Trending Topics:

Elizabeth Warren says killing Palestinian civilians is ‘the last thing Israel wants’

on 77 Comments

Ten days ago Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders yelled at constituents to “shut up” and threatened to call the police (below) when they got angry at him over his stance in support of Israeli massacres. Well, at least Sanders abstained on the vote to give Israel another $225 million during the Gaza onslaught.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren supported that funding, and she also got it from constituents last week. And she mouthed Israel’s talking points in responding. Her answers are so scripted I believe she has ambition for higher office and knows that opposing Israel would be disqualifying.

From the Cape Cod Times’s Ryan Barber, a week ago:

“We are disagreeing with Israel using their guns against innocents. It’s true in Ferguson, Missouri, and it’s true in Israel,” said Harwich resident John Bangert, who identified himself as a Warren supporter but said the $225 million could have been spent on infrastructure or helping immigrants fleeing Central America.

“The vote was wrong, I believe,” he added, drawing applause from several in the crowd.

Warren told Bangert she appreciated his comments, but “we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.”

“I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right,” she said. “America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”

Warren said Hamas has attacked Israel “indiscriminately,” but with the Iron Dome defense system, the missiles have “not had the terrorist effect Hamas hoped for.” When pressed by another member of the crowd about civilian casualties from Israel’s attacks, Warren said she believes those casualties are the “last thing Israel wants.”

“But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself,” Warren said, drawing applause.

Noreen Thompsen, of Eastham, proposed that Israel should be prevented from building any more settlements as a condition of future U.S. funding, but Warren said, “I think there’s a question of whether we should go that far.”

Incredible. She can’t even punish Israel for the illegal colonization that destroyed any hope of a partition plan. As Robert Naiman says, she’s a two-state faker. Also, note that even American military officers are saying that Israel’s destruction of Shuja’iyeh, killing scores of civilians, was “indiscriminate” and “disproportionate,” as Mark Perry reports in Al Jazeera. War crimes.

Thanks to Adam Horowitz.

Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

77 Responses

  1. just on August 28, 2014, 12:34 pm

    Aha! I see that you were already on top of this Philip! Terrific.

    (Did not mean to preempt anything)

    Another one bites the dust.

    • Krauss on August 28, 2014, 11:47 pm

      For all the talk we hear about Adelson, let’s not forget that most of the senior people in AIPAC are democracts. And J Street – which has supported the massacre in Gaza full-stop – is ready to take over if AIPAC stumbles.

      Warren certainly has ambitions if she spouts this kind of nonsense.

      And Phil, I told you that I/P wasn’t going to be a political game-changer in 2016 since the only candidate to be able to challenge Hillary is Sen. Warren and she has over and over shown herself to be craven to Israel, this is just the latest example.

      We’re still looking at a post-Hillary campaign for that, so in 2024. About a decade from now. It takes time.

    • Sulphurdunn on August 29, 2014, 7:39 pm

      Disturbing, but not surprising.

  2. seafoid on August 28, 2014, 12:41 pm

    I have to thank MJR for this insight

    MJ (Mike) Rosenberg @MJayRosenberg
    “Netanyahu is a fucking barbarian and so is everyone in his government”.

    so is Warren.

    Israel kills civilians “pour encourager les autres”. And it doesn’t work.

    • Krauss on August 28, 2014, 11:49 pm

      MJ Rosenberg? The same guy who accused Mondoweiss of anti-Semitism and smeared Max Blumenthal as a kapo?

      I don’t know why some liberals can’t get over the fact that that guy is a bigot. When it really counts: he supports Israeli apartheid. He is the left-wing version of J Street(which is now a centrist organization): attack those to his right but fundamentally agree with the underlying ideology.

      He isn’t on our side. Never was and never will be.

      • seafoid on August 29, 2014, 9:45 am

        He’s tweeting a lot of sense these days Krauss.
        St Paul was the same, you know. Happened on the road to Damascus rather than the highway to Gaza .

      • eGuard on August 29, 2014, 12:14 pm

        “A lot of sense” from Rosenberg? He better first withdraw his accusation of anti-Semitism re Ali Abunimah. We don’t need advice from such a smearer, has to do with trust.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/10/rosenberg-abunimah-accusations.html

      • Ellen on August 31, 2014, 11:10 pm

        MJ is evolving. Remember he has has a life of brainwashing. While his intellect seems to be in the right place, and he is — I believe — an honest thinker, he appears to be stuck in the mindset of what this means for Jews first, instead of people.

        But he acknowledges that Zionism in the manifestation of the military Israeli project is a crime against humanity..

        Unfortunately it seems his concern is that is not good for Jews, whatever that means. Heck, it is not good for anyone, anywhere. And that is the crux.

      • eGuard on September 4, 2014, 6:31 pm

        re commenter ‘ellen’, MJ is evolving. [MJ Rosenberg]
        It’s about time. What prevents him saying sorry to ei’s Ali Abinumah?

        He still goes, and he will accuse you or me of anti-Semitism tomorrow (without ground, as Zionists do).

    • chocopie on August 30, 2014, 11:55 am

      Does not sound like civil discourse. Hope he has no plans to ever make an appearance at University of Illinois because they don’t allow that kind of talk.

  3. ckg on August 28, 2014, 12:47 pm

    Thanks Phil. Glenn Greenwald has posted on this at the
    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/28/elizabeth-warren-speaks-israelgaza-sounds-like-netanyahu/ “> Intercept.

    Echoing Benjamin Nentayahu (and Hillary Clinton), Elizabeth Warren’s clear position is that Israel bears none of the blame for any of this. Or, to use her words, “when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself.” Such carnage is the ”last thing Israel wants.” The last thing. That, ladies and gentlemen, is your inspiring left-wing icon of the Democratic Party.

  4. Dan Crowther on August 28, 2014, 12:59 pm

    *Shocked* – Ha.

    Too bad the guy in the crowd didn’t have any comebacks ready. For instance: “liberal democracies” have things called constitutions – Israel has no constitution. Not to mention fixed borders. Israel also has no “right to self defense” as if Gaza were a foreign entity; as the occupying power, Israel has an obligation to protect Gazan civilians like it would civilians in Israel. The other thing he might have said is: Go fuck yourself.

    • just on August 28, 2014, 1:20 pm

      Or someone could have had this quote handy, read it to her and asked her if she agreed with it:

      “…Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

      Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.””

      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/knesset-genocide-against.html

    • Leahj on August 29, 2014, 3:00 am

      Re: “liberal democracies” — Or he could have pointed out that around half of the people under Israeli rule, aren’t allowed to vote in the Israeli elections.

  5. amigo on August 28, 2014, 12:59 pm

    Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world – ” Warren

    It,s like a child molester claiming Prison is a very dangerous place to be.

    • piotr on August 28, 2014, 8:17 pm

      Because they flee dangers of Boca Raton, Brooklyn and Toronto. There really should be some decision: is it the only safe place for Jews, or “a very dangerous place”?

      • marc b. on August 28, 2014, 9:40 pm

        is it the only safe place for Jews, or “a very dangerous place”?

        Yes, it is, grasshopper. The only very dangerous safe place for Jews.

      • Leahj on August 29, 2014, 3:46 am

        marc, “Yes, it is, grasshopper. The only very dangerous safe place for Jews. ”

        Love it!!! :)))))

    • Leahj on August 29, 2014, 3:40 am

      ” Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world ” — Warren –

      It wasn’t really all that dangerous before the Zionists started arriving.

      • Mooser on August 29, 2014, 5:49 pm

        “It wasn’t really all that dangerous before the Zionists started arriving.”

        The pacific nature of Palestinians society, and if I am correct, an almost complete lack of any martial activity (did they even have any kind of an army?) is one of the most horrifying aspects of the entire sordid story of Zionism.

    • eGuard on August 29, 2014, 12:16 pm

      Israel lives in a dangerous part? Think of how more dangerous it is for Palestinians.

      • chocopie on August 29, 2014, 10:00 pm

        Excellent point.

    • Marnie on August 30, 2014, 12:55 am

      a child molester living next to an elementary school and blaming the schoolchildren for his pedophilia.

      The world didn’t become “so dangerous” until the creation of the state of israel. Tired of that old “israel is in a dangerous neighborhood routine”. Which it created!

  6. Kay24 on August 28, 2014, 1:07 pm

    Parroting the hasbara lines, and making absolutely no sense. Warren has disappointed me, by showing zio devotion to Israel, just like her colleagues, and especially like the other presidential hopefuls. She simply cannot stand up to principles and make a stand for what is basically a humanitarian disaster. Are they so dumb that they do not see that blaming the victims for Israel’s bloody massacre is not giving them any credibility? Typical Israeli propaganda, this ridiculous justification for the deaths of more than 2000 people, including nearly 500 children.
    “Killing civilians is the last thing Israel wants” it would be a funny claim if the results weren’t so terrible. Israel does not give a damn about civilian casualties, so many sources including the UN and humanitarian agencies have stated that Israel deliberately bombs anything and everyone, in Gaza, and that it sometimes does not even have specific targets. Why Warren is putting her credibility at risk by making statements that could be disproved easily, by witnesses in Gaza, is hard to understand. It seems she is taking her talking points from that liar, Regev.

    • Ellen on August 31, 2014, 11:23 pm

      No, they are not so dumb, not at all. They are politicians who want to be elected and wrap the rewards of the current system. They are psychopaths.

      The only hope is creating a culture/environment where the political psychopaths are rewarded when supporting Palestinians.

      We are still far from that because 1) there is no money in it and 2) the greater public is still confused.

  7. globalconsciousness on August 28, 2014, 1:20 pm

    Good god, depressing as it is unsurprising. Where do Americans find these people to run for office or does AIPAC take them into a room for its special initiation?
    She even lacks the human decency to show any sympathy for all the deceased and maimed children and families…

    • Sulphurdunn on August 29, 2014, 9:11 pm

      Until the Zionist tail no longer wags the American dog, otherwise decent people like Sanders and Warren will not have the power, if they desire political careers, to speak and act in the best interests of the United States regarding America’s Israeli policy even if they want to.

  8. winifred on August 28, 2014, 1:36 pm

    I usually despair of being able to influence these people, but take a look at Lt. Morriseau’s
    Rebellion on Youtube. Sorry I can’t pull up the link. Maybe if it is of interest, someone else can.

  9. joemowrey on August 28, 2014, 3:20 pm

    And yet, just watch as so-called Progressives flock to the polls to support her no matter what office she runs for. This woman makes my spine crawl. Her “benign Granny” persona masks the true warmonger she is. But following the Obama model, she will lure Progressives into her lair with false rhetoric and outright lies. This is a very scary person. I think I fear her more than Hillary. At least Hillary makes no bones about her thirst for blood.

  10. Pixel on August 28, 2014, 3:49 pm

    .
    It’s nauseating.

  11. Keith on August 28, 2014, 5:01 pm

    The bottom line is that her statements and position are seen as probably strengthening her re-election chances. That is probably true. As long as voters reject Third Party candidates who “don’t have a chance” of being elected, nothing will change. Only a groundswell of voters rejecting the corporate candidates and voting Third Party will even begin to make a difference.

    • Kris on August 28, 2014, 5:14 pm

      “Only a groundswell of voters rejecting the corporate candidates and voting Third Party will even begin to make a difference.” Exactly right.

    • JeffB on August 28, 2014, 9:12 pm

      @Keith

      If there were enough progressives to win a general there would be enough progressives to win the primaries. See the Republican primaries of the last 4 years for examples from the other side of the fence.

      • Another Steve on August 28, 2014, 11:09 pm

        Yes.

        In most states, it’s easy to get on the primary ballot.

        Since the Dem primary voters are more sympathetic to Palestinians than the general election voters, it should be easier to win that way than as a third party. It’s a peculiarity of the US system that few countries share. For many years, in the US system, reforms have almost always been made through one of the two major parties.

        Third-party politicians fave the same pressures as others. Bernie Sanders is not distinguishable from his corporate-backed colleagues in the Senate.

  12. American on August 28, 2014, 5:04 pm

    Bernie and Warren should stop yelling and lying or they might have to have a operation on their vocal cords.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11062090/Joan-Rivers-rushed-to-hospital-after-she-stopped-breathing.html

    Joan Rivers rushed to hospital ‘after she stopped breathing’

    Tart-tongued comedienne Joan Rivers “in stable condition” after she reportedly stopped breathing during throat surgery on her vocal cords in New York”

    I wonder if she ruptured a vocal cord during her rant on how all the Palestines should be dead.

    • globalconsciousness on August 28, 2014, 9:06 pm

      Actually, several Palestinians and pro-palestinians have tweeted wishing her well and to get better soon – much more than she deserves….
      Throat surgery – hmm… must be due to all that bile and hate she spews…

      • Kay24 on August 28, 2014, 10:52 pm

        For a moment I wondered if it was yet another face lift. Who knows.

        She certainly had enough of anger and hatred when she went on an unladylike rant against
        the Palestinians. She definitely showed her ignorance when she blamed it all on the Palestinians, and showed she did not give a damn about the civilians. I guess when you keep insulting others and making stupid personal jokes about them, you have no time for facts.

  13. jenin on August 28, 2014, 5:14 pm

    I had thought that, possibly, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would be two people in the senate to speak out against Israel’s actions. Obviously I was wrong. I am very torn on how to feel about them, as I am about Obama. On the one hand, I understand that taking a stand against Israel’s actions likely means an end to one’s political career. I do believe that is why Obama has not done anything substantive in this regard, given his earlier documented positions on the matter. On the other hand, fear of the repercussions for one’s career is hardly a legitimate excuse to not only justify the killing of innocents, but actually cast a vote to assist in that killing. So I think I can readily say that Warren, along with Sanders, Obama, and so many others, is lacking some basic morality and human decency. the two-party system we have, and the Israel lobby, are also problems. But that does not absolve these politicians.

    • American on August 28, 2014, 11:14 pm

      Jenin YounesAugust 28, 2014, 5:14 pm

      ”On the one hand, I understand that taking a stand against Israel’s actions likely means an end to one’s political career”>>>>>>

      We don’t know that because no one has tried it six decades. The candidates cave to I- Firstdom before they even get out of the gate for the political donations and for important jewish voter states like Fla..

      IF a candidate came along who was impervious to Lobby slander dirty tricks and had a money of his own to spend on his election or was financed by some rich US patriots the I firsters would be finished. ….forever…Because it would prove to other politicians that America First trumps Israel First for the majority of Americans . The voters would trump the money.

      • jenin on August 29, 2014, 7:33 pm

        American, I suppose I would be willing to rephrase my statement to “politicians believe that taking a stand against Israel’s actions…” However, I think there is some evidence that it is the case that AIPAC and other branches of the Israel lobby actually are able to do such damage. But it hardly matters which is actually the case, so long as the lobby manages to make politicians believe it is true, which undoubtedly they have. One of my all-time favorite quotes on this subject from former senator James Abourezk speaks to this issue: “at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear–fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress–at least when I served there–have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I’ve heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they’re pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby’s animosity by making their feelings public.”

  14. Citizen on August 28, 2014, 7:33 pm

    Warren’s clearly got the analytical ability to parse the hasbara–I think she showed this talent when she went up against the bankers. I assume now that she’s broadening her career vision beyond tackling Wall St, she found herself surrounded by hasbara agents and, new in the broader political arena, she’s going along with her “liberal” crowd–blind to the fact they’re PEPs–I bet she has yet to do her own google research on Gaza and the I-P conflict generally. Or is she just power mad too?

    • Citizen on August 28, 2014, 7:33 pm

      Romney might run again.

    • Donald on August 29, 2014, 9:19 am

      She’s a politician and she wants to win elections. That’s all that is needed to explain her position on Gaza. The overwhelming majority of Congress takes the same stance–as detailed in the latest New Yorker and in various other places (including here), the Lobby scares politicians to death.

      It’s always possible she actually believes this crap, and there are probably some politicians who do, but since she seems smart, it’s more likely she’s afraid of watching a lot of donor money head to future opponents.

      Whether she has Presidential ambitions is not something you can judge from this, since again, virtually all of Congress behaves the same way. As narcissistic as politicians can be, they can’t all be picturing themselves in the White House.

  15. piotr on August 28, 2014, 9:34 pm

    One should also soberly consider if these progressive politicians are indeed PEP. The problem with exceptions is that “it is like with pregnancy, you start a little pregnant and then it tends to get worse”.

    For starters, there is a “little taqfiri problem”. Check this: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
    and think what mountains of lies and rivers of blood make our foreign policy.

    Domestically, it is not like AIPAC is a unique lobby. Washington D.C. is a place where different lobbies bid for politicians and hammer out their differences. “Progressive politicians” choose lobbies to fund them differently than “retrograde politicians”, so they are “malus minor”. However, there are “domestic Palestinians” too, who lack their lobbies. Did Sen. Warren explain that “killing civilians is the last thing police wants” or “denying benefits to the sick is the last thing insurance companies want” or …

    • American on August 28, 2014, 10:55 pm

      ” or “denying benefits to the sick is the last thing insurance companies want” or …”

      Yes I can hear her saying that now. Just like Obama wanted everyone to have affordable health care—that’s why he gave it to the ‘For Profit Insurance Industry’ to run…lol.

      As I keep trying to tell people, if they will take zio money in exchange for letting Israel steal and kill Palestine innocents–they will do the same thing to us. If you can stomach the bloody dead in Gaza and even defend it there’s nothing and no one you wont sell out.

  16. Leahj on August 29, 2014, 2:45 am

    There was a piece in the Boston Globe (August 13th) that says Elizabeth Warren is planning her very 1st ‘official congressional travel’ outside the US, after the November midterm elections. She’s going to Israel. (Who would’ve guessed?.) This is supposed to boost her foreign relations portfolio. I’m sure she’ll return to Washington even more well-informed than she is currently. :(

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/08/13/elizabeth-warren-has-skimpy-resume-foreign-policy-but-plans-israel-trip-after-mid-terms/6gkD7HBwuQlHuUrgeMDB0I/story.html

  17. America’s politicians are putting Israel ahead of their constituents, in refusing to represent their constituents’ opinions on this issue.

    Canadians are in the same boat.

    That fact alone, should be enough to recognize Israel as a threat to us.

    If Israel’s persistent, progressive land theft, sadistic manipulation of Palestinians’ lives, and recurring massacres of innocent men, women, children, and babies, wasn’t ENOUGH of a reason to reject Israel.

  18. eljay on August 29, 2014, 8:06 am

    >> I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right,” she said. “America has a very special relationship with Israel.

    Why does it have a very special relationship with Israel? What is this relationship based on? How does it work?

    >> Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world …

    So what? Lots of countries live in dangerous parts of the world.

    >> … and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”

    Why do you need an ally there? It’s not your part of the world.

    >> When pressed by another member of the crowd about civilian casualties from Israel’s attacks, Warren said she believes those casualties are the “last thing Israel wants.”

    Of course. Casualties are bad PR. Israel would prefer to see Palestinians quietly die or disappear.

    >> “But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself,” Warren said, drawing applause.

    So…if Hamas put its rocket launchers elsewhere, Israel wouldn’t have a right to defend itself? Interesting.

    What Ms. Warren – like all other apologists for supremacist “Jewish State” – fails to point out is that Israel has been stealing, occupying and colonizing Palestinian land and oppressing, torturing and killing Palestinians for over 60 years. Palestinians have a right to defend themselves, too.

  19. MHughes976 on August 29, 2014, 11:36 am

    My distant impression of Warren is that she is not a powerful personality and will not change things very much. Clinton is a powerful personality revelling in her warrior queen persona who might change things a lot but often for the worse.
    They are indeed both politicians caught in the iron wheels of an electoral machine. But it’s not only that – they are both heirs of decades of conviction among the mass of progressive people that Zionism was a triumphant force of liberation, justice and enlightenment. It is we who are arguing for a new look at things, they who can see no reason to question the assured results, as they seem to be, of so much sincere progressive thinking. The law of inertia is on their maddening side as they refuse to see what should be plain as a pikestaff.

    • Walker on August 29, 2014, 2:42 pm

      (Warren and Clinton) are both heirs of decades of conviction among the mass of progressive people that Zionism was a triumphant force of liberation, justice and enlightenment.

      No, that’s not the case. My parents, who personally observed the arrival of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon after partition, still spoke admiringly of kibbutzes. However, that view of Zionism has been dead for 40 years. What’s true of both Clinton and Warren is that they are schooled in the belief that if they deviate from the line they will be bludgeoned. Early in the Clinton presidency Hillary made a fairly tame remark in support of justice for Palestinians and the reaction was swift. She’s never said anything similar since. And if you must keep repeating lies, eventually you have to make yourself sort of believe them.

      • MHughes976 on August 30, 2014, 5:26 pm

        My memory is of very passionate pro-Israel commitment, couched in at least apparently progressive terms, in the afterglow of 67. I agree with Walker that it’s hard to imagine that sort of language being spoken now as it was then, with little fear of contradiction from anyone else considered or claiming to be progressive. But it survived in quieter, seemingly more reflective, forms – Walzer’s book on Just Wars set some of the tone and the general sentiment in the academic world did not change that tone – Israel is part of our civilisation, we’d much rather be there than anywhere else in the ME etc. and so on and on – until the last decade. The general view of the educated middle class is a more diffuse version of the same thing – we don’t want to think about it too much, we don’t want to admit we made a terrible mistake. Above and beyond all, we don’t want to be, or think of Jewish acquaintances for a moment thinking of us, that we’re anti-Semitic. That’s what I meant by inertia – the fiery impetus of 67, itself the product of many decades of horror at anti-Semitism, has weakened but not been reversed. Among the political class there are, as indeed you say, mechanisms to keep this situation going – anyone who even thinks (thank you for the info that Warren had once ventured to think this) that maybe the Palestinians deserve a better deal gets slapped down.
        On the other point – I would think that language is not sexist if (at least at first sight) it seems that there are obvious ways of referring with the same effect to members of both genders. If I had called George W Bush a ‘conquering king’ that would not have invited you to sneer at men or masculinity.

    • seanmcbride on August 30, 2014, 11:08 am

      MHughes976,

      Clinton is a powerful personality revelling in her warrior queen persona….

      tree and ritzl would probably characterize your reference to “warrior queen persona” as being sexist. :)

      We can now add Elizabeth Warren to the list of “liberals” and “progressives” (like Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power) whose views on foreign policy differ little from those of Pamela Geller, Jennifer Rubin, Caroline Glick, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

      Does everyone fully appreciate the magnitude of what Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren have done in recent days? — they are pushing the Democratic Party to the *right* of Barack Obama and John Kerry on American Mideast policy on behalf of Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud Zionism and Greater Israelism.

      • annie on August 30, 2014, 12:33 pm

        tree and ritzl would probably characterize your reference to “warrior queen persona” as being sexist. :)

        albeit no one equates warrior with harpy, but why not take another stab at it sean.

      • seanmcbride on August 30, 2014, 12:44 pm

        Annie,

        The operative word here is “QUEEN,” not warrior — it is a gender-specific term.

        The main issue is that some of us were hoping that the rise to power of women in the Democratic and Republican Parties would lead to more more humane and less brutal testosterone-fueled foreign policies. Apparently those hopes were mistaken.

        For instance, the other night I saw Bill O’Reilly (!) reprimand Monica Crowley for being a maniacal and thoughtless warmonger.

        Elizabeth Warren’s recent remarks were especially disappointing.

      • annie on August 30, 2014, 1:08 pm

        i know what the main issue is, i was merely addressing your preface. and the argument wasn’t about gender-specific terms per se (which are not sexist per se). queen/king, not in the same class as harpy. come on sean, you know the difference. was there a reason you sought to drag in the argument to make your point. or was it just a random dig w/a smile?

        and wrt to your “some of us..hoping” comment, that’s just silly. it’s the person/morals not the sex that determines a persons humanity or lack thereof.

        and one more thing, the usage of the term queen in this context is no different that saying netanyahu thinks he’s king of the jews. that’s not a sexist comment. it’s not used in a sexualized way. it denotes power, on top. the word ‘queen’ can be sexualized, or not.

      • seanmcbride on August 30, 2014, 1:40 pm

        Annie,

        So it has been your impression that the women’s movement and feminism over the last half century haven’t developed a critique on issues of war and peace and the often violent conduct of foreign affairs by male-dominated societies?

        I am fairly certain that I have noticed quite a bit of feminist literature on that subject in passing — I would need to research it.

        I started paying attention to this issue when the first female secretary of state in American history, Madeleine Albright, described the killing of a half million Iraqi children by sanctions as “worth it” and when Hillary Clinton later threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran. And my attention intensified when I noticed that Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, according to many reports, were the most aggressive hawks in the Obama administration.

        A few days ago, Antiwar.com invoked the dreaded word “harpy”:

        “ISIS: Made in Washington, Riyadh – and Tel Aviv” http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/08/24/isis-made-in-washington-riyadh-and-tel-aviv

        The Sunni Turn took a fateful turn when the Three Harpies of the Apocalypse – Hillary, Susan Rice, and now UN ambassador Samantha Power – hectored Obama into pursuing regime change in Libya. In this case the US and its NATO allies acted as the Islamist militia’s air force while supplying them with arms on the ground and diplomatic support internationally.

        I respect your objection to the term, and will keep that in mind, but I am much more concerned about the content of the aggressive neoconservative policies that Clinton, Power and Rice have advocated than the language that has been used to deride them. (From now on I will refer to Clinton as a “war hawk” — a gender-neutral term.)

        Regarding Elizabeth Warren: her public persona is that of a compassionate and kind mother and grandmother — a nurturer, not a killer. But apparently the murder of hundreds of civilian women and children in the latest Gaza operation trouble her very little. That is disturbing. And she appears to be clearing the path for Israel to build more settlements that displace Palestinians from their own territory. This enlightened “progressive” is a tool of Likud Zionism and Greater Israelism.

      • annie on August 30, 2014, 2:16 pm

        was there a reason you sought to drag in the argument to make your point. or was it just a random dig w/a smile?

        i take it you’re not going to be answering my question.

        without reading the entire thread, what you’re referencing as the “main issue” i have not noticed in this long thread of comments. and of course, there is nothing wrong with making a comment referencing warren’s gender if you think this is relevant to the thread. but i didn’t engage you over that. i engaged you over how you launched into it. how the past conversation over what is or is not sexist has relevance here.

        and why, if you claim you are much more concerned about the content of the aggressive neoconservative policies that Clinton, Power and Rice have advocated than the language that has been used to deride them. you bother reinsert the old argument here? referencing 2 posters who don’t even seem to be anywhere on this thread? and now you’ve blockquoted more evidence of the harpy term.

        I respect your objection to the term

        you have no idea what i think of the term, because i didn’t engage in that argument. i just noticed it took up a lot of bandwidth in a thread about hillary clinton. and i’m wondering why it’s being conjured again.

        oh, and i don’t follow “the woman’s movement” per se. everyone has an image, whether warren is kow towing to those in power or is an islamophobe doesn’t matter to me. as a politician what matters to me is her vote and how she chooses to use her power and influence. same with patty murray or barbara boxer or any male politician for that matter.

      • seanmcbride on August 30, 2014, 2:34 pm

        Annie,

        you have no idea what i think of the term, because i didn’t engage in that argument. i just noticed it took up a lot of bandwidth in a thread about hillary clinton. and i’m wondering why it’s being conjured again.

        Glenn Greenwald recently remarked:

        Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere. But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist.

        If one agrees with Greenwald about Hillary (and you may not — I don’t know), then one might hope that her base — especially among liberal and progressive women — would think more carefully about what she really stands for. And now the same for Elizabeth Warren, as well. That is the point to bear down on, in my opinion.

        Regarding a discussion about derogatory gender-specific terms, both male and female, in contemporary English usage — that would be an interesting topic to pursue in another forum — there is much to look into on that subject — it’s complicated.

      • annie on August 30, 2014, 4:25 pm

        my suggestion sean, if you want to pursue it again (not your “main issue” but the one on derogatory gender-specific terms, and i say this assuming it’s self evident your comment was not censored) you might just bring it up directly as it pertains to the article instead of resorting to sidelining a cute/snide dig/insult accompanied with a smile directed at those who disagree with you, as if you had won the argument. or suggesting calling someone a warrior queen had some relation to harpy (it doesn’t because both queen and warrior are empowering terms. and note nothing greenwald wrote came even close to a sexist gender specific term; banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion, fucking hawk, a neocon, surrounded by sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere. in his context, his observation about depictions of misogynistic make sense. but had he called her a harpy nagging sleaze bag slut..it wouldn’t have.)

        and it’s not that complicated really. and you can take the last word*, i’m sort of over making my point.

        * which would not include claiming i advocate expunging terms from the English language, or any other silly rhetorical games of that nature you’ve got up your sleeve.

  20. Vera Gottlieb on August 29, 2014, 12:05 pm

    Not that she could care less, but she just lost my respect. As for Sanders, I understand he has israeli citizenship too. These people, and so many others, are guilty by association and by their silence. How to appeal to a conscience that just isn’t there.

    • annie on August 29, 2014, 2:08 pm

      what do you mean by “you understand” sanders has dual citizenship? have you read that or is it a rumor?

      • seanmcbride on August 30, 2014, 2:54 pm

        [Wikipedia; Bernie Sanders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders ]

        Sanders spent time on an Israeli kibbutz, an experience that shaped his political views.

        That fact of course doesn’t prove he is a dual US/Israeli citizen.

      • annie on August 30, 2014, 5:35 pm

        thanks sean, yeah i poked around a little before i asked and read that but couldn’t find any good source for the dual citizenship.

        That fact of course doesn’t prove he is a dual US/Israeli citizen.

        it also doesn’t even suggest it. lots of people have spent stints in israel on a kibbutz. someone could just ask him at a town hall meeting. anyway, i’m going to assume if not one reputable source is claiming he’s a dual citizen, it’s just a rumor.

  21. Justpassingby on August 29, 2014, 2:03 pm

    Have this “news” changed your views/other article where you stated that democrats will change on IP conflict?

    • annie on August 29, 2014, 2:41 pm

      jpb, do you mean when phil wrote “In 2016, a Democratic candidate will again emerge to run to her left and win the party base” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/hillary-white-house.html#sthash.LZxnWENt.dpuf

      And I’m saying the Israel/Palestine issue will at last be politicized by 2016; it will be a subject that people discuss openly. Jewish youth and liberal Zionists will have calved off the iceberg of pro-Israel support inside the Jewish establishment; they will be a real political bloc that will give a candidate confidence at last to criticize Israel. AIPAC will be a dirty word for a whole lot more people by 2016; it will be politicized inside the Democratic base.

  22. The JillyBeans on August 29, 2014, 2:31 pm

    So we’re back to zero non crazy butt kissing female candidates.

  23. concernedhuman on August 30, 2014, 8:30 am

    Hasbara !!

    It is so easy to find pro-israelis because they all keep parroting the same israeli narrative like sheep even if its illogical and not accepted by most sane people.

    Obviously these are the ones on payroll of zionist lobby !!

    Even when ministers in israel attack Obama administration, US secretary and US foreign policy, these people keep supporting israel.

  24. marc b. on August 30, 2014, 11:24 am

    And while warren’s puckering up, Galloway gets his face bashed in by some zio-nut.

  25. amigo on August 31, 2014, 10:51 am

    Senator WAR ren is right .The last thing Israel wants is dead Palestinians .

    If those pesky Arabs would just pack up and leave there would be no need to kill them.

    So , it,s all their fault.It,s not as if Israel has not sent them this message ,( on a daily basis)for decades .They obviously hate peace, unlike Israel who “Yearns” for peace.Israel has no limits on what it is willing to do to get peace.

    Except , make peace.

    What a shower of screwed up mentally challenged morons.

  26. Mooser on September 1, 2014, 3:42 pm

    Warren reminds me of the old “Kill-a-Turk-then-rest” joke. The one that ends “But Mama, what if the Turk kills me?” and the Mom says: “Why should he want to do that? You haven’t done anything to him!”

  27. Nevada Ned on September 1, 2014, 8:24 pm

    The Israeli Lobby and its grip on Congress is one factor.

    But another factor is Israel’s loss of support, among Christians and younger Jews. Israel’s most recent massacre brought out unprecedented opposition in civil society (though not in Congress).

    There have been important signs that some parts of the Establishment are opposing our blind Israel-can-do-no-wrong policy. I am thinking of the Walt/Mearshimer book on The Israel Lobby and Jimmy Carter’s book, Peace not Apartheid. Walt & Mearsheimer are two card-carrying members of the foreign policy Establishment, who rarely write books for the general public, and even more rarely write controversial books for the general public. M&W would not have written their book unless they were convinced that our current policy is disastrous. Jimmy Carter would not have written his book without a similar conviction. How many ex-Presidents write books that draw smear attacks from a powerful lobby?

    Israel’s loss of support among Christians and among younger Jews is documented in Finkelstein’s book, Knowing Too Much. (Finkelstein is NOT (!!) a member of the Establishment by any stretch).

    Jewish Voice for Peace is gaining members in reaction to the most recent massacre in Gaza. They’re still a long way from challenging AIPAC, but the AIPAC monopoly has been broken, at least among younger people.

    Israeli leaders proclaim that the bonds between the US and Israel are unbreakable, but Israeli leaders seem very worried, including being worried in public.

    The Nation gave very lengthy and flattering coverage to Max Blumenthal’s book Goliath. Eric Alterman’s bilious objections were swept away. Ten years ago The Nation would not have done that.

    Israeli policy can’t really be stopped (at least in the short run), but it can no longer be disguised. And that’s a step forward. I am old enough to recall when Israeli supporters would blather about how “benevolent” the occupation was.

  28. Pauline on September 2, 2014, 8:57 am

    I was seriously interested in Elizabeth Warren as a presidential candidate and would have supported her enthusiastically over the ultra-Zionist Hillary Clinton, but I’ve completely lost my enthusiasm for Elizabeth Warren over her support for Israeli apartheid and genocide; no one who supports apartheid and genocide could be described as a genuine progressive. If she does run against Hillary for the Democratic nomination, I might vote for Elizabeth as the lesser of two evils, but without any enthusiasm. And I would most likely vote for the Green Party candidate in the general election as I did in 2012.

Leave a Reply