profile 5 in Shahida is called “God Will Know His Own,” and it concerns how domestic reactionary politics tagged by religious codes become international entities. The process relies completely on foreign privilege afforded to the disgruntled domestic group. The interplay among fundamentalist-evangelical Christians in the U.S., the fervid rhetoric of the Likud, and the Wahab/mujahideen connection is the main example, but another at a smaller scale is the resurgence of the Phalange in Lebanon.

      • Walid
        Walid on July 5, 2014, 3:18 pm

        Ron, sounds like a great book that combines the real with the unreal. I have problems accepting the term of shahid and shahada that’s used by Arabs in all sauces for people killed not necessarily in martyrdom.

      • gamal
        gamal on July 5, 2014, 4:19 pm

        “I have problems accepting the term of shahid and shahada that’s used by Arabs” why?
        do you have a superior definition of Shahid? that you feel we all should follow? we should petition the Caliphal court for a definitive ruling on whether you are or are not in position to define “martyrdom” for all Arabs. The meaning of Shahid is neither hard to grasp, though it is not an exact equivalence of martyr, nor in need of amendment, why on earth does it bother you? Are Christians who die of lethal diarrhea considered martyrs? of course recalling say:

        “Calling Someone a Shaheed

        Rasul Allah (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said, “The Shuhadaa (martyrs) are five: The one who dies in a plague, the one who dies of a stomach ailment, the one who drowns, the one who is crushed to death, and the martyr in the path of Allah.” [The Book of Jihad: Sahih Bukhari]

        In addition to the five categories mentioned in this hadith, other ahadith add to the list of Shuhadaa, those who die because of burns, pneumonia, or childbirth. “In the path of Allah (fee sabeel Allah)” is a synonym for Qitaal {well i cant agree with that piece of wahhabi BS, but each to their own, “fi sabiil’ llah” doesn not mean fighting}.

        While apparently anyone who dies in one of the above mentioned ways is a Shaheed, in reality only Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) knows what beliefs the person died upon and what his deeds were that people do not know about. Thus, someone who was actually a soldier of Allah may not be known to the people as such, while someone who apparently died “in the path of Allah” (subhana wa ta’ala) may not be a Shaheed.

        Allah’s Messenger (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said: “A man may seem to the people as if he were doing the deeds of the people of Paradise, while in fact he is from the people of the (Hell) Fire, another may seem to the people as if he were doing the deeds of the people of Hell (Fire), while in fact he is from the people of Paradise.” [The Book of Jihad: Sahih Bukhari]

        So one should say, “So and so is a Shaheed in accordance with that which is apparent, may Allah accept his martyrdom.” To call someone a Shaheed is to rule Paradise for them and deciding who enters Paradise is not for us. We hope for Paradise for the doer of good and we fear Hell Fire for the wrong doer.”

        So it is apparent that rendering Shahid as Martyr in the Christian/Secular western sense is a very imprecise translation and then objecting to the import of your mistranslation of this cultural norm is kind of pointless, anyway I am sure Abu Bakr Khan will clarify it all. The use of Shahid in these circumstances is merely a way of dignifying and giving meaning to the brutal suffering endured by very many Arabs nowadays and cementing the communal will to resist, I find it rather beautiful, what about it bothers you?

      • just
        just on July 5, 2014, 5:14 pm

        ;-} gamal.

      • Taxi
        Taxi on July 5, 2014, 10:56 pm

        Walid,

        I understand from Ron (from a previous thread a few months ago) that he’s using it to mean ‘witness’ (sha-hid/sha-hida), not the martyr meaning. It’s not as easy to distinguish their spelling in English as it is in Arabic.

      • Walid
        Walid on July 6, 2014, 1:23 am

        gamal, you asked me why but began by writing me off as a bad Muslim; perhaps your assessment is the right one. There has to be a hadith to fit any occasion but I’m not into the after-the-fact he said or it is said; I’m not into Papal Infallibility either. My problem is due most probably from what you termed as the “Christian/Secular western sense. ”

        In your own words: ” in reality only Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) knows what beliefs the person died upon and what his deeds were that people do not know about. ” Take it from there.

      • Walid
        Walid on July 6, 2014, 1:55 am

        Taxi, perhaps if written differently in English, it would help with the distinction. A shaheed is one the dies as gamal said “fi sabiil’ llah” for the sake of God. Getting shot by an errant bullet during a bank hold-up or getting run-over by a car in my faulty opinion (according to gamal), doesn’t make one a shaheed. A shahed is a witness as you said Ron is using it in his book. You also have “shouhada” the plural of martyrs and “shouhood” the plural of witnesses like in “shouhood Yahwah” for Jehova’s Witnesses. When a word pops up in my brain, I have 3 language demons jockeying to each have me use his interpretation.

        The Arabs can go on calling everyone that dies a shaheed and I’m not trying to get them to accept my definition of the word. I just think the word is overused.

      • Taxi
        Taxi on July 6, 2014, 2:10 am

        Walid,

        I agree that the word shaheed (martyr) is a tad overused in Arab lands where conflict is a daily dish, but that shouldn’t take away from the word being allocated to the fallen-innocent and the fallen-resistors: their numbers are relatively quite high per day, understadable therefore that one would hear the word shaheed throughout the day.

        Ron’s book title definitely refers to the Arabic word for ‘witness’, not ‘martyr’.

        Say, Walid, if shaheed = martyr, how would you spell the Arabic word ‘witness’, but in English?

    • Don
      Don on July 5, 2014, 2:51 pm

      “It’s a well-tested strategy. Many special-interest groups bought status within U.S. political system by swearing themselves to the cause of satrapies scattered around the world, each one enforced by U.S. military presence. Polish-Americans did it, largely through the control of the Chicago Tribune.”

      Fascinating. From satrapies to the Trib. Can’t say I ever heard that before. Sorry, but this strikes me as nearly incoherent as RW. Evidence?

      • Ron Edwards
        Ron Edwards on July 6, 2014, 12:30 am

        Don, I do not converse with or respond to demands from people who use “Sorry” sarcastically. For evidence of Polish-American influence on U.S. policy in the 1950s, locate a building called a library and read a book.

        For those who are interested, I can see I was a bit confusing by quickly lumping together the reactionary interests who pushed for “liberation” from areas “enslaved” by communism (Polish Americans, Cuban Americans, and others), vs. those in power somewhere, equally reactionary or more so, who received protection or privilege from the U.S. or NATO (too many to list). The latter were the satrapies, the former were wannabes. However, I do not see them as particularly different.

  5. Ellen
    Ellen on July 5, 2014, 12:26 pm

    It was never in the US interests to support the establishment of a Colonial Zionist State. Nor was it ever in the interest of Judaism to mix itself with the ideas of a state.

    So why is it now vital to US interests? This is not explained.

    BTW, is it possible for a state without borders to be a state? Israel has no declared borders? Is it a State? Or is it more like an ISIS — an idea based on a past that never was, that issues passports and other stuff?

    • Pat Nguyen
      Pat Nguyen on July 5, 2014, 3:20 pm

      History has shown that your second sentence is patently false.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on July 5, 2014, 6:13 pm

        History has shown that your second sentence is patently false.

        Your comment shows that you have no idea of history.

    • hophmi
      hophmi on July 5, 2014, 5:04 pm

      Well, for those of us living in the real world, Israel lies in a strategic region, and is the only stable state in that region. Thus, it is far more reliable than any other state in the region, and it’s in the US interest to protect it and see that it remains stable.

      Those in the cult will probably not understand this basic political analysis.

      • just
        just on July 5, 2014, 5:10 pm

        Israel is NOT a “stable state” nor a ” functioning democracy”.

        It’s a belligerent, lawless, Apartheid state. And you will be surprised at how much support Israel has lost and is losing as we ‘speak’.

      • Pat Nguyen
        Pat Nguyen on July 5, 2014, 5:48 pm

        Both global support of and the integration of Israel in the family of nations have never been higher. That is what counts.

        That Israel cannot currently count on support from the likes of you? Sad, but not so influential.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on July 6, 2014, 2:23 am

        Both global support of and the integration of Israel in the family of nations have never been higher. That is what counts.

        On the contrary. Israel’s prestige and reputation has never been lower.

        1. Israel ranks alongside North Korea and Iran as the most unpopular and least respected states in the world

        2. For over a decade , polls have ranked Israel as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

        3. Israel has never been more diplomatically isolated.

        4. Israel has negative spiral ratings in every country in the world except the US.

        Even John Kerry admitted the US cannot protect Israel from accountability indefinitely.

        Israel’s days are clearly numbered.

      • amigo
        amigo on July 6, 2014, 9:02 am

        “Both global support of and the integration of Israel in the family of nations have never been higher. That is what counts.” nguyen

        Earth to Nguyen.Are you receiving , Earth to Nguyen.

        If I recall , that is what a certain German told his people as he was making his way down to the cellar to lead his people to disaster while he took the easy way out.

        Gullible comes to mind.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on July 5, 2014, 5:33 pm

        @ hophmi
        Israel is a fountain of instability in the Middle East; as Truman’s state department said long ago, it’s not in US best interests to support it. But, Truman was bought off by Israel’s supporters; nothing’s changed.

      • crone
        crone on July 5, 2014, 5:37 pm

        Israel works 24/7 to destabilize its neighbors.

      • adele
        adele on July 5, 2014, 5:48 pm

        HabiboHoppo,
        ask yourself Mate, if Israel is such an obviously important strategic asset to the US, then what is the point of having AIPAC around spreading its money far and wide to bribe US political decision-makers to support all things Israel?

        *Oh-what-a-tangled-web-we-weave-When-first-we-practice-to-deceive*

      • Pat Nguyen
        Pat Nguyen on July 5, 2014, 6:25 pm

        @adele,
        It is illegal for elected officials to accept bribes.
        Can you please reveal who is accepting them so they can be removed from their positions ?

      • crone
        crone on July 5, 2014, 8:12 pm

        are you for real?

      • adele
        adele on July 5, 2014, 8:33 pm

        Any corporate & foreign lobbying is bribery. I don’t like the NRA spreading their bribe money around either.

        But that technicality is beside the point (but it is cute that you are so concerned to the point of wanting them removed from their positions).

        Now back to the point at hand: Why does Israel need AIPAC when it is such a strategic asset to the U.S.? Answer me that one (factually and with evidence) and you will win a bon bon.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr on July 5, 2014, 9:27 pm

        adele doesnt know about the NRA, lawyers lobby, insurance lobby, big pharma lobby, big agro lobby, evangelical lobby, Alchohol lobby, Tobacco lobby-ALL of which could be shown-in either direct or indirect way to kill more children then AIPAC. Obsession. Israel inspires obsession.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on July 6, 2014, 1:58 am

        adele doesnt know about the NRA, lawyers lobby, insurance lobby, big pharma lobby, big agro lobby, evangelical lobby, Alchohol lobby, Tobacco lobby-ALL of which could be shown-in either direct or indirect way to kill more children then AIPAC.

        That’s as morally decrepit and suggesting the Holocaust get’s too much attention seeing as more Russian’s were killed in WWII than Jews

        Obsession. Israel inspires obsession.

        That’s funny given your own Israel obsession.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on July 6, 2014, 1:44 am

        It is illegal for elected officials to accept bribes.

        That doesn’t stop them.

        Can you please reveal who is accepting them so they can be removed from their positions ?

        All if them, which is why Israel ranks among the most corrupt in the West.
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4316315,00.html

      • Walid
        Walid on July 6, 2014, 10:46 am

        “Why does Israel need AIPAC when it is such a strategic asset to the U.S.? ”

        Adele, AIPAC delivers the cheques.

      • Nevada Ned
        Nevada Ned on July 5, 2014, 5:49 pm

        Israel was rocked a year or so ago by a civilian uprising against the high cost of living and the shortage of jobs. It was the largest Jewish uprising in the history of modern Israel. Hophmi omits it deliberately.
        As for democracy, Israel is a democracy for Jews, but not for the 20% of Israeli citizens who are not Jewish. And Israel is not a democracy for the millions of expelled Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed in the Nakba. Hophmi omits that little detail also.

        So what is the real basis for the US/Israeli alliance? Yes, there is the Lobby, that’s a factor. But another factor is that the US and Israel share a common interest in keeping the Arab world divided, backward and weak.

      • gamal
        gamal on July 5, 2014, 11:34 pm

        “adele doesnt know about the NRA, lawyers lobby, insurance lobby, big pharma lobby, big agro lobby, evangelical lobby, Alchohol lobby, Tobacco lobby-ALL of which could be shown-in either direct or indirect way to kill more children then AIPAC. Obsession. Israel inspires obsession.”

        sorry i had reproduce the whole it is kind of perfect.

        not sure that nationalistic Israeli’s are going to be grateful for your fulsome support, apart from the comedy “kill more children” skit, you dont have a problem with “the NRA, lawyers lobby, insurance lobby, big pharma lobby, big agro lobby, evangelical lobby, Alchohol lobby, Tobacco lobby….AIPAC.” kills fewer children….?
        I wouldn’t expect any wiki-war virtual promotions any time soon.

      • adele
        adele on July 6, 2014, 12:16 am

        debakr the dynamo,
        thanks for making my point on the corruption and immorality of lobbies. What would I do with your astute observations I wonder?

        Funny though how none of the Zio-cultists are addressing my simple question: if Israel is such a strategic asset to the U.S. why then does it need the AIPAC lobby to coerce U.S. political decision makers?

        PS: the only person obsessed with Israel is you. I on the other hand am disgusted by it. If we criticize Israel it is because we care about justice for Palestinians. So simple, and yet so difficult for you to comprehend. But don’t that stop you from spinning your convoluted web of lies and deceit that will in no way serve Israel in the long-run.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on July 5, 2014, 6:17 pm

        There’s nothing reliable about a rogue state that works around the clock destabilizing the region then turns around and claims it us the only stable country.

        A bit like a rapist who claims the neighborhood suffers moral moral degradation because are no virgins left in the neighborhood.

      • pjdude
        pjdude on July 5, 2014, 7:14 pm

        so its in the US interests to continue to support a country that is resposible for I believe the most unprovocked eaths. that hurts are relationships with the other countries in the region.

        how is israel reliable. they constantly stab us in the back. just because its in the middle east and tries to buddy up to us so it doesn’t have to tsake responsibilty for its crimes doesn’t make it in our interests to help it. US would have been better off with closer relations with iran and fostering a palestinian state that helping ISrael. the us relationship with Israel benefits Israel and harms the US. saying other wise is a lie plain and simple.

      • RoHa
        RoHa on July 5, 2014, 8:14 pm

        What is the point of supporting “the most stable state in the region” if that state is the most hated state in the region, and has only the flimsiest of diplomatic relations with its neighbours? Instead of giving the US greater influence in the area, it reduces that influence.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on July 6, 2014, 2:06 am

        What is the point of supporting “the most stable state in the region” if that state is the most hated state in the region

        Especially given that it’s own stability is dependent on the other states being permanently destabilized and/or undemocratic.

      • eljay
        eljay on July 6, 2014, 8:51 am

        >> What is the point of supporting “the most stable state in the region” if that state is the most hated state in the region, and has only the flimsiest of diplomatic relations with its neighbours?

        My guess is that it would be anti-Semitic not to support it.

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye on July 5, 2014, 8:29 pm

        @hophmi
        ha bloody ha!
        Israel is & always has been terrified of genuine democracy in its neighboring states!

      • Feathers
        Feathers on July 5, 2014, 11:02 pm

        Iran is far more stable than Israel.

        Stephen Kinzer has observed that Iran has had a functioning system of citizen-input to their government’s decision-making for nearly a century, with awareness of constitutional governance that goes back even farther.

        And if Israel is such a boon to the US, why is it the US is discussing calling upon Iran rather than Israel to aid in countering ISIS in Iraq?

        — Oh, I know: because Israel stands to gain from Kurdish separation from the Iraq orb. As in the Ukraine, Israel is working counter to US preferences, and working for Israel’s advantage, in Ukraine and wrt to Kurdistan.

      • Taxi
        Taxi on July 5, 2014, 11:06 pm

        hops,

        First, cut the crap with your ‘only democracy’ and the “only stable state in that region”. Your cousin/neighbors to the north, Lebanon, a country even smaller than the one you stole, is a democracy and is just as “stable” as your looted state. Besides, the fact that an Apartheid state is never stable in real terms. Sure an Apartheid state can be enjoying an economic boom from stolen resources and slave labor, but that’s not exactly a measure of “reliable” growth – read sodastream.

      • Peter in SF
        Peter in SF on July 6, 2014, 3:26 am

        Well, for those of us living in the real world, Israel lies in a strategic region, and is the only stable state in that region. Thus, it is far more reliable than any other state in the region, and it’s in the US interest to protect it and see that it remains stable.

        Those in the cult will probably not understand this basic political analysis.

        According to your basic political analysis, it’s in the US interest to protect the Islamic Republic of Iran and see that it remains stable (rather than do the opposite).

      • James Canning
        James Canning on July 6, 2014, 6:50 pm

        A stable, prosperous Iran would be in the best interests of the US, provided it makes a deal with P5+1 of some sort.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on July 6, 2014, 12:27 pm

        “the only stable state in that region”

        A “stable state” with no borders? Okay Hophmi, sure.

  6. MHughes976
    MHughes976 on July 5, 2014, 12:27 pm

    Why would this ‘security interest’ exist? Presidential opinions don’t really prove its existence, since they could have been motivated by domestic political concerns. Is the idea that the other political forces in the ME are so inherently hostile and dangerous that they have to be, and have permanently to be, kept at sixes and sevens by a sort of garrison operating in our interests? Like a castle planted among squabbling tribes by a medieval king?

    • Peter in SF
      Peter in SF on July 6, 2014, 3:23 am

      Why would this ‘security interest’ exist? Presidential opinions don’t really prove its existence, since they could have been motivated by domestic political concerns.

      People who make this kind of “argument” are appealing to Americans who like to think of themselves as “moderate”. Just show how we’ve always supported Israel, and then the rest of the argument doesn’t need to be stated because it’s understood: if we’ve always done this, it must have been the right thing to do, and we should continue it, no point rethinking it. It’s the same kind of rhetoric that was used against Chas Freeman: the neocons complained that he had said things that went against long-standing US positions. They didn’t even try to justify those positions, but just figured that this kind of line would turn enough “moderate” Americans against him.

  7. just
    just on July 5, 2014, 12:35 pm

    A. Burg has an interesting read up @ Haaretz. It ends with this:

    “Only this will make us finally relinquish our imaginary bargaining chips before the complete moral collapse of the whole Zionist house of cards. ”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-peace-conference/1.601971

    Imho, the “house of cards” has already collapsed and was never “moral”.

    • Feathers
      Feathers on July 5, 2014, 2:24 pm

      from the Haaretz article:

      “Is our downtrodden past at the root of the prevalent violence? And, if so, how does one break this pathological cycle?”

      No, the “downtrodden past” of the Jewish people is NOT “at the root.”

      What IS at the root of “this pathological cycle” is the mythology that Jews have a uniquely “downtrodden past.”

      In late August 2012 Jane Eisner spoke at a J Street event. Among other things she said,

      “The Jewish community today is at a historic turning point. We face . . .opportunities that we might not have imagined a generation or two ago . . .challenges brought about by our prosperity, by our transition from a victimized minority to a group with extraordinary wealth, social status, and political power.

      Mark the date well: August 2012, and hold it in mind while considering Edwin Black’s explanation for the anticipated efficacy of the Jewish-led boycott of Germany, March 1933 – 1941:

      “Among the Hoffjuden who considered themselves the custodians of Jewish defense, Jacob Schiff stood out as a central figure. A major factor in international finance, Schiff’s greatest weapon was money: giving it, denying it. After the notorious Kishinev pogrom of Passover 1903, Schiff decided to personally lead a crusade to force Czar Nicholas to abandon his antisemitic campaign.

      “Schiff used his influence with friends and family in Europe to commit major Jewish and even non-Jewish financial houses to a banking boycott of Russia. And before long, Russia’s loan requests were systematically denied in most French, English, and U.S. money markets. In 1904, after war broke out between Russia and Japan, Schiff lobbied tirelessly among commercial adversaries and cohorts alike to grant high-risk war loans to the Japanese. About $100 million, suddenly infused, quickly armed the under-equipped Japanese, allowing them to score a series of humiliating victories. Schiff’s loans were officially recognized as the pivotal factor in Japan’s victory, and the Jewish leader was commemorated in Japanese newspapers and history books as a new national hero.

      “The banking boycott and the financing of Japan’s victory were only the first rounds. In 1906, Schiff and other influential Hoffjuden formed the American Jewish Committee. Their first major objective was abrogation of the Russo-American commercial treaty, the legal basis of all friendly relations with Russia. The Committee asserted that the czar’s denial of Russian visas to Jewish American citizens was an affront not just to America’s Jewish citizens but to the United States itself.”

      Presidential candidate William H. Taft made a campaign promise to abrogate the treaty but refused to honor the pledge once elected. Thereupon, Schiff and the American Jewish Committee lobbied Congress to force the resolution.

      “Within weeks, after the House voted 300 to 1 to abrogate, Taft capitulated . . . and terminate[d] the treaty.”

      [Still the czar would not yield.] “Massacres continued, and the Jewish death toll rose. So the banking boycott was tightened. Its effects became most destructive, however, during World War I, when the czar needed multimillion-dollar military loans. Committee members were criticized for the stubborn continuation of their boycott even as it threatened the Allied war effort. But the boycott remained in effect until the monarchy was toppled in 1917.”

      –(The Transfer Agreement, by Edwin Black, pp. 30-32)

      Leonard Stein, assistant and companion to Chaim Weizmann for over 20 years, devotes almost 700 pages to chronicling Weizmann’s efforts throughout the course of World War I to insert himself among Britain’s decision-makers and influence their actions in order to obtain the The Balfour Declaration.

      In Chapter 5 of her book, Against Our Better Judgment, Alison Weir’s narrative (buttressed by Edwin Black’s narrative in Transfer Agreement) claims that

      “After the [first world] war, the victors met in a peace conference and agreed to a set of peace accords that addressed . . . the fate of the Ottoman Empire’s Middle East territories. . . .

      Zionists, including Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, World Zionist Organization officials, and an American delegation, went to the peace conference to lobby for a Jewish “home” in Palestine and to push for Balfour wording to be incorporated in the peace accords. The official U. S. delegation to the peace conference also contained a number of highly placed Zionists. . . .

      Ultimately, the mandate over Palestine given to Britain supported the Zionist project and included the Balfour language. . . .”

      While delegates negotiated in Paris, the King-Crane Commission interviewed hundreds of leaders and members of the indigenous populations of the lands being discussed. The Commission advised that national governments
      “should derive their authority from the initiative and free choice of the native populations,” and that it seemed clear that Zionists intended “a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.”

      Nevertheless,

      “Zionists through Brandeis dominated the situation . . . and the report was suppressed until after the Peace Accords were enacted. . . . [A] pro-Israel historian noted, “with the burial of the King-Crane report, a major obstacle in the Zionist path disappeared.” The U. S. delegation was forced to follow Zionist directives.”

      In Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy, Eric Weitz narrates the influence of Jewish persons in Germany on the establishment and conduct of the Weimar Republic, from the German revolution 1918 until Hitler’s appointment as chancellor, January 1933.

      Black’s Transfer Agreement provides some insight into the otherwise shrouded period between January 1933 and 1938 when Zionist anti-German activism and financial and settlement activity in Palestine reached a fever pitch. Of that same period, 1933 – 1938, Breitman and Lichtman wrote:

      [B]efore the war Nazi oppression of German Jews followed a jagged trajectory. Some Nazi activists physically assaulted Jews in the early exuberant days of Hitler’s semilegal revolution. Once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence, but enacted a series of discriminatory laws and decrees . . . against Jews. Only in late 1938 did central authorities instigate [sic] the violence known as Kristallnacht . . . For the first time, the Gestapo’s agents imprisoned tens of thousands of German Jews in concentration camps. . .” [emphases added]

      Lynne Olson’s record of “America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941” includes discussion of numerous highly placed Zionist and Jewish activists in the interventionist camp.

      In Roosevelt’s Second Act: The Election of 1940 and the Politics of War (Pivotal Moments in American History), author Richard Moe records that Felix Frankfurter was the only with whom FDR discussed his decision to run for an unprecedented third term, in a private conversation in the White House within days of FDR making public that intention.

      John Judis has traced the baleful influence of Zionists on Truman’s decision to recognize Israel in 1948.

      Over the past century and more, from Jacob Schiff in 1903 to Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and Rabbi Stephen Wise, to Martin Indyk today, Jewish persons have used wealth and influence upon leaders at the highest rungs of major governments and institutions to shape events and decisions that affected the lives of millions of people.

      So precisely what “transition from a victimized minority to a group with extraordinary wealth, social status, and political power” is Eisner referring to? Exactly when in the past 110 years have Jews NOT had wealth and political power disproportionate to their “minority status”?

      Perhaps the way to “break this pathological cycle” is for Jewish people to confront their own reality, and shed the falsified narrative of perpetual victimhood.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew on July 5, 2014, 3:27 pm

        Feather- I do not endorse a narrative of perpetual victimhood, but. You leave out a certain historical occurrence between 1939 and 1945 in your account. This seems to be because a real discussion of the history of the last 135 years or 235 years is not what you’re interested in. You are interested in focusing on the use of influence by rich Jews. It also seems that if Schiff is spending money to hurt the czar this means the fact that the Jews were oppressed in Czarist Russia deserves no mention. You seem not interested in history, but in tooting your horn.

      • hophmi
        hophmi on July 5, 2014, 5:11 pm

        I can see how a moron can post his book report here and omit the entirety of the events of 1939-1945 for European Jews, the hundreds of years of discriminatino before that, the societal discrimination faced by Jews in the earlier part of the 20th century, etc.

        It is symptomatic of endemic antisemitism at Mondoweiss and in the BDS movement.

      • jon s
        jon s on July 5, 2014, 6:12 pm

        In fact, the events of the 20th century demonstrate that the Jews were woefully, tragically and pathetically powerless.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on July 6, 2014, 1:25 am

        In fact, the events of the 20th century demonstrate that the Jews were woefully, tragically and pathetically powerless

        So powerless that they forced the Allied Powers to sit idly by while they wiped out a nation of the face of the map .

      • Shingo
        Shingo on July 5, 2014, 6:21 pm

        I can see how a moron can post his book report here and omit the entirety of the events of 1939-1945 for European Jews, the hundreds of years of discriminatino before that, the societal discrimination faced by Jews in the earlier part of the 20th century, etc.

        I can see how a moron can post his book report here and omit the fact none of that had anything to do with Palestinians.

      • eljay
        eljay on July 5, 2014, 11:13 pm

        >> I can see how a moron can post his book report here and omit the entirety of the events of 1939-1945 for European Jews, the hundreds of years of discriminatino before that, the societal discrimination faced by Jews in the earlier part of the 20th century, etc.

        Leave it to a Zio-supremacist moron to conclude yet again that the answer to injustice against Jews is not justice and accountability but an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine.

      • seafoid
        seafoid on July 6, 2014, 1:15 am

        “In fact, the events of the 20th century demonstrate that the Jews were woefully, tragically and pathetically powerless.”

        Zionism is woefully, tragically and pathetically unable to use power. There must be a happy medium.

      • Feathers
        Feathers on July 5, 2014, 10:22 pm

        aka Moron replies to Shingo:

        As J J Goldberg noted in his discussion of the Kishinev pogrom,

        “The event, and the worldwide wave of Jewish outrage that it evoked, laid the foundations of modern Israel, gave birth to contemporary American-Jewish activism and helped bring about the downfall of the czarist regime.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on July 6, 2014, 12:29 pm

        “Feather- I do not endorse a narrative of perpetual victimhood, but.”

        You were whining and sniveling when I left, a year ago, and you’re still kvetching today, Yonah.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew on July 6, 2014, 6:52 pm

        hey mooser- Before your sabbatical you used to have a sense of humor. Did you leave it in the Bahamas or did that frontal lobotomy remove your sense of humor?

      • jon s
        jon s on July 6, 2014, 3:47 pm

        Feathers, In the 20th century the Jews could be herded into ghettos, starved, shot and gassed, by the millions. That’s about as powerless as you can get.
        Your crackpot conspiracies are, simply, nonsense.

      • PeterAgur
        PeterAgur on July 5, 2014, 9:37 pm

        Feathers, I’m pretty sure MW comment policy says the following: ” No Nakba or Holocaust denial. We’re not going to tolerate any discussion of the Jewish role in the rise of the Nazis which is used as a pretext for blaming Jews for the Nazi rise, a form of Holocaust denial we want no part of. “

    • Walid
      Walid on July 5, 2014, 2:25 pm

      It was never moral as you or Burg said, but this isn’t to say that everyone that got on that bus was knowingly immoral. Some good people misguidedly got on but eventually realized what it was really about and got off. Others that are nonetheless still good people are refusing to face that reality. I’m sure that those that are inherently wicked that endorse all of Zionism’s evils are in the minority; the Jews were sold a bill of goods, they made them drink the Kool-Aid. From Burg’s essay:

      … “The whole world is against us” serve as raw materials that drive the Jewish people. The element of distrust of other nations is woven into the fabric of the way Jews operate. This stems not only from persecution and hatred, ghettos and bloodshed: It is also an internal and active choice expressed through our normative system of halakha (traditional Jewish law), which ensured this mode of thinking.

      • seafoid
        seafoid on July 5, 2014, 4:07 pm

        They got a Holocaust sympathy boost that is time limited and when that runs out we’ll be back to antisemitism. Why should anyone support a murderous Zionism that claims itself as a Jewish haven ? The whole thing is so dangerous.

      • Pat Nguyen
        Pat Nguyen on July 5, 2014, 5:57 pm

        That someone wants to deny Jews the rights afforded to all other people is much more frightening

      • Shingo
        Shingo on July 5, 2014, 6:22 pm

        That someone wants to deny Jews the rights afforded to all other people is much more frightening

        Ethnocentric supremacy, land theft, mass murder and apartheid is not afforded anyone but Israel.

      • RoHa
        RoHa on July 5, 2014, 8:21 pm

        “That someone wants to deny Jews the rights afforded to all other people is much more frightening.”

        I think most commenters on MW want Jews to have equal rights to all other people, but not privileges which deny the rights of others. That is why we want Palestinians to have the same rights in all Palestine as Jews have in Australia.

      • Pat Nguyen
        Pat Nguyen on July 5, 2014, 11:45 pm

        @Roha,
        Palestinians should have the same rights as Jews in Israel and may arrange whatever hierarchy they like if and when they get a state on the currently disputed territories. 2 states for 2 peoples.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on July 6, 2014, 7:13 pm

        Palestinians should have the same rights as Jews in Israel and may arrange whatever hierarchy they like if and when they get a state on the currently disputed territories.

        There are no disputed territories, they are illegally occupied. And every Israeli govt since 1967 has been opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state while insisting no state can emerge without their permission.

      • Djinn
        Djinn on July 5, 2014, 11:51 pm

        If would be frightening if it were remotely true.

      • Peter in SF
        Peter in SF on July 6, 2014, 3:12 am

        That someone wants to deny Jews the rights afforded to all other people is much more frightening

        Someone wants to deny Jews the rights afforded to all other people in the US? Or someone wants to deny Jews the rights afforded to all other people in Israel? Or in some other country? This is a drive-by one-liner that doesn’t even help readers to know what you mean.

      • amigo
        amigo on July 6, 2014, 8:52 am

        “That someone wants to deny Jews the rights afforded to all other people is much more frightening”Nguyen

        That ALL zionists ARE denying Palestinians the rights afforded all other people is much more than frightening.

        That All zionists demand more rights for Israeli Jews than ALL other people is much more frightening for Jews who support rights for All Israelis.

        You are full of hasbara and are playing fast and loose with the truth.

      • eljay
        eljay on July 6, 2014, 8:54 am

        >> That someone wants to deny Jews the rights afforded to all other people is much more frightening

        What’s really frightening is that Zio-supremacists like you believe that supremacism is a right.

      • seafoid
        seafoid on July 6, 2014, 10:07 am

        The Palestinians are afforded no such rights by Israel. That is the key weakness of Zionism. You can’t accept the rights for Palestinians that you accuse others of denying Israeli Jews.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on July 6, 2014, 4:09 pm

        Didn’t the Nuremberg Trials and Toyko Trials demonstrate that no people on earth have all the rights they think they have had? The issue is not self-determination, but no self-determination at the negative expense of other people.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on July 6, 2014, 8:27 am

        @ Walid
        Thanks. Astute comment. Newton: For every action, there’s a reaction. For every non action, there’s an indifference?

      • RoHa
        RoHa on July 6, 2014, 8:37 pm

        @Pat

        Why two states? What is wrong with one state with equal rights for all. Then they can start thinking of themselves as one people.

  8. American
    American on July 5, 2014, 12:36 pm

    Indyk = more hasbara

    ” And therefore my question: How important is it when Jews, recognizing the welcome we have gotten as a religious minority in the U.S., walk away from Zionism as an answer to our situation in the west?’

    What is your situation in the west?

  9. on July 5, 2014, 1:19 pm

    Indyk is like Chomsky and many other Jew in powerful positions – irrational when push comes to shove, as we say in Ireland. He sounds sensible until you start asking the final questions and then you realize that he really thinks all of the territory was given by God to the Jews and they should have it now regardless of what happens to the Palestinians, and form some Disney-like state that is democratic for the Jews but not the others, so that the Jews can stay in control. He fails to admit that this does not fly in 2014 with the US backing it.

    Amazing that Goldberg actually asked a question that was anchored in reality. He was saying that our attachment to Israel is not producctive. “Is it a national security interest of the United States? That is an emotional, spiritual, historical attachment, yes–” I see this as progress on his part.

  10. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on July 5, 2014, 1:34 pm

    Martin Indyk is all about Israel and nothing but Israel — in other words, he is passionately preoccupied with his narrow ethnic and ethnic nationalist self-interest. Such an inspiring figure for us all. One gets the impression that he couldn’t care less about the American interest or the concerns of most Americans.

    Indyk and Dennis Ross have succeeded for many years now in obstructing or sabotaging American efforts to engineer a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians — under the false guise of a pro-peace, pro-two state agenda.

    Stephen Walt on Indyk: “Appointing Indyk as IP mediator is like hiring (Bernie) Madoff to run your pension. He had 8 years to do a deal in 90s and failed.”

    Indyk, who is a leading member of the Israel lobby, smeared Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer as antisemites for even daring to mention the existence of the lobby. It is easy to predict that attacks by Jewish Zionists on non-Jewish Americans and Europeans over Israeli issues will backfire badly over the long run — they are creating many enemies.

    • Citizen
      Citizen on July 5, 2014, 5:50 pm

      Yes. Indyk & Ross have never revealed any concern at all about the average American. What they reveal is blind support for Zionist Israel.

    • on July 5, 2014, 11:52 pm

      The attacks calling Walt and Mearsheimer anti-Semites really angered and then activated me personally. It was then that I realized that the pathology of Zionist hypocrisy in the USA was too much for me to bear. Walt and Mearsheimer were the first really credible academics to reveal the truth about AIPAC with no sugar coating or excuses applied. The fact that supposedly intelligent national figures, almost everyone in the media and many pillars of the Jewish community could be such liars for Israel, has stunned me again and again. Other truth tellers who have been attacked by the slur of anti-Semitism include Robert Fisk, Gilad Atzmon and Max Blumenthal to name but a few. But these slurs are already suspicious in the minds of increasing numbers of better informed citizens due to the internet and Mondoweiss et cetera. We should make more effort to name the wounded and apply our clinical skills to their rehabilitation because even the slight whif of antisemitism (old canard) is morally no worse than the lies, obfuscation and irrational logic perpetuated by many so-called liberal Zionists including Indyk, Ross, and so on ad nauseam.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on July 6, 2014, 7:07 pm

        Walt and Mearsheimer were the first really credible academics to reveal the truth about AIPAC with no sugar coating or excuses applied.

        Actually, there was a great deal of sugar coating and careful parsing a gratuitous qualification by W&M, though this is understandable. Had they not done so, their book would never have been published at all.

      • on July 6, 2014, 11:45 pm

        Shingo you are right as usual. But W&M courageously exposed themselves by saying it nonetheless, even though they had to be careful how far they went. They took such academic care not to even release a whiff of antisemitism but they were predictably slimed anyway by the usual suspects. In a way they died for our sins. Their national prominence was suppressed somewhat and their career potential was terminated but there has recently been some rehabilitation in the old Soviet sense and they may yet rise from the ashes. As time goes on the act of calling W&M antisemitic becomes more and more bizarre but Wolf Blitzer would still not think is abnormal.

  11. wondering jew
    wondering jew on July 5, 2014, 1:56 pm

    Phil Weiss asks, “How important is it when Jews, recognizing the welcome we have gotten as a religious minority in the U.S., walk away from Zionism as an answer to our situation in the west?”

    Phil wants to ask.

    How important will it be to future US policy decision making, once Jews walk away from Zionism? An interesting question. But one that is written awkwardly because Phil wishes to instruct us on why Jews would walk away from Zionism,. This is because Zionism was supposed to be an answer to Jews everywhere including the west and in fact the Jews of the west do not need Zionism. So therefore since the Jews of the west do not need it, therefore its value to Jews of the west is not in the first person and therefore they will leave Zionism.

    But the result was a convoluted sentence.

    Further: I think it would be of value at this time to look at the Pew results regarding Jewish attitudes towards Israel.

    The first “innovation” offered by Pew was in differentiating between Jews by religion and Jews of no religion. 22% of Jews call themselves Jews of no religion, and in the youngest grouping that number is 32%.

    Jews by religion describe themselves as very or somewhat attached to Israel 36% very and 40% somewhat. Not very attached or not attached at all. 18% not very attached, 5% not at all attached.

    Jews of no religion are very attached (12%) and somewhat attached (33%) not very attached (33%) and not at all attached (22%).

    Thus it would seem that detachment from Israel goes hand in hand with detachment from Judaism and there is no proof that the detachment from Israel stems from some philosophical awakening to the lack of a need of American Jews for a place of refuge, but rather from this other source.

    http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/chapter-5-connection-with-and-attitudes-towards-israel/

    • seafoid
      seafoid on July 5, 2014, 3:47 pm

      “Thus it would seem that detachment from Israel goes hand in hand with detachment from Judaism”

      It seems as though it’s a Faustian bargain. If the only way to save Judaism is nihilism, would you accept it ?

    • Cliff
      Cliff on July 5, 2014, 7:12 pm

      @Wondering Jew

      If most religious centers in American Judaism are Zionist, then the detachment is from the centers and not from Judaism.

      If there were a comparable amount of religious centers that were non/post/anti-Zionist then you can begin to assert that detachment is not philosophical.

  12. Dan Crowther
    Dan Crowther on July 5, 2014, 3:08 pm

    You are not part of a “we” that was welcomed here, Phil. You’re a born American. And you still seem incapable of understanding: No one was or is “welcomed” by the American people; the “American system” allows for economic integration, and to the extent an immigrant group proves beneficial to the system, they are given social privileges, like advocating on behalf of their group for example. But advocating alone is one thing, it’s entirely another to claim a particular group has been “welcomed” or is “liked” etc etc. I mean, right wing Cuban Americans have a choke hold on US policy to Cuba, but they don’t say that because they have influence at elite levels, the American people are on their side or aren’t anti-hispanic or racist. They don’t try and convince themselves that the whole or most of the country is on their side. It’d be naive and dangerous to do so.

    • Citizen
      Citizen on July 5, 2014, 5:55 pm

      No comparison. Cuban Americans can’t point to the Shoah, saying, at minimal, “You didn’t help us in our time of greatest need!”

  13. dbroncos
    dbroncos on July 5, 2014, 6:31 pm

    Indyk: Yes. Because we have a deep and abiding commitment to the survival and well being of the Jewish state…

    And who are “we”? Not the great majority of the American people.

  14. James Canning
    James Canning on July 5, 2014, 7:05 pm

    Indyk should have told Netanyahu Israel must get out of the West Bank.

  15. Shuki
    Shuki on July 5, 2014, 11:35 pm

    How important is it when Jews, recognizing the welcome we have gotten as a religious minority in the U.S., walk away from Zionism as an answer to our situation in the west?

    How would you know the first thing about how ‘we’ have been received in the US?

    • Shingo
      Shingo on July 6, 2014, 8:36 pm

      How would you know the first thing about how ‘we’ have been received in the US?

      Jews flooded to the US and the overwhelming majority have always preferred the US over Israel – still do.

  16. on July 6, 2014, 12:54 am

    Talking about the wellbeing of the Jewish state, there were almost 1,900 trips taken in 2013 by Congress, staff aides and spouses last year at a cost of more than $6 million. This was paid from the pockets of private groups with legislative agendas, according to LegiStorm, the online database that tracks congressional lobbying. Some of the trip underwriters are in nonprofit organizations created as a way around post-Abramoff restrictions on lobbyists’ free spending on Congress. I wonder how many of these 1,900 free trips were to Israel ?? Any guesses ?

    • Citizen
      Citizen on July 6, 2014, 4:35 pm

      In August of 2013, no less than 63 members of the US Congress visited Israel, compared to “only” 47 who made the pilgrimage to their political masters in the same month in 2012.
      In August 2011, there were 135 “free trips” to Israel by US Congressmen. Israel remains by far the single most visited foreign country by individual members of Congress.
      In August of 2013, 26 Republican House members, including nearly two-thirds of the Republican freshman class, came to Israel on a trip sponsored by the AIEF.
      House Democrats sent their members to Israel in August as well.
      37 members of Congress made the AIEF-sponsored trip — led by U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the second-ranked Democrat in the House — including Robert Kennedy’s grandson, Joseph Kennedy III of Massachusetts.

  17. Citizen
    Citizen on July 6, 2014, 6:21 am

    Indyk talks about vital US national/security interest as if Israel is actually part of the USA. Why? He says because a line of POTUSes have said so. No follow up.

  18. seafoid
    seafoid on July 6, 2014, 8:24 am

    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/iphone-article/.premium-1.601941

    “Former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who was repeatedly imprisoned for his Zionist activities, once said (as recorded in Yehuda Avner’s “The Prime Ministers,” p468): “The first time I was arrested in Vilna, I dreamt of being back home. The second time, I was sent to a forced labour camp in Siberia where the conditions were much harsher; after six weeks I even dreamed of a return to the first prison, and on my third arrest, the Soviets put me in solitary confinement and I dreamt of being back in the labor camp. My job as Prime minister is to ensure that Jewish children do not dream of prisons and labour camps, but of freedom.”

    Israel’s job is to ensure that freedom is available to non Jews in Erez Israel.

    • Citizen
      Citizen on July 6, 2014, 8:32 am

      Begin never saw that treating others to prisons and labor camps is no way to assure one does not become a part of the problem one has fought against? Of course there is no problem if one boils it all down to “us versus them” eternally. Everybody enjoys the simplicity of melodrama, of old Hollywood western movies, etc. They play continually around the world in translation.

    • Feathers
      Feathers on July 6, 2014, 10:40 am

      In other words, Begin recognized at Vilna that the situation “back home” was not as dire as he had initially thought.

      Perhaps we should all try to assess the original conditions, contexts and causes of this whole situation, and de-hyperbolize them in order to break the cycle of pathology BEFORE we all end up in a prison of our own making.

  19. Citizen
    Citizen on July 6, 2014, 9:32 am
  20. wes
    wes on July 6, 2014, 4:33 pm

    If it is a security issue for america to support israel the way it was a security issue for america to support south africa in its fight against communism then what israel faces is a “make nice with the natives we need there resources” situation
    that is a reality that is open to market forces and cycles of supply and demand.
    And has no connection to judaism whatsoever in any shape or form.

Leave a Reply