Trending Topics:

If Americans support Iran deal, 56-37, what gives Israel the power to ‘croak’ it?

on 183 Comments

Americans support the Iran deal overwhelmingly. But US public opinion is not the ball game. As Chris Matthews said last night, the people who care most about this deal don’t support it, and they’re out in force– in a word, the Israel lobby. So the politics of the Iran deal often sound like a strictly-Jewish conversation. Here’s the lay of the land.

The US press is paying a lot of attention to Jewish groups that are against the Iran deal. “Jewish groups gird for ‘epic’ battle over Iran deal,” Steve Mufson in the Washington Post reports; AIPAC, the leading Israel lobby group, is expected to spend as much as $40 million to try and nullify Obama’s policy.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is funding a new 501(c)4 group, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, that is expected to spend $20 million to $40 million on advertising and campaigns in 30 to 40 states to mobilize opponents of the deal to write or call their members of Congress, say people familiar with the plan who sought anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it…

AIPAC seems to regard its own brand as toxic, and maybe Israel’s brand too. Here’s the ad that “Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran” ran on national television last night. Notice that the ad says not a word about Israel, which is deceptive, and that it has only 1040 or so hits on youtube.

The Anti Defamation League is leaning against the deal, the Washington Post reports, though the liberal Zionist group J Street is going to spend $2-3 million in favor of it. The Israel Project is also hard at work against it, spending tons of money on its own brand that doesn’t mention Israel:

The Israel Project's campaign

The Israel Project’s campaign

 

The White House is highly cognizant of the Jewish groups. A thinktank started by AIPAC is central to the White House’s messaging, Mufson reports:

The White House had a list ready Tuesday, the day the agreement was announced, of benchmark concerns issued while talks were still underway by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

JTA’s Ron Kampeas reports that the White House is making special appeals to Jewish politicians and Jewish groups to support the deal:

[Last] Thursday morning, Ben Rhodes, a deputy US national security adviser, convened a meeting at the White House of Jewish lawmakers in the House of Representatives. About 15 of the 18 attended, and some were uncharacteristically silent about how it went.

Jewish sources close to the White House say the Obama administration is “on fire” and ready for the battle. Tony Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, led a call with Jewish organizations on Tuesday just six hours after the deal was announced. There have been more intimate calls with Jewish supporters of the president.

Also within hours of the deal, the White House distributed talking points arguing that the deal hews to and even improves upon five markers laid down by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an influential think tank that has historic ties to the Jewish community.

(By the way, Blinken may well be the adviser maligned in Michael Oren’s new book as a bacon-eating assimilating Jew. Watch out for continuing invective from Israelis who are prideful of their Jewish national identities aimed at US Jews who support the deal.)

The Boston Globe is lobbying Jews for the deal. It has an op-ed saying, “The deal deserves the support of American Jews,” penned by two big Jews, Geoffrey Lewis, an attorney active in a number of Jewish organizations both in Boston and nationally, and Gideon Aronoff, CEO of Ameinu, the liberal Zionist group. They explain why the ante is up for Jews:

Indeed, for American Jews, this issue is becoming a litmus test for one’s support for Israel. This is regrettable. We believe such opposition is misplaced, mired in the past, and is missing an opportunity to shape a more hopeful future.

So the deal is widely seen as an inside game for American Jews. And with my parochial hat on, I reject that litmus test of supporting Israel. So does Jewish Voice for Peace, which supports the Iran deal along with a very diverse coalition assembled by the National Iranian American Council. But gosh, how much do non Jewish Americans matter in all this?

Not that much, evidently. Everyone’s playing the inside-Jewish game. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter just went to Israel, to promise Israelis that the military option is still on the table:

“One of the reasons this deal is a good one is that it does nothing to prevent the military option — the U.S. military option, which I’m responsible for.”

The NY Times has an op-ed by Chuck Freilich, a former national security official in Israel, saying the deal is a “good deal for Israel.” And Wolf Blitzer interviewed our National Security Adviser Susan Rice defending the Iran deal, followed by Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer attacking it. Think of the weirdness of that, that this seems a natural thing to do: what is the Israeli ambassador doing first in line to comment? What about the Russian ambassador, the French or the Chinese?

Chris Matthews did an excellent piece last night that was frank about the pressure from the Israel lobby on Democrats. Senator Bill Nelson in Florida “is under pressure from Israeli supporters to vote against the agreement,” Matthews said, and Chuck Schumer won’t be afraid to vote against the deal. Schumer cites his love of Israel:

“So, I’m going to spend a lot of time thinking about it, learning about it, and then I’ll just do the right thing. And I’m not going to let party or pressure, or anything else. What’s good for America, first and foremost, and what’s good for Israel, which, of course, I care a lot about. There are times when I’ve broken with the president before.”

Matthews mentioned Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s rival, Isaac Herzog of Labour, coming to the U.S. to oppose the deal and asked:

If both sides of the political argument in Israel are opposed to the deal, doesn’t that sort of croak the deal here?

Maybe not. But it’s a tough fight, Matthews said:

AIPAC, the American Israel Political Affairs committee is going to drop a ton of money. A lot of people in the Jewish community and elsewhere are nervous about an existential threat coming from Obama at the hands of Iran….

Here’s a number that’s going to mean something, but not a lot. By a margin, a large margin, a majority of the American people approve the Iran nuclear deal.  56 percent support it,  only 37 percent oppose it. 56 to 37 is a rare amount of fire power. But it’s not among people that care a lot. Right? It’s general, and it’s very skeptical out there, will it actually work…. There’s been an all-out lobbying assault by pro Israeli groups on both sides of the Iran deal…. The fight is for Democrats.

Jonathan Allen of Vox said most Democrats don’t want to have to vote for the deal.

Even a very liberal Democrat in the House, who’s going to vote for it, told me it would be much easier to vote against it.

Matthews:

I think the ones up for reelection next year will be the ones least likely to vote with the president.

Neocon Bill Kristol turns the screw, saying that the Democrats in Congress have to make Israel part of the deal:

Could Democrats in Congress say this: Given how bad Iran deal is anyway, could only vote for it if Iran first accepts legitimacy of Israel?

And here’s more lobbying from the hardliners. The Jewish Federations in Boston and Miami have come out against the deal. The Times of Israel reports that they’re lobbying US Jews to get them lobby Congress, and to suppress dissent:

“We encourage members of the community to reach out to their elected representatives in the House and the Senate to express their deep concern, and to urge them to vote against this deal,” the Combined Jewish Philanthropies in Boston said in a message Friday to Boston-area Jews.

The message the same day from the Greater Miami Jewish Federation appeared to call on community members who might not oppose the deal to suppress their dissents.

“We acknowledge that there are diverse views within our community, but ultimately this issue must remain above politics and reflect our collective determination to ensure moral clarity and absolute resolve in dealing with one of the world’s most dangerous regimes,” the message said.

Madison Margolin complains in the Forward that he got an email from Birthright Alumni, telling him to oppose the deal for Israel’s sake. The email, written by Rebecca Sugar, is up on Buzzfeed:

You can help the State of Israel by contacting your congressman and senator and requesting that they reject this deal and override President Obama’s veto of their decision. Call their Washington offices and make your voice heard.

As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the world this morning, “This is a bad mistake of historic proportions.” You can see the video of his responseHERE, and read the full text HERE.

To learn more about the Iran Nuclear Program and the Negotiations, check out the great resources from AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

We are all called upon at this moment in history to help Israel. This is a moment for all Birthright Israel alumni to stand with Israel, take action and make your voices heard.

J Street’s Jeremy Ben-Ami’s comment on the fight in the Washington Post is very revealing:

“The foreign policy fight of a generation… It pits folks who brought us the Iraq war and whole neocon worldview versus the Obama worldview and the concept that we can confront enemies with diplomacy.”

Right: the neoconservative Jewish community, working with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush, pushed the Iraq war out of concern for Israel.

Isn’t it time that more Americans got involved in these issues, and that the press gives them oxygen? That might chase the hardliners from the field at last, and it would be a great help to our foreign policy.

 

 

 

Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

183 Responses

  1. Kay24 on July 21, 2015, 12:53 pm

    If some zionists around the world want their money spent this wasteful way, then they are the bigger fools. As an American, I am disgusted that these people are allowed to interfere in our nation to this extent. No other ally interferes this way, and is so divisive. They are setting American citizens against each other, so that the alien spacecraft can manipulate and insert itself into the machinations of our government, control the media, and become so disruptive, that our Congress does their bidding, and shows loyalty to chief zionist, OVER their own policies and President. What a sorry state of affairs.

    I have seen these ads even before the Iran deal was finalized. Nothing deters these elements, not even if other nations are involved in making this deal, and they are not. To think as an American taxpayer our money goes to feed these harmful elements, that take it, and then turn around to dominate what goes on in our nation, is unbelievable. Talk of biting the hands that feed the monster! We created this monster, and now suffer for it.

    • Mooser on July 21, 2015, 7:15 pm

      ” Even though a majority of Americans support the deal, a larger majority, 64 percent, don’t think that the deal will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

      Well, sure, Hophmi, they’ve seen what Israel (who joins some other wonderful regimes in doing so) has done. Obviously, a regime intent on acquiring nuclear weapons without submitting to international inspections and controls can do so, if they want to.

    • conker on July 23, 2015, 12:18 pm

      Can you imagine that they are doing exact same things in France with their lobby ? ! In France too, they are setting citizens against each other.
      That’s why Laurent Fabius, France foreign affair minister, was the one with the toughest line during negociations with Iran.
      A lot of peole make jokes in France saying that our president works in fact for Netanyahou and not for France interest.

      • Froggy on July 23, 2015, 4:26 pm

        Conker :

        Yes. I’m in France and I’ve heard and read the same things.

        Froggy : la grenouille bretonne

      • Kay24 on July 24, 2015, 6:23 am

        The irony of all this is, even intel officials think Bibi is “unhinged” (wasn’t Hitler also considered a lunatic?) yet the US Congress and French leaders follow his direction.

      • Froggy on September 7, 2015, 5:55 am

        Yes, Conker. I’ve continued to hear the same things as you.

        Froggy en Bretagne

  2. hophmi on July 21, 2015, 12:59 pm

    Well, maybe you should dig a bit deeper. Even though a majority of Americans support the deal, a larger majority, 64 percent, don’t think that the deal will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-20/poll-majority-of-americans-support-iran-deal-despite-skepticism

    I read that as a populace that doesn’t feel threatened by Iran, and thus doesn’t feel that the deal carries any real risk for the United States. I also read it as the viewpoint of a populace that wants to avoid committing any more US resources to the Middle East; even 41% of Republicans support the Iran deal.

    But I don’t get the sense that Americans care nearly as much as the Washington press core do about the Iran deal and whether Congress approves it or not. Whether the coalition of mostly right-wing groups successfully opposes the deal or not, the average American is not going to care very much. Partisan Democrats will be upset. Partisan Republicans will be happy. Centrist Americans will mostly yawn. Groups that do think that they can build a veto-proof majority in Congress rely on that skepticism. They also rely on the fact that they can remind Americans that Iran has a viciously anti-American regime, is responsible for the deaths of many American troops, and also that they can convince Americans that the threat of an emboldened Iran funding international terrorism organizations represents a threat to average Americans.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Americans to start to care about foreign policy. If it doesn’t affect them day to day, it’s hard to put foreign policy near the top of anyone’s priority list in America. That’s just the reality.

    • justicewillprevail on July 21, 2015, 3:33 pm

      Way to avoid the question, ignore the article and successfully and spectacularly miss the elephant in the room. lol.

    • lonely rico on July 21, 2015, 4:49 pm

      >hophmi

      Well, maybe you should dig a bit deeper …
      64 percent, don’t think that the deal will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
      link to bloomberg.com”

      To the question covered at Bloomberg –

      “How confident are you that this agreement will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?” a whopping 42 percent surveyed responded, “Not at all.” Another 22 percent answered “not so” confident …”

      Where do those surveyed, who believe Iran was NOT developing nuclear weapons, fit into these statistics? An honest answer for this tranche of the surveyed population would be “not at all”; i.e. “not at all” prevented from doing what it (Iran) was not doing and not interested in doing, not interested on religious grounds, which they seem to take rather seriously.

      Groups that do think that they can build a veto-proof majority in Congress … also rely on the fact that they can remind Americans that Iran has a viciously anti-American regime, is responsible for the deaths of many American troops …

      How many American troops Mr. hophmi?
      More than the one million Iranian fatalities in the US financed and armed aggression against Iran?
      Again, how many American troops ?

      I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Americans to start to care about foreign policy.

      You should consider carefully what will happen as/when Americans realize how they have been manipulated and mis-used by those supporters of the Zionist state, at great economic, physical, and moral cost to America.

    • Mooser on July 21, 2015, 6:12 pm

      “I read that as a populace that doesn’t feel threatened by Iran, and thus doesn’t feel that the deal carries any real risk for the United States.”

      Well, Hophmi, I just went to your archive and word-searched “Iran”, and I gotta say, if the American “populace” doesn’t feel threatened by Iran or the deal, they aren’t heeding your many words of warning about Iran! Even back in 2011: “Iran exports terrorism.” up to this year:”Iran is a totalitarian state ruled by a cleric. It funds terrorist groups and terrorist attacks around the world.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/hophmi/3?keyword=Iran#sthash.6KbcLFb5.dpuf
      Don’t feel bad, Hophmi, you tried to warn us about Iran.

      • hophmi on July 22, 2015, 11:18 am

        I’m glad you’re so obsessed with me, Mooser. Retirement – it gives you time, doesn’t it?

        Just to remind you, Phil Weiss cited polling that most Americans supported the Iran deal, asking what business Israel had trying to scuttle it, and pointedly (purposefully, I would say), left out the polling suggesting that the matter was just a bit more complex than that. He asked why more Americans (other than Jews, who are somehow less American than the rest of us on this because they’re dually loyal, right?) don’t get engaged. Being the nice guy that I am, I offered him one explanation of why.

        I have pretty good prognostication record on Iran. When this blog was predicting an attack on Iran, something it did several times, I said repeatedly that it was not going to happen. I was right about that, and when I made that call, I was going against the majority of the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian communities.

        And I’m right about this: if Iran cheats on this deal, and it’s clear that it’s getting close to having a nuke, the American people will, as they have for years, support a military attack to prevent them from having one.

      • annie on July 22, 2015, 7:52 pm

        When this blog was predicting an attack on Iran, something it did several times

        i call BS. prove it.

        I was going against the majority of the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian communities.

        oh please! the only person i specifically recall predicting an attack on iran was jeffrey goldberg. if you want to speculate the american people will want war w/iran if they break the deal have at it (but you’re wrong). but please cut the preface w/all the lying braggardly grandiose bs about how right you are while dragging everyone and their mother in on your lie. ‘pro palestine communities’ were not predicting an attack on iran. not “the majority of” nor even a robust minority. i can’t even recall one.

      • Mooser on July 22, 2015, 10:03 pm

        “I’m glad you’re so obsessed with me, Mooser. Retirement – it gives you time, doesn’t it?”

        Well, Hoph, considering how deeply you look into things, you would probably consider a quick word-search being “obsessed”.

        And what the hell is so wrong with being retired. Do you intend to stand in the younger generation’s way forever? Give somebody else a chance.

      • annie on July 23, 2015, 3:52 pm

        have you read the title “Israel will attack Iran– and Obama gave tacit approval (Haaretz)”

        that means phil is reporting what haaretz wrote. and here’s the opening

        This is frightening. The editor of Sheldon Adelson’s Israeli newspaper, Israel Hayom, has a frontpage piece in that newspaper pushing an attack on Iran “with or without the Americans”:

        and then phil writes at the end:

        Bruce Wolman, who pointed me to the Haaretz, speculates that the attack might serve Obama, politically:

        Has Obama convinced himself that an Israeli attack on the Iranian sites would be the pragmatic policy decision, and maybe solve his 2012 political problems at the same time?”

        so where exactly is the “prediction” from this blog of an attack on iran? did you confuse us reporting what “Sheldon Adelson’s Israeli newspaper”said that us saying it? tsk tsk.

      • Mooser on July 24, 2015, 10:59 am

        “did you confuse us reporting what “Sheldon Adelson’s Israeli newspaper”said that us saying it? tsk tsk.”

        Annie, what Hophmi just did there is, I think, pretty darn metaphysical!
        When asked to substantiate his claim he responded in a way which can only be understood by faith: The miracle of Zionist ‘transubstantiation’!

      • annie on July 24, 2015, 11:21 am

        it’s mindblowing! listen to this pompous pretentiousness again:

        I have pretty good prognostication record on Iran. When this blog was predicting an attack on Iran, something it did several times, I said repeatedly that it was not going to happen. I was right about that, and when I made that call, I was going against the majority of the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian communities.

        one would think, reading this crap, we’d been a virtual online hothouse of chicken little ‘the sky is falling the sky is falling israel or the US is going to attack iran!!!!! run for the hills!’ and of course he has to roll in the whole of the “pro-Palestinian communities” when i don’t even recall ever reading any articles from “pro-Palestinian communities” claiming either IS/US were going to attack iran. i vaguely recall having an online bet in the comment section we were not going to attack..but that’s about it.

        and for what??? to preface this brilliant (not) analysis: “if Iran cheats on this deal, and it’s clear that it’s getting close to having a nuke, the American people will …. support a military attack to prevent them from having one.”

        so why not just say that sans all the (lying bs) build up? and the part i cut out? “as they have for years”.. throwing in a little propaganda that the american public supports an attack on iran to prevent them from having a nuke… if they are close to having one. even that is highly speculative.

        the whole thing is just propaganda since the US barely blinked an eye when india, pakistan, israel and g knows who else got their nukes. there’s just no precedence whatsoever to establish iran would be more likely to nuke their neighbors than say – israel. none. me personally, i could care less if iran had a nuke — beyond my general dislikes for nukes and wish no one had them. but since they do, iran having one just makes it more likely — as a (practical) principle of deterrence — others would be less likely/not more.. to use one. and everyone knows this as i have pointed out several times the AEI’s daniella plekta even said the main fear of iran having a nuke was not that they would use it, but that they wouldn’t and would be considered a responsible actor in the region. oh horrors!

        anyway. la di da. i knew he couldn’t produce evidence backing up that ridiculous statement, much less multiple links. only idiots fell for that atlantic jeffrey goldberg scare article. even that big breaking news we had with our video of adelson saying he’d nuke the iranian desert as a warning… did anyone here report we believed he or israel would do it? not that i recall.

    • Boo on July 22, 2015, 1:15 pm

      “responsible for the deaths of many American troops”

      Without examining the accuracy of that statement, I can retort that the US Navy is entirely responsible for the deaths of 290 Iranian civilians on Flight 655 — the eighth-deadliest disaster in aviation history.

      It’s true, the Navy did later apologize; something that Israel has never done for its attack on the USS Liberty, which killed 34 and wounded 171 Americans. (An attack which the best evidence indicates was no mistake.)

      Is Iran’s perfidy worse than Israel’s? Kindly provide the body count of Americans killed by Iranians and be sure to cite a credible source.

      • Citizen on July 24, 2015, 9:32 am

        @Boo
        That charge is repeated quite often on Fox channel, with no details or sources, yet the hosts never challenge it. Of course they’ve never discussed the USS Liberty incident.

      • hophmi on July 26, 2015, 4:40 pm

        “It’s true, the Navy did later apologize; something that Israel has never done for its attack on the USS Liberty, which killed 34 and wounded 171 Americans. (An attack which the best evidence indicates was no mistake.)”

        I call BS on that statement. There have been many investigations of the Liberty incident, and none have concluded that Israel was at fault. It is what it has always been – a conspiracy theory.

        “Kindly provide the body count of Americans killed by Iranians and be sure to cite a credible source.”

        The Marines murdered by Hezbollah in 1983 are a part of the blood on Iranian hands. And then, of course, there are the hundred of thousands of dead Syrians. I know, not American. But no one here cares much about dead Syrians.

      • annie on July 26, 2015, 6:50 pm

        many investigations of the Liberty incident

        there was never a full on investigation and everyone knows it. what’s next, claiming israel’s investigation of the mavi marmara was a full investigation. or the investigation claiming the murder of the bakr boys was a “tagic accident”.

        we’ve been over this countless times in these threads. your claims it was a conspiracy theory fall on deaf ears.

      • RoHa on July 26, 2015, 10:36 pm

        “The Marines murdered by Hezbollah in 1983 are a part of the blood on Iranian hands.”

        Technical note: Hezbollah did not exist until 1985.

        It is claimed that a group called “Islamic Jihad” declared itself responsible. It is further claimed (mostly by the US) that this group was backed by Iran. Iran denies this.
        I have no good reason to believe either the claims or the denials.

        “And then, of course, there are the hundred of thousands of dead Syrians.”

        Could you elaborate on that? It seems to me that Iran is trying to protect Syrians from the rebel forces that are destroying the country.

      • hophmi on July 27, 2015, 12:53 pm

        “we’ve been over this countless times in these threads. your claims it was a conspiracy theory fall on deaf ears.”

        Only here.

      • annie on July 27, 2015, 1:24 pm

        Only here.

        lol, oh really. care to show me what blogs and news sources you’ve been reading devoid of rational beings calling out for a full investigation. most people either have not heard of it or heard of it and believe the american soldiers who were on the liberty. only defenders of israel buy the cover up.

      • RoHa on July 27, 2015, 9:13 pm

        There were soldiers on the Liberty ?

      • lysias on July 28, 2015, 11:25 am

        It’s true that sailors and officers of the U.S. Navy (including a retired naval officer like myself) don’t like to be called soldiers, but there were also Marines on the USS Liberty. Two of the dead were Marines.

      • RoHa on July 28, 2015, 7:10 pm

        “including a retired naval officer like myself”

        Hello, sailor!

        “It’s true that sailors and officers of the U.S. Navy don’t like to be called soldiers,”

        Quite rightly. They aren’t soldiers.

        Marines, however …

        “‘E’s a kind of a giddy harumfrodite—soldier an’ sailor too!”

        (Incidentally, I know they told the Navy that it was all just an accident – someone made a typo when writing out the orders – but did they also tell it to the Marines?)

    • talknic on September 7, 2015, 8:02 am

      @ hophmi ” Even though a majority of Americans support the deal, a larger majority, 64 percent, don’t think that the deal will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

      The US has two majorities … AMAZING!! The Ziofier is truly an incredible device!

  3. HarryLaw on July 21, 2015, 1:24 pm

    Bill Kristol said “Could Democrats in Congress say this: Given how bad Iran deal is anyway, could only vote for it if Iran first accepts legitimacy of Israel?” I thought that Iran had already declared that they, [Iran] would accept any deal the Palestinians could find acceptable. Neither Iran or the Palestinians [or the rest of the world for that matter] could accept Israel as legitimate, simply because it is a state which does not abide by International law, nor does it recognize the limits of its own borders, immediately breached when it became independent in 1948, then with various annexations and an occupation of Palestinian territory of 48 years. The question for Kristol is, where are the borders to this state, which others have to recognize?

    • JWalters on July 21, 2015, 5:33 pm

      A major problem in debating with Zionists is that they simply lie, continuously and brazenly. The financial muscle behind them has enabled them to get away with this. Their goal has never been peace, always more war (profits).

      As to the borders, if the Jordan river becomes Israel’s eastern border, attention will shift to making the Euphrates river the eastern border.
      http://unitedwithisrael.org/the-promised-land-from-the-river-of-egypt-to-the-euphrates/

      They don’t want to mention that yet.

      • hophmi on July 22, 2015, 11:23 am

        It’s always weird when people allege some conspiracy claiming that nobody is talking about it, and then link to an article where someone talked it in big print.

        Alas, the right-wing rabbi who wrote the article discussed the Euphrates in the context of the messiah coming. The notion that Israel wants to expand to the Euphrates River is a Middle East bubbemeise. It’s a persistent myth among Arabs in the Middle East that the two blue strips on the Israeli flag, which are meant to symbolize the blue fringes on a tallit, represent the Nile and Euphrates River.

      • annie on July 22, 2015, 1:29 pm

        The notion that Israel wants to expand to the Euphrates River is a Middle East bubbemeise.

        but the notion the ‘land of israel’ types recognize all of this area as rightfully theirs (given to them by god) is not. and since these types are more entrenched in the knesset than ever, and given israel’s ever expanding agenda (whether you acknowledge it or not), and given the reality no one can predict what future generation will do — you’re not really in a position to say what “israel” will want in the future.

        It’s always weird when people allege some conspiracy claiming that nobody is talking about it, and then link to an article where someone talked it in big print.

        nobody said conspiracy or claimed nobody is talking about it. it’s an obvious sort of thing to consider given israel’s past and the penchant for expanding w/claims it’s all about security and/or the land rightfully belongs to them.

      • eljay on July 22, 2015, 1:38 pm

        || hophmi: … The notion that Israel wants to expand to the Euphrates River is a Middle East bubbemeise. … ||

        That’s right. The “Jewish State” never intended to expand beyond its / Partition borders. From the moment it accepted those borders, it has been forced, repeatedly, to defend itself by stealing, occupying and colonizing land outside of them.

        And there’s no way to know just how much more land Israel might be forced to steal, occupy and colonize in “self-defence”.

      • hophmi on July 22, 2015, 1:54 pm

        “but the notion the ‘land of israel’ types recognize all of this area as rightfully theirs (given to them by god) is not. ”

        Yes, it basically is. The rabbi here is clearly talking about messianic times, not about reality. If the same guy says that in messianic times, the lion will lay down with the lamb and there will be peace on Earth (both part of the religious Jewish and Christian prophetic traditions), are you going to tell me that it’s an expression of real world politics?

        “and since these types are more entrenched in the knesset than ever, and given israel’s ever expanding agenda (whether you acknowledge it or not)”

        Can you name a single mainstream Israeli politician that has talked about colonizing everything to the Euphrates River? Come on. The greater Israel types talk about annexing the West Bank. I’ve never heard them speak about anything other than that. Israel has a peace treaty with Jordan. I’ve not heard anyone in Israel saying that Israel should break the treaty in order to occupy Jordan.

        “and given the reality no one can predict what future generation will do — you’re not really in a position to say what “israel” will want in the future.”

        Yes I am, particularly when I see people confusing Mashiach talk in my religion with actual politics. If you’re going to lodge this complaint – that we should worry about Israel occupying everything to the Euphrates because some rabbi talked about a messianic era (and it’s common to hear people talk about Mashiach in the religious community, and a complete misunderstanding of reality and religion alike to think that they mean it in a political sense), then you should be much more worried about Caliphate and Ummah talk in the Muslim world, where there are very violent organizations like ISIS working on actually making that happen and killing tens of thousands of people in the process.

        “nobody said conspiracy or claimed nobody is talking about it. ”

        What did “They don’t want to mention that yet” mean and that they “lie” about it?

        “it’s an obvious sort of thing to consider given israel’s past”

        No it’s not. It’s only obvious if you’ve grown up in the Arab world, where these kinds of conspiracies are common because the press isn’t free and information isn’t reliable. I have nothing against an Arab from Jordan who thinks that the blue lines on the Israeli flag mean the Nile and the Euphrates because that’s what his parents told him (though I admit that in my case, I was somewhat disturbed that even members of the Jordanian elite who have studied in the West come to believe things like that). Nevertheless, I can correct that misimpression. I have contempt for a Westerner who repeats that kind of nonsense, or repeats the equivalent, which is that there’s some Israeli plan to take over Jordan or Iraq. You should know better.

      • wondering jew on July 22, 2015, 2:50 pm

        It is understandable that antiZionists will emphasize every aspect of negativity (in this case desire for expanded boundaries) contained in any aspect of the Zionist movement. Clearly since June 11, 1967 Israel has decreased its scope, giving up (back) Sinai as a result of the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979. The conquering of Lebanon in 1982 was not accompanied by a settler movement (although there were voices in the settler movement that wanted to begin establishing settlements in Lebanon, the government did not cooperate) and eventually Israel withdrew from that territory. The withdrawal from Gaza is incomplete and bloody still at this interim situation, but Hamas will tell you that they kicked Israel out of Gaza, so that is another withdrawal (if only partial). So despite the rhetoric of the right wing, the facts on the ground are that since 67 Israel has reduced its borders rather than expanded them and citing the rhetoric of the right wing in order to establish fears of the future, are mostly propaganda and not a serious analysis of the facts.

      • annie on July 22, 2015, 8:03 pm

        since 67 Israel has reduced its borders rather than expanded them

        triple yawn

      • JWalters on July 22, 2015, 5:33 pm

        Annie, very well explained, thank you.

        hophmi, you play superficial word games instead of dealing with the actual facts and reasoning of the discussion. But I understand that creating straw men is often the only option for someone defending the indefensible.

      • eljay on July 23, 2015, 7:45 am

        || y.f.: So despite the rhetoric of the right wing, the facts on the ground are that since 67 Israel has reduced its borders … ||

        The facts on the ground are that Israel has reduced the amount of land it illegally occupies and colonizes. Its (Partition) borders have not been reduced in the slightest.

      • hophmi on July 23, 2015, 3:49 pm

        “triple yawn”

        I’m not sure how triple yawn responds to Yonah’s quite clear argument that Israel conspiracy theorists who make crazy claims about Israel expanding to the Euphrates River have to wonder why Israel since 1967 has, without question, contracted in size, rather than expanded.

        Didn’t you say on a radio program a few weeks ago, Annie, that Zionist arguments were devoid of substance? I can’t think of an argument more devoid of substance than “triple yawn.” Seems like you’re projecting.

        “hophmi, you play superficial word games instead of dealing with the actual facts and reasoning of the discussion”

        Which is what? What facts are you asking me to address? The argument that Israel plans to expand to the Euphrates River is not a fact-based argument. There’s no evidence to support the idea.

      • annie on July 23, 2015, 4:10 pm

        strawman. i didn’t argue “Israel plans to expand to the Euphrates River”. i argued “the notion the ‘land of israel’ types recognize all of this area as rightfully theirs (given to them by god)” is not “bubbemeise”. i argued “these types are more entrenched in the knesset than ever, and given israel’s ever expanding agenda (whether you acknowledge it or not), and given the reality no one can predict what future generation will do — you’re not really in a position to say what “israel” will want in the future.”

        and i’ll be damned if i’m going to engage in a whataboutery bs counter argument that picks a little 3 year window israel was occupying the sinai as any sort of “proof” the elastic ever expanding state of israel has given back wwwway more land or any nonsense like that. first of all, the sinai was never within israel’s so called non existing “borders”.

        anyway, carry on, a debate of this kind amounts ot trolling as far as i am concerned. others may want to take it up, but not me. it’s “devoid of substance” and DENIAL is what it is.

        speaking of expanding — did you read http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/israel-accused-advancing-settlement-plans-150723125557567.html

        An Israeli settlement watchdog group says Israel has advanced plans to build or retroactively approve 1,065 housing units in illlegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.

        Peace Now said on Thursday that an Israeli military committee retroactively approved 24 housing units in the Beit El settlement, though Israel’s Supreme Court ordered them demolished by the end of July because they were built on private Palestinian lands.

        The settlements are built on land that Palestinians claim for a future state. Most countries consider them illegitimate.

        In total, the group said, the Israeli military on Wednesday approved 541 new housing units, retroactively legalised 228 existing housing units, and approved infrastructure for a plan that includes 296 housing units.

        that’s current, today. drip drip drip. DENIAL

      • JWalters on July 23, 2015, 6:12 pm

        hophmi,

        “The rabbi here is clearly talking about messianic times, not about reality.”

        The rabbi believes that messianic times will arrive at some point in time and become reality. That time will be before 6000 on the Jewish calendar, or 2240 on the standard (Gregorian) calendar. That’s sometime in the next 225 years, which is not very long in a 2000 year picture.

        In the meantime, might some Israelis try to prepare conditions for the messianic times? If so, what conditions would they be striving toward?

        “The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).”
        http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

        Capturing Palestine in 1948, then capturing Jerusalem in 1967 are steps 1 and 2 on the above list. Might some Israelis believe these events are part of the dawning of the messianic times? And might they believe that capturing the U.S. government is part of step 3?

        In the same package of beliefs

        “the whole world will recognize the Jewish G-d as the only true G-d, and the Jewish religion as the only true religion (Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9).” (Link above)

        Isn’t that a rather presumptuous belief? And does not this entire package of beliefs underly the justification of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians from 1948 until today?

        yonah,

        “The facts on the ground are that since 67 Israel has reduced its borders rather than expanded them.”

        Israel’s retreat from Gaza was merely tactical, forced by the cost of occupying Gaza. But Israel still continues its “facts on the ground” strategy of stealing more Palestinian land in the West Bank.

        Since you must know the phrase “facts on the ground” refers to a cornerstone of Israel’s land theft strategy, your use of that phrase to assert Israel is giving up land is pretty obviously “thumb in the eye” arrogance.

      • talknic on July 24, 2015, 2:19 am

        when are these two clowns gonna show a document that legally increased Israeli territory beyond what was proclaimed and recognized 15th May 1948?

        yonah fredman, hophmi … come on. You rabbit on in la la land. Put up your evidence for once

        Clearly since June 11, 1967 Israel has decreased its scope, giving up (back) Sinai as a result of the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979″

        Israel was required AND AGREED and did withdraw from all EGYPTIAN territory BEFORE peaceful relations were assumed.

        “So despite the rhetoric of the right wing, the facts on the ground are that since 67 Israel has reduced its borders”

        Israel’s borders have never change. Read the Israel/Egypt Peace Treaty instead of posting Zionist drivel. One wonders how folk like you ever learned to breath in and out, let alone stand upright or wipe your rrrrrrsss

        hophmi ” Israel since 1967 has, without question, contracted in size, rather than expanded”

        Bullsh*t! Israel’s borders have never changed. Cease fire lines and Armistice Demarcation lines have.

        You’re both like tiny children, unable to accept the fact that Israel’s territorial acquisitions have all been illegal. Therein lies the problem. Israel cannot now afford to adhere to the law. It certainly can’t start telling Israelis the truth without there being a huge backlash. Their state has been selling them non-Israeli land in non-Israeli territories for 67 years. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Israelis DO NOT live in territory acquired by Israel by any legal means. WTF do yo think it spends so much time effort and money maintaining the US UNSC veto vote.

      • Citizen on July 24, 2015, 9:58 am

        I read an Israeli poll recently that said slightly over a majority of Jewish Israelis want to resettle Gaza.

        I just checked: http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-most-israelis-opposed-gaza-pullout-support-return/

        Seems it’s true.

      • Mooser on July 24, 2015, 11:06 am

        “The rabbi here is clearly talking about messianic times, not about reality.”

        Gosh, it was just the other week “Jon s” told us we should assume “they meant what they said in their prayers”?

        My, oh my, the fungibility of Jewish theology.

      • Mooser on July 25, 2015, 11:29 am

        “Therein lies the problem. Israel cannot now afford to adhere to the law. It certainly can’t start telling Israelis the truth without there being a huge backlash. Their state has been selling them non-Israeli land in non-Israeli territories for 67 years. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Israelis DO NOT live in territory acquired by Israel by any legal means”

        Wait a minute! That sounds to me like one group or cohort of Jews is taking advantage of the ignorance, isolation, and problems of other Jews to defraud them in a colonial land scheme, and leave them in a terrible position. Well, I hate to criticize, but that’s not my idea of tribal unity.

    • traintosiberia on July 21, 2015, 11:44 pm

      This ” legitimacy” concern is both a diversionary tactics and an insurance against future re- calibration of the world opinion against Israel.
      Kristol somewhere in the darkened corner of his messed up soul knows that the Zionist history is a tapestry of intricately woven lies from the beginning to the inception of Israel and beyond. An acceptance of this narrative as legitimate will insure it from future destruction of weakened Israel unsupported by west by outside forces .

  4. Qualtrough on July 21, 2015, 1:34 pm

    According to the Jewish Virtual Library, Jews comprise 2.2% of the total US population. If Jewish/Zionist money/influence is seen as being responsible for the defeat of this agreement and that leads the US to war, it will not have a positive impact on Jews living in America. I imagine that for Zionists that’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

    • catalan on July 21, 2015, 2:10 pm

      “it will not have a positive impact on Jews living in America. – ” qualtrough
      I am not worried at all. Seems like the various other hatreds in the United States – racial, ethnic, and political – very much overshadow whatever discomfort some people have with Jews. It’s mostly a thing limited to blogs, minor prejudice on the everyday level, that’s all. We have survived the twenty or so wars that America has waged in the last one hundred years, no reason to worry about the next twenty coming up. What was, shall be.
      Whites and Blacks, liberals and conservatives, local and immigrant – these are the big battles in America, Jews barely register at the big level.

      • MRW on July 21, 2015, 3:16 pm

        @catalan,

        You’re wrong when it involves more US human treasure killed or maimed on the battlefield for a threat that isn’t our own.

        If the pro-Israeli crowd squirrel this deal and invoke another war in ME, the gloves will come off the non-Jewish Americans not allowed to enter this debate, not even allowed to be heard. Military personnel, for example, are now more than aware that the Iraq War was for Israel. The ‘fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you’ rule applies.

        There’s a reason why Jews were kicked out of many countries over the centuries, and it wasn’t because of their religion. It was because, as a concentrated group (a highly educated and wealthy group, unlike those still living in shtetls), they pulled shit like this threatening the national interest of the ruler and its people. That’s why England did it back in the 13th C. Spain in 1492 was a noticeable exception, but Queen Isabella only did it after kicking out the Muslims the decade before and because she wanted the Pope to move to Spain…and from her ‘magnanimous’ perspective, she gave them a choice of becoming Christian and sticking around.

        You write, “Jews barely register at the big level.” They will if this gets shut down by these rabid Jewish groups and Israel. How long do you think these aforementioned groups that don’t mention Israel will be able to keep it hidden in the media wake that follows?

        Furthermore, the outrage of losing this deal will be global. You think European newspapers won’t be writing about this? Chinese and Russian papers? Spain and England? The US will become an international pariah, seen as absolutely untrustworthy in every foreign policy venture going forward. Disgraced. And the European companies chomping at the bit to do business with Iran right now are going to ignore the sanctions and say fuck you to the US.

        There are extreme consequences to this that you obviously cannot see. This is 2015. The consequences of Israel’s actions are something it cannot control; consequences are always a temper of the times. This isn’t 1945, or 1985. This world is changing drastically: gay marriage, Latinos the largest ethnic group in the US, Asians the fastest growing immigrant group. Those are votes, and the latter two groups do not want to send their kids to war; they are family-oriented cultures, killing their kids for nothing will be proudly dealt with at the voting booth no matter how much money Adelson throws at his paid minions. Romney learned that lesson in 2012.

        So think again. You haven’t heard from the 97.8%. Yet.

      • Qualtrough on July 21, 2015, 3:57 pm

        catalan – So Hopfmi is wrong?

      • ritzl on July 21, 2015, 4:46 pm

        MRW! ★★★★★/★★★★★

      • Mooser on July 21, 2015, 6:15 pm

        “Whites and Blacks, liberals and conservatives, local and immigrant – these are the big battles in America,”

        Gosh, “catalan”, the breadth of your political vision, is, well, breathtaking. It extends from one side of the screen to the other.

      • Mooser on July 21, 2015, 6:53 pm

        MRW, I tried and tried to warn them (our Zionist commenters, that is) that the present can change the past, and in ways they may not like. But they won’t listen.
        They think they’ve got the past all sewn up, and it won’t happen any other way. And you can’t scare them with antisemitism. Antisemitism is, or so they think, their ‘briar patch’.

      • Mooser on July 21, 2015, 6:59 pm

        “We have survived the twenty or so wars that America has waged in the last one hundred years”

        “Catalan” the only place they draft Jews because of their religion is in Israel.

      • Mondowise on July 21, 2015, 8:07 pm

        MRW — holy wow! extremely well said! A+++++++++++++, +1000000000000 x 10 to infinity!

      • Marnie on July 22, 2015, 3:06 am

        @MRW –

        “And the European companies chomping at the bit to do business with Iran right now are going to ignore the sanctions and say fuck you to the US.”

        Absolutely and without hesitation.

        Ditto ritzl and ditto Mondowise. Thanks so much MRW!

      • piotr on July 22, 2015, 1:47 pm

        “it will not have a positive impact on Jews living in America. – ” qualtrough I am not worried at all. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/americans-support-israel#sthash.vmI2itpE.dpuf

        If I recall, catalan claimed to be from Bulgaria, so what type of news is it that he is not worried? He should worry more about IMRO than about Zionists.

    • catalan on July 21, 2015, 11:06 pm

      “So think again. You haven’t heard from the 97.8%. ” MRW
      There is no 97.8 percent. A farmer in Illinois has nothing to do with a Vietnamese hair stylist. Hindus, Mexicans, Southerners, you just can’t create a fictitious group that is simply non-Jews. And most Jews are well integrated, often in mixed marriages. Are you defining Jews racially?
      Furthermore, I am not at all sure that most Americans are so opposed to the army getting involved in foreign wars as you make it sound.
      The thought of Jews in America being threatened because of some political or foreign thing is ludicrous. Even if the whole country erupts in a race war with Latino and Black involvement, Jews would probably be treated the same way as other Whites. Looking at Baltimore, Ferguson, and the general segregation of American cities, an internal conflict seems possible. But Jews won’t be the main players in it.

      • annie on July 21, 2015, 11:15 pm

        you just can’t create a fictitious group that is simply non-Jews.

        nor did he. he simply mentioned the 98% .. and we’re not fictitious.

      • catalan on July 21, 2015, 11:34 pm

        “nor did he. he simply mentioned the 98% .. and we’re not fictitious. – ”
        Annie
        And I am a member of the the 99 percent non Navajo. And the 75 percent non catholic. It’s silly to define a group by non membership in some small religious sect.
        Just like there is no 99 percent in the economic sense. Why not 90 percent?
        Anyone can split society in any way they want, of course. However, I just don’t see what non Mormons, non-Sikhs, or non-Hindus have in common. these are such small, tiny groups of the population, that it is impossible to say that the remaining ones are somehow a group. Most important, I don’t think many non-Jews identify themselves as such. They would say, I am a Hispanic, a woman, a New Mexican, a mother, a wife. But a non-Jew? That’s just as likely as a non-Jain. I suppose for a few people obsessed with this being non Jewish maybe huge. But for the average person no way.

      • annie on July 21, 2015, 11:47 pm

        It’s silly to define a group by non membership

        you might have a point had he defined a group. again, he didn’t. the operative phrase in that segment of mine you italiced was nor did he. meaning he did not “create” a group. furthermore you are not “a member” of the 99 percent of americans who are non Navajo because there is no non navajo “group”. just like the 99% are not a “group”. it is a reference to everyone not in the top 1% income bracket in the country — or the world.

      • oldgeezer on July 22, 2015, 12:29 am

        @catalan
        ” I suppose for a few people obsessed with this being non Jewish maybe huge. But for the average person no way. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/recent-comments#sthash.upmDRut3.dpuf

        I agree with you. With 7 billion people on this planet it’s impossible to say no one indentifies as a non-Jew. Even at a one in a billion chance there would likely be 7 people who would.

        I would never identify you as a non atheist. Or a non Christian which is they religious sect I was born into.

        Not so strangely that is how right wing zionists would classify me though. Particularly the types of hophmi or yonah. I’m either part of the tribe or I’m part of some ridiculously large group of nonentities. It’s also how the state of Israel, which is racist to the core, would classify me. Heck in their books even being Jewish isn’t enough. You have to be the right type of Jew.

        Those are the people you align your sympathy with.

        If I were to know you I might classify you as the accountant type, or simply a coworker, a fun or a dull guy.

        For the racists you support I’m either a Jew or merely a non-Jew. That is their focus and they spew their venom daily.

      • JWalters on July 22, 2015, 1:28 am

        The two groups MRW is talking about are the predators and their prey, AKA the criminals and their victims.

        The people of the shtetls would do well to divest themselves from the gang of Bernie Madoffs, even though it means giving up their manipulative “donations”. Mondoweiss is clear evidence this can be done.

      • Marnie on July 22, 2015, 3:14 am

        @Catalan
        “Furthermore, I am not at all sure that most Americans are so opposed to the army getting involved in foreign wars as you make it sound.”

        You don’t have a clue about your new neighborhood. There aren’t many Americans who would be willing, once again, to sacrifice their sons and daughters at the bidding of a maniacal fascist state like the zionist one. Constant war for the last 14 years Catalan. Thousands upon thousands of young men and women who’ve returned home minus limbs and minds and thousands dead. For what and for whom? It’s not in American’s interests to keep dying so the settlements continue to be built and Palestinians continue to live under occupation and apartheid.

        That being said, there are a few Americans who probably believe that it’s time to dust off those nukes, but they wouldn’t want to send troops anywhere.

      • catalan on July 22, 2015, 8:29 am

        “You don’t have a clue about your new neighborhood. There aren’t many Americans who would be willing, once again, to sacrifice their sons and daughters” – Marnie
        There is no draft here, anyone can chose not to join the army. It’s a voluntary, professional army. So this issue of involuntary sacrifice is moot.
        As to the attitudes towards war – do you have any support from polls that would show that members of the military and their families are opposed in significant numbers to foreign wars?

      • MRW on July 22, 2015, 10:13 am

        Furthermore, I am not at all sure that most Americans are so opposed to the army getting involved in foreign wars as you make it sound.

        Ah so, Don Quixote.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on July 22, 2015, 11:24 am

        “It’s silly to define a group by non membership in some small religious sect.”

        I agree.

        That’s why I always wince at the word ‘gentile’ used by Jews to describe the 99.9999999% of humanity which does not adhere to their small religious sect.

      • MHughes976 on July 22, 2015, 12:35 pm

        Definition in Aristotle’s tradition is ‘per genus et differentiam’ . In one famous example, you take a larger group – animals- and mention that some members of this group have a special characteristic or ‘specific difference’, ie they normally have two legs and no feathers. This specific group or subset is called ‘human’. There’s no problem at all, no silliness, in thinking of ‘the rest of the animal kingdom’: in this system, the definition of each species automatically defines, though it does not necessarily label or name, the ‘complementary’ species, the rest of the genus, as well.

      • Mooser on July 22, 2015, 12:53 pm

        “catalan” none of the other groups you mention are demanding that the US support an expansionist and intransigent (I don’t care what Israel says about being gay-friendly!) project on the basis of their purported group identity.

      • Bornajoo on July 22, 2015, 6:32 pm

        Another ditto. Terrific comment (above) MRW! Superbly stated

      • Marnie on July 22, 2015, 11:36 pm

        @Catalan “As to the attitudes towards war – do you have any support from polls that would show that members of the military and their families are opposed in significant numbers to foreign wars? ”

        You’re really quite a creep. And you became an American citizen and work for the government? Which one?

      • Naftush on July 23, 2015, 10:18 am

        Lacking in this thread is commentary on the scurrilous license that some of its participants are asserting. Start with the headline, whether Weiss wrote it or not: that the results of a U.S. opinion poll negate other stakeholders’ right to object to (“croak”) a given U.S. policy that affects them. Follow with Weiss’ insinuation that a moneyed Jewish cabal really does control America. But in the main, the core idea expressed in several of these comments: that other countries’ expulsions of Jews were justified and that American Jews should face the same at the hands of an enraged racial coalition unless they shut up fast, those on Mondoweiss excluded. Wha’ happened? Is BDS meeting too much blowback?

      • annie on July 23, 2015, 11:06 am

        Start with the headline, whether Weiss wrote it or not: that the results of a U.S. opinion poll negate other stakeholders’ right to object to (“croak”) a given U.S. policy that affects them. Follow with Weiss’ insinuation that a moneyed Jewish cabal really does control America.

        actually that ‘insinuation’ is more like ‘your conclusion’. for one thing if this moneyed Jewish cabal really did control America the deal would not have gone thru, it has this far and it will continue to. secondly, people wanting to have their opinion heard and be counted is normal. which reminds me, have you read todays: World Jewry even more uneasy with Israel, major study finds

        http://www.timesofisrael.com/world-jewry-becoming-ever-more-uncomfortable-with-israel-major-study-finds/

        World Jewry is finding it increasingly difficult to support Israel due to its ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, leading many communities to shun discussing the Jewish state altogether, a new major study has found.

        The trend is eroding the Diaspora’s support for the Jewish state, warns the report by the Jewish People Policy Institute think tank, to be formally published next week.
        ……….

        “Many Jews doubt that Israel truly wishes to reach a peace settlement with the Palestinians, and few believe it is making the necessary effort to achieve one,” according to the study’s author, Shmuel Rosner.

        “A sense of crisis has emerged in many Jewish communities regarding their relationships with Israel, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to discuss Israel because of the bitter political disputes these discussions spark,” writes Rosner, a journalist and senior fellow at the JPPI. “This difficulty may lead to the exclusion of Israel from Diaspora community agendas, and is an obstacle to communicating Israel’s actions and policies to the Jewish public within a sympathetic communal framework.”
        …..
        ‘Israel’s wars have an immediate and, usually, a negative effect on Diaspora Jewry
        ……

        Jews in the Diaspora often feel that Israeli military actions automatically turn them into ambassadors for the Jewish state, whether they want to or not, the study found.

        “We are all held accountable for Israel’s actions… [There is] no separation between Zionism and Judaism; how Israel acts and negotiates peace affects all Jews,” the participants of a seminar in Pittsburgh remarked.

        Some participants complained that this link negatively affects them during their interaction with gentiles in the work environment. “People come to my office and ask my opinion,” a participant from Cleveland said.

        World Jewry wants Israel to take its views into account
        The JPPI’s report also focuses on Diaspora Jewry’s wish to be taken into consideration by Israel as it fights its wars, and how it imagines the IDF should operate morally on the battlefield.

        “Many Jews around the world feel that they are entitled to express an opinion and to have the State of Israel take their views into account, even on major security issues,” Rosner found. “The justifications given are varied: Diaspora Jewry’s support for Israel, the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, the impact of the events on their own lives.”

        so guess what? it’s normal for people to want their views taken into consideration.

        But in the main, the core idea expressed in several of these comments: that other countries’ expulsions of Jews were justified and that American Jews should face the same at the hands of an enraged racial coalition unless they shut up fast

        “should face the same at the hands of an enraged racial coalition”

        could you please cite the exact phrasing you’re referencing. i assume, wrt to your “justification” accusation, you’re referencing MRW’s

        There’s a reason why Jews were kicked out of many countries over the centuries, and it wasn’t because of their religion. It was because, as a concentrated group (a highly educated and wealthy group, unlike those still living in shtetls), they pulled shit like this threatening the national interest of the ruler and its people.

        not being an expert on jewish history i can’t back this up. nor is justifying expulsion anything i’d want to be a part of. but i’m reminded of adelson’s las vegas primary. the idea of his anointing the next gop candidate is disgusting. the politicians flying over to israel to get vetted by netanyahu is gruesome. his speech before congress opposing obama’s diplomacy was very much “threatening the national interest of the ruler and its people. ” this is all playing out on the american stage. and when he holds conferences that require a commitment of over a million dollars to be in the decision making group (as adelson did w/this anti bds conference) then yes, it’s a “moneyed Jewish cabal”.

        so does it concern you when, in the times of israel article, the respondents say

        Some participants complained that this link negatively affects them during their interaction with gentiles

      • hophmi on July 23, 2015, 3:58 pm

        “nor did he. he simply mentioned the 98% .. and we’re not fictitious.”

        LOL. He said “non-Jewish Americans.” He couldn’t have been more clear about what he meant.

      • annie on July 23, 2015, 4:16 pm

        can you read the context please? catalan wrote “you just can’t create a fictitious group that is simply non-Jews.”

        i said “nor did he.” no one is claiming we are “a group”. we exist. period.

        try to keep up w/the conversation and stop spamming. read the context for heaven’s sakes so i don’t have to repeat myself endlessly.

      • Froggy on July 23, 2015, 4:54 pm

        Annie : “nor did he. he simply mentioned the 98% .. and we’re not fictitious.”

        Nothing fictitious about it. The Jews even have a name for non-Jews. We’re called goyim.

        ‘As noted, in the above-quoted Rabbinical literature the meaning of the word “goy” shifted the Biblical meaning of “a people” which could be applied to the Hebrews/Jews as well as to others into meaning “a people other than the Jews”. In later generations, a further shift left the word as meaning an individual person who belongs to such a non-Jewish people.

        In modern Hebrew and Yiddish the word goy is the standard term for a gentile. The two words are related. In ancient Greek, τα έθνη (pronounced ta ethne) was used to translate ha goyim, both phrases meaning “the nations”. In Latin, gentilis was used to translate the Greek word for “nation”, which led to the word “gentile”.’

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goy

        Now that sounds like a ‘group’ to me. ;)

      • echinococcus on July 23, 2015, 6:18 pm

        Annie,

        This comedy has been going on a bit too long. Of course the non-something is a group. Logical operations of the mind continuously create the non-X groups. Technically also called groups.

        In the case of the non-Jews, though, it is also a physical group, created and certified as such and used as a handy scarecrow by thousands of years or Rabbinical, later by Zionist theory and action. It’s called the Goys –and, before you go properly correct on me, referred to as such, sometimes positively, by every single Jewish person I know. And I know heaping measures of them.

      • annie on July 23, 2015, 7:12 pm

        Of course the non-something is a group.

        sorry, i just don’t think, in the context of american politics, as the general public as “a group” of “non-something[s]”, or any other group for that matter. . i think it can be divided categorically into groups — like pieces of a pie. but the pie itself minus a sliver is not “a group”. that’s my opinion. but one would have to ask MRW what he means.

        froggy, ‘As noted, in the above-quoted Rabbinical literature the meaning of the word “goy” shifted the Biblical meaning of “a people” which could be applied to the Hebrews/Jews as well as to others into meaning “a people other than the Jews”….

        and context is everything. MRW’s context was when it involves more US human treasure killed or maimed on the battlefield for a threat that isn’t our own — iow, the american population. 300 million plus strong. not a group. and then i noticed your smiley face! maybe you were pulling my leg? ;)

        ok, have at it. i’m done here.

      • RoHa on July 23, 2015, 6:48 pm

        “scurrilous license”

        You mean freedom to express ideas you don’t like?

        Do what Mooser is always urging, and read the “about” section. There you will find what is and what is not permitted.

      • hophmi on July 24, 2015, 6:59 am

        It’s crystal clear what MRW is doing to anybody without their head in the sand. He really could not have been more clear. His post is overt antisemitism.

      • Bornajoo on July 24, 2015, 5:11 pm

        “It’s crystal clear what MRW is doing to anybody without their head in the sand. He really could not have been more clear. His post is overt antisemitism.” (Hophmi)

        The only thing that’s crystal clear hophmi is your constant and contemptible attempts to conflate any discussion about israel or Jews with Anti semitism.

        Oh, you forgot to mention the holocaust this time

        (quadruple yawn)

      • Kris on July 24, 2015, 9:50 am

        @hophmi: “It’s crystal clear what MRW is doing to anybody without their head in the sand. He really could not have been more clear. His post is overt antisemitism. ”

        I don’t see the antisemitism that you claim is so obvious in MRW’s comment.

        Instead of insulting readers for not grasping what is obvious to you, could you just copy and paste what you think is the “antisemitism” in MRW’s post? I am probably not the only person reading these comments who would like to understand what you are talking about.

      • Froggy on July 24, 2015, 11:32 am

        Kris : I agree. I don’t see any anti-Semitism in MRW’s comment either.

        You, MRW, and others on MW will find this academic study interesting:

        http://cas.uchicago.edu/workshops/jst_hb/files/2013/02/Tolan-UC-workshop-feb-20131.pdf

      • Mooser on July 25, 2015, 11:37 am

        ” It’s called the Goys –and, before you go properly correct on me, referred to as such, sometimes positively, by every single Jewish person I know.”

        Not me, buddy, not me. I have expunged the word from my vocabulary, after several expunge baths.
        I have even forbidden my wife to refer to herself as “Moosie’s little shicksa” when anybody else might hear it.

    • hophmi on July 22, 2015, 11:24 am

      It’s less than 2%, but I have no idea why Qualtrough thinks Americans are antisemites who will blame Jews for bad policies. Has he been geeking out on ADL reports?

      • echinococcus on July 23, 2015, 6:21 pm

        Hophmi seems to be seriously worried by the fact that all his relentless trying doesn’t seem to have produced “antisemites who will blame Jews for bad policies”.

    • catalan on July 22, 2015, 2:53 pm

      “If I recall, catalan claimed to be from Bulgaria, so what type of news is it that he is not worried? – ” Piotr
      I am a U.S. Citizen and work for the govenrment. If I recall, you are Polish. Why am I not surprised at your attitude? Hint: I know the deal.

      • Froggy on July 23, 2015, 7:22 am

        Catalan : “If I recall, you are Polish. Why am I not surprised at your attitude? Hint: I know the deal.”

        What is that supposed to mean?

      • catalan on July 23, 2015, 1:58 pm

        “What is that supposed to mean?”
        Well let Piotr tell you.

      • Froggy on July 23, 2015, 4:15 pm

        No. You wrote the comment. You tell what you meant.

      • Mooser on July 24, 2015, 11:25 am

        “If I recall, you are Polish.”

        Yes “Echinococcuszwiez” is his real name!

      • Marnie on July 26, 2015, 3:33 am

        Anti-gentilism at its best.

  5. JLewisDickerson on July 21, 2015, 2:37 pm

    RE: “If Americans support Iran deal, 56-37, what gives Israel the power to ‘croak’ it?”

    JUST FOREIGN POLICY: ■ Sign the petition: Defend the Iran deal and stop Republicans from starting a war with Iran

    This is the final showdown to stop Republicans from starting a war with Iran.
    The United States, Iran and five other world powers announced a historic deal to dramatically curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for easing international sanctions on Iran.
    Republicans are trying to sabotage the deal, put us back on the path to confrontation with Iran and start a war – but they can’t do it unless Democrats help them.
    We need to build an impenetrable firewall in Congress to prevent Republicans from passing any legislation to kill the deal and putting us back on the path to confrontation and war. Tell Democrats to go on record in support of the deal.
    We’ll send your message to your senators and member of Congress, as well as to House and Senate Democratic leadership.
    The petition reads:

    Republicans are trying to take us to war by sabotaging the Iran nuclear deal. I urge you to support the deal and stop the Republicans from starting another war of choice in the Middle East.

    ✔ TO SIGN THE PETITION – http://www.stopwarwithiran.com/?source=justforeignpolicy

    • JLewisDickerson on July 21, 2015, 2:57 pm

      P.S. J STREET PETITION

      ■ Tell Congress: Support this deal.

      The international agreement reached in Vienna is the best chance for keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It meets all the requirements of a “good deal.”

      It creates the most rigorous, intrusive inspection regime in history. It opens Iran’s program to the light of day, keeping illicit military uses off the table. It protects the international sanctions regime, allowing them to snap back into place if Iran cheats. It puts a long-term, lasting end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. And it cripples Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, blocking every pathway to a bomb.

      Tell Congress: you support this deal. They should too.

      TELL CONGRESS:

      A strong negotiated agreement is the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and this agreement meets all the key points needed for a “good deal.”

      As an American who’s concerned about the security of Israel, the Middle East, and the entire world, I strongly urge you to support this agreement.

      ✔ SIGN THIS PETITION – http://act.jstreet.org/sign/tell-congress-support-deal

      • amigo on July 23, 2015, 6:00 pm

        Done.

      • Citizen on July 24, 2015, 10:31 am

        Done

  6. wondering jew on July 21, 2015, 4:03 pm

    I think an American rejection of the accord with Iran at this point in time is quite dangerous. I think a Congressional rejection of the accord (meaning Congress overrides Obama’s veto) would be truly dangerous for Israel. I don’t think losing the vote is an option that Obama is willing to consider and when push comes to shove he will be willing to go on TV and force enough democrats to support him. I think he will pull out all stops on this and I can’t imagine that he will lose.

    Netanyahu is a battler and he will give it a hell of a battle. He has spent the better part of the last 16 years devoted to combating the Iranian nuclear program and now that he has his last chance to stand in the way of this accord, there’s no way that he will wave the white flag until the fat lady sings.

    • Mooser on July 21, 2015, 7:09 pm

      “He has spent the better part of the last 16 years devoted to combating the Iranian nuclear program”

      And all he got was that lousy cardboard bomb. Oh, that’s right, and more attention for Israel’s stolen, illegal, uncontrolled, and un-inspected (if it’s even inspect-able! It’s possible Israel doesn’t even know where they all are. ) nuclear arsenal.

      • Citizen on July 24, 2015, 10:33 am

        Actually BB has sounded the alarm about Iran as the existential threat to Israel and, also to Humanity since the early 1990s.

      • Citizen on July 24, 2015, 10:35 am

        JFK was on this, but he, was murdered in the process. Check out what the murderer of his murderer had to say about his own motive.

      • MRW on July 24, 2015, 6:12 pm

        And all he got was that lousy cardboard bomb

        And that red-tipped cock-cover bomb, if I remember Katie’s cartoon correctly.

    • JLewisDickerson on July 21, 2015, 7:29 pm

      RE: I think an American rejection of the accord with Iran at this point in time is quite dangerous. ~ yonah fredman

      MY COMMENT: Yes, congress rejecting the accord with Iran would be a real godsend! ! ! I would dearly love to see the Likud Lobby shoot itself in both feet.

    • traintosiberia on July 21, 2015, 7:38 pm

      Masada isn’t dead . It reincarnates in most confusing shapes and sizes.

      • Mooser on July 22, 2015, 12:55 pm

        “Masada isn’t dead . It reincarnates in most confusing shapes and sizes.”

        Yes, this time it’ll be a schlimazeldammerung! That’s my name for it.

    • Mondowise on July 21, 2015, 9:14 pm

      last i heard, the fat lady is definitely planning to sing!
      and sing and sing and sing she will …….

    • oldgeezer on July 22, 2015, 1:25 am

      @yonah
      “Netanyahu is a battler and he will give it a hell of a battle. He has spent the better part of the last 16 years devoted to combating the Iranian nuclear program and now that he has his last chance to stand in the way of this accord, there’s no way that he will wave the white flag until the fat lady sings. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/americans-support-israel#comment-150191

      netnayahu’s personal hero, according to his own words, is Eleazar ben Ya’ir and there can be little doubt such a messianic racist maniacal leader is willing to take every Jew down with him to cement his place in history.

      It’s up to his followers to reject his vile and repugnant views.

      • ziusudra on July 22, 2015, 1:53 am

        Greetings oldgeezer,
        Jews on the whole are not known to choose suicide due to that they do not share the heaven after death concept.
        ziusudra

      • Mooser on July 22, 2015, 1:03 pm

        “Jews on the whole are not known to choose suicide due to that they do not share the heaven after death concept.”

        Umm, ah…Gee, he said timidly, doesn’t the religion which embraces the heaven-after-death belief also embrace the no-heaven-for-suicides belief?
        Look, I attempted suicide by hanging, and the rope broke. I related the incident to my therapist. She sighed and said “Can’t you do anything right?” Could Dante improve on that? I doubt it. So why bother with suicide, when it’s hell on earth?

      • lysias on July 22, 2015, 4:19 pm

        Roman aristocrats who killed themselves did not, by and large, believe in an afterlife. Neither, I believe, did most of the Nazi and Japanese leaders who killed themselves in the periods immediately before and after their nations’ defeat in World War Two.

      • amigo on July 23, 2015, 5:56 pm

        “Jews on the whole are not known to choose suicide due to that they do not share the heaven after death concept.
        ziusudra – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/americans-support-israel#comment-150191

        Greetings Zisudra.

        If i did believe in Heaven or hell , given my luck I would probably be sent to heaven and never see all my best friends again,On the other hand ,if I went south, I would have to share hell with every zionist that ever existed.

        Not much of a choice , is it .But there is always Limbo.

      • oldgeezer on July 25, 2015, 11:56 pm

        @ziusudra July 22, 2015, 1:53 am

        “Greetings oldgeezer,
        Jews on the whole are not known to choose suicide due to that they do not share the heaven after death concept.”

        Apologies for visiting an old thread but your reply had nothing to do with my comment.

        I said netanyahu was willing to bring down Jewish people in order to cement his place in history. Lives and humanity mean nothing to his type. I made no comment about Jews.

        netanyaho is somewhere (potentially inclusive) between a psychopath and a sociopath.

        His wife thinks the world worships him but they reality is they see him as an individual who can’t be trusted and lies both constantly and consistently.

    • Froggy on July 22, 2015, 5:28 pm

      Yonah : “Netanyahu is a battler and he will give it a hell of a battle. He has spent the better part of the last 16 years devoted to combating the Iranian nuclear program and now that he has his last chance to stand in the way of this accord, there’s no way that he will wave the white flag until the fat lady sings.”

      Sara Netanyahu can sing? Who’d a thunk it!

      • Citizen on July 24, 2015, 10:38 am

        Sara can sure profit from recycling bottles paid for by Israeli taxpayers, if memory serves.

    • eljay on July 23, 2015, 11:20 am

      || y.f.: Netanyahu is a battler … ||

      Netanyahu is a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist who will battle for…
      – Jewish supremacism in/and a (“Greater”) religion-supremacist “Jewish State”; and
      – the right of Jews to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality he would not have others do unto Jews,
      …and against justice, accountability and equality, universally and consistently applied.

  7. ritzl on July 21, 2015, 4:57 pm

    Obama’s decision (as indicated by his lack of a national TV speech) to defer to/solely consider Jewish interests on whether or not there’s an Iran deal is a bad one.

  8. JLewisDickerson on July 21, 2015, 7:24 pm

    RE: “If Americans support Iran deal, 56-37, what gives Israel the power to ‘croak’ it?”

    SAM SEDER’S MAJORITY REPORT:
    Matt Duss: The Iran Deal Is a Victory for Obama Diplomacy Over Bush Warmongering
    On today’s show, Matt Duss (@mattduss) President, Foundation for Middle East Peace, will join us to talk about his new piece The Iran Deal Is a Victory for Obama Diplomacy Over Bush Warmongering.
    LINK – http://majority.fm/2015/07/20/matt-duss-the-iran-deal-is-a-victory-for-obama-diplomacy-over-bush-warmongering/

  9. traintosiberia on July 21, 2015, 7:27 pm

    ADL would call it a child abuse if the child in the ad above were portraying the Palestinian or Lebanese victims of Israeli aggression ,use of cluster bombs,use of phosphorus and use of depleted Uranium by Israel. Next we would hear the repeat chants from the media and GOP presidential hopefuls in their collective attempts to ingratiate themselves with Adelson’s money.

  10. traintosiberia on July 21, 2015, 8:53 pm

    How the myth is built-” , the MEK has periodically drummed up publicity for other purported blockbuster revelations; many turn out to be busts. This winter, as nuclear talks with Iran talks heated up, the MEK released a report they claimed exposed a secret Iranian enrichment facility. The report garnered much credulous press from right-wing media and even a mainstream outlet or two. But a blogger at the liberal site Daily Kos quickly noticed that the photograph the MEK claimed was a steel door to the secret facility had been ripped from the public website of an Iranian company that sells safes.”
    http://www.lobelog.com 7/21/15
    Another door may reappear,someone might get hurt in Bulgaria,Delhi,or Argntina,or Thaliland. Anything can happen” out of blue” after germinating in the dark souls of AIPAC for few hours.An Iranian passport might be found next to the door slamming the finger of the cute baby in the ad . That machine doesn’t stop .
    Instead of learning from the polling why Americans looking for peace and prosperity,why the world is supporting – AIPAC wants to educate the American and the entire world.

    • annie on July 21, 2015, 10:58 pm

      Anything can happen” out of blue” after germinating in the dark souls of AIPAC for few hours.

      ah remember the good old days when our enemies would conveniently just ‘lose’ computers with all the palns on them — according to the neocons.

  11. traintosiberia on July 21, 2015, 9:04 pm

    It seems AIPAC is banking on the possibility of American unilateral strike against Iran. There is nothing else out there unless IAEA plays rogue and denies Iran the clean chit . But Iran has learnt and will not allow this development . May be some insider color revolution may pave the path towards turmoil inviting outside intervention.
    These very possibilities will keep Iran in the sphere of Russia and China who can stop machinations of IAEA and color revolution .
    This begs the question why AIPAC is doing this?

  12. ToivoS on July 22, 2015, 12:26 am

    The UNSC just lifted the international sanctions against Iran. The US can keep its own sanctions in place but there is nothing that we can do to enforce other nations to keep their sanctions. This part of the deal is irreversible. China, Russia, Germany and France already have sent in their trade delegations. If the US rejects the deal it will not likely discomfort the Iranians one bit. They have already achieved their major goal. Indeed, should the deal collapse now it would free the Iranian from having to put up with the intrusive inspections — they must find those somewhat humiliating.

    I do not understand why the Lobby is making a big issue over this congressional vote. It has to be a lose-lose operation. It will force them into the blinding light of day and expose them to the American people as destructive to US interests should they convince Congress to over-ride Obama’s veto. If they lose that vote it will tarnish their ability to instill fear in national politicians. I simply did not predict that they would do this.

    • ziusudra on July 22, 2015, 2:10 am

      Greetings ToivoS,
      …If they lose…….
      This is but one battle. You don’t stop an aggressor with that.
      They’ll be back with others. The Fat Lady brings the curtain
      down in the last act which we have not gotten to as yet.
      Iran is a success story against a Hegemon before 53 & after
      79. Kermit Roosevelt & the Dulles Brother Angeles pulled it
      off, but lost 25 yrs later to an old Imam in Paris who shrugged.
      ziusudra

    • straightline on July 22, 2015, 3:17 am

      Exactly right ToivoS! Congress can choose to isolate the US in trade with Iran or not – but sanctions are dead. The big arms and oil companies will be lobbying Congress as well as the Zionists and they will not be lobbying for continued sanctions.

      To vote to continue sanctions is to hasten the demise of the US dollar as the global currency. Let’s see whether Congress is really willing to put Israel’s paranoia ahead of the interests of the US people. The choice has never been clearer.

    • lysias on July 22, 2015, 6:58 pm

      That’s why AIPAC delayed a day before they came out against the deal. There must have been internal debate. And then pressure came from Netanyahu (and also big-time funders, no doubt).

      • ToivoS on July 22, 2015, 10:07 pm

        Lysias I agree there must have been an internal debate. Not all of those guys can be this stupid.

        The outcome of this debate was likely determined by pressure from Netanyahu and the Adelson types. It will be interesting to see if they will be able to come up with the $40 million to fund this effort. My guess is that there still remain a few rational types inside AIPAC that see the potential disaster coming. I suspect that there will be some resistance to this latest fund raising effort, maybe some passive resistance. Of course, if one Zionist sugar daddy pops up and is willing to fund the entire effort then maybe AIPAC will go through with this threat.

        It still does not make sense. They will lose big time however the vote in Congress goes.

    • chuckcarlos on July 23, 2015, 6:28 am

      correctomundo

      never discount the stupidity of these people

      road to nowhere for the jew in palestine

      check your computer, the parts are made, where?

  13. Dagon on July 22, 2015, 3:59 am

    This past weekend on the mclaughlin report Mort Zuckerman was asked ,so who is this AIPAC.He ah,well,hm,this group,american ,ah israeli freinds. The guy wanted to slither under a rock rather than answer..Here pat buchanan jumped in to help.What a sleeze bag this MZ.Then he insisted that in the end Iran is really really suicidal and that’s why they want the bomb.Here again pat jumped in with the rest of the panel to ridicule him.

    • traintosiberia on July 22, 2015, 5:45 am

      AIPAC is who? The organization whose delegate want to do an Iraq on Iran –2007 AIPAC conference
      In Salon .com

    • MRW on July 22, 2015, 10:48 am

      Worth watching. Starts around 8 minutes in. Homepage. So if you’re going to watch it, do so before the weekend. Date is 7/17/15.
      http://www.mclaughlin.com

      Zuckerman does not come off well. He sounds like what happens when you ‘wake the up the grandparents from their afternoon nap and scare the shit out of them’.

    • Citizen on July 24, 2015, 10:56 am

      LOL, The McLaughlin Report discussing AIPAC. ROFL

  14. NickJOCW on July 22, 2015, 8:52 am

    One downside for Israel is it brings the whole ‘nuclear weapon free ME’ higher up the agenda, where it may well unite all ME nations along with countless others in a supra schismatic manner which even the most dedicated Zionist may find hard to view as antisemitism.

  15. Deist on July 22, 2015, 12:32 pm

    There’s not much hope Chuck Schumer will do the right thing and not try to destroy the agreement. Schumer is delusional due to religious poisoning. He sees himself on a mission from God to be the Jewish state of Israel’s protector in the US Senate (as if Israel needs protection from the US Congress!) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/schumer-im-on-a-mission-f_b_560091.html

    The Deist Thomas Paine was correct when he wrote in The Age of Reason, The Complete Edition that we need a revolution in religion based on our innate God-given reason and Deism. This is the best antidote against religious poisoning. It will do much to bring an end to all the religious violence that is currently infecting our world.

    Progress! Bob Johnson
    http://www.deism.com

    • Citizen on July 24, 2015, 10:58 am

      Lets not ignore G Washington ‘s farewell address on “entangling alliances”

  16. traintosiberia on July 22, 2015, 8:51 pm

    One day Obama will regale his grand children with the story of how he outfoxed an arrogant ,out of touch,racist,hateful Netanyahu . He will share the tales and the trepidation . He would write how he was dehumanized,hated,and ridiculed behind his back by AIPAC ,how the ” donors” threatened to withdraw money and votes . He would tell them how he tolerated and retreated and retracted under duress . Despite appeasement of the lobby and of psychopath liar PM,at every step of the way,he couldn’t advance peace and advance Amerucan interest for 7 yrs .
    But he persisted and persevered .
    If only someone like him were at the helms in US in 1947 or in UK in 1917″ the worlds could been spared a lot of bloodshed both in Europe and ME.
    We will wait for the memoirs .

  17. DoubleStandard on July 22, 2015, 11:18 pm

    Mr. Weiss: The Pew study released yesterday says people oppose the deal 48-38. Independents and Republicans are solidly opposed and Democrats solidly support. A partisan gap is to be expected.

    http://www.people-press.org/2015/07/21/iran-nuclear-agreement-meets-with-public-skepticism/

    Now, even if the American public does in fact oppose the deal, that doesn’t mean Israel has the right to torpedo it. Israel has no right to control US foreign policy. It is welcome to make its case and try to present its interests, but that is it. That is all it did before Bibi came along, and that is what it will do when Bibi is out of office. His heavy-handed approach is unusual.

    • annie on July 23, 2015, 11:51 am

      The Pew study released yesterday says people oppose the deal 48-38.

      double standard. from your link:

      A Washington Post/ABC News survey conducted over approximately the same field period finds significantly more support than opposition to the deal among the overall public (56% support, 37% oppose, 7% have no opinion). This question includes a description of the agreement: “As you may know, the U.S. and other countries have announced a deal to lift economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons. International inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again. Do you support or oppose this agreement? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?”

      Views of the Iran Deal Differ With Different Question Wording The different findings on public views of the Iran nuclear agreement in the Washington Post/ABC News and Pew Research Center surveys highlight how question wording – and the information provided in a question – can impact public opinion, particularly on issues where public views are still being shaped and information levels are relatively low. The Pew Research question, which does not describe the agreement, finds lower levels of support than the Post/ABC News question, which details the intention to monitor Iran’s facilities and raises the possibility of re-imposition of sanctions if Iran does not comply.

      note pews results are based on people who have heard about the deal (iow, those who have “not heard” about the deal are not included) http://www.people-press.org/2015/07/21/iran-nuclear-agreement-meets-with-public-skepticism/7-21-2015_iran_08/

      • DoubleStandard on July 23, 2015, 8:31 pm

        The WaPo/NBC poll is trash. It is partisan, while Pew’s is not.

        And why would you poll people who haven’t heard about the deal? Only people who have heard of it can tell you what they think of it.

      • annie on July 23, 2015, 9:41 pm

        And why would you poll people who haven’t heard about the deal?

        i suppose if you wanted to get an idea of what the american public thought you’d have to include americans who don’t follow politics — because they still have opinions. i just noticed the framing of the report was unusual because it was prefaced with ‘of those who had heard about the deal’. it’s not that normal to read that sort of result.

        generally, if they poll 2,002 adults in a national survey, the totals reflect everyone you polled (100%) — not only “1,672 who have heard about the agreement”. so when the report opened with Among the 79% of Americans who have heard about the agreement, it means right off the bat they eliminated over 20% of the results.

        and, like someone i spoke with yesterday (a woman 40 – massage therapist) she hadn’t heard about the deal .. hadn’t been following the news. but she’s heard about the ongoing negotiations and the whole ‘iran iran iran’ war drumbeat — for sure. so if someone told her of the results (like i did) she was glad it was getting resolved.

        there’s nothing wrong with only polling people up on details or up on the news. but considering most people don’t know the details of the deal (i don’t for example) the right wing has been going crazy on this. it’s more likely republicans (who do not like the deal) are more likely to identify as ‘being familiar with the deal’.

        plus it said, of the 79% who knew about the deal (14% do not offer an opinion). so of the 2,002 adults surveyed, the results of 21% were not included and 14% had no opinion. that’s 35% of americans whose opinions we either don’t know or have no opinion. add that to the 38% approval numbers… and then wonder how there’s enough of a percentage leftover to say with certainty, “48% disapprove”. 35% (unknown) plus 38% approve only leaves 27% leftover.

        now, with only 27% expressing their opposition to the deal, is it really fair for pew to say there is “widespread skepticism about aspects of the agreement“?

        just wondering.

    • DoubleStandard on July 24, 2015, 12:12 am

      Annie wrote: “now, with only 27% expressing their opposition to the deal, is it really fair for pew to say there is widespread skepticism about aspects of the agreement?”

      I don’t see how 27 percent makes any sense.

      79 percent responded, and of that 79 percent, 48 percent opposed deal.

      So that gives 0.79*0.48 = 38 percent. So at least 38 percent of the American public opposes the deal based on the Pew Results.

      • annie on July 24, 2015, 1:16 am

        79 percent responded, and of that 79 percent, 48 percent opposed deal.

        So that gives 0.79*0.48 = 38 percent. So at least 38 percent of the American public opposes the deal based on the Pew Results.

        not quite, but you’re partially right because my math was wrong. the 14% i added to the total was only 14% of the 79% not 14% of the 100%. but you’re wrong that 79% responded, because 100% responded, but only 79% qualified. either way, i’m not sure 38% qualifies as “widespread skepticism about aspects of the agreement”. it just means at least less than 40% of the american public don’t like it. (similar to the title)

        and thanks for catching that math.

      • annie on July 24, 2015, 2:16 am

        and speaking of “widespread skepticism” what do you think of Poll: Most of American Jews think Congress should approve Iran deal

        http://linkis.com/www.haaretz.com/jewi/zB8tM

        turns out they approve “53 percent of those surveyed said Congress should approve the deal, while 35 percent” oppose. 35% eh, about the same % for pew. how like..normal. but does 35= 38% qualify as “widespread” anything?

      • Froggy on July 24, 2015, 5:16 am

        One has to keep in mind that they’re polling a population where 42% believe in creationism…

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

        … and well over half, as much as eight in ten believe in angels.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/

        http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1353/Default.aspx

        Americans tend to be a deeply backward and ignorant people.

      • annie on July 24, 2015, 8:53 am

        Americans tend to be a deeply backward and ignorant people.

        many of them, yes. but i don’t think that statement accurately reflects the society i live in.

        and, regarding the poll (and the topic we’re discussing) just thought i’d point out, according to the graph at your link, 57% of the people who answered they believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago did not finish high school. in the US, 20% of students don’t finish high school.

        so, like double standards pew poll, had the gallup poll stated ‘of the 2,002 adults surveyed only 1,672 have heard about darwin’s theory of evolution.’ … so we’re only collecting data on people who’ve studied darwin! the results would have been much different with a headline like “overwhelmingly americans favor the theory of evolution over creationist view” ;)

      • Froggy on July 24, 2015, 1:28 pm

        Annie : “many of them, yes. but i don’t think that statement accurately reflects the society i live in. “

        You might be surprised. (I know I was, and I lived in a university town.)

      • annie on July 24, 2015, 1:39 pm

        froggy, i was trying to politely respond but now i’ll be more blunt. although i agree many (millions no doubt) americans are backward and ignorant. there are millions of americans who do not “tend” towards either backwardness nor ignorance. therefore, i think your comment is ignorant (and a tad on the rude side.. but then everyone knows the french tend to be rude people — a fate much worse than ignorance!).

        ;) touche!

      • DoubleStandard on July 24, 2015, 2:42 am

        You’re welcome. That’s the first time I’ve been thanked for anything on this blog, so I will savor it.

        Yes, opposition is not THAT strong — you are correct.

        But that’s also because the media has fed a very simplistic narrative to the public. It’s basically told people “you have 2 choices: this or Iraq II.”

        I don’t think that war is the only alternative to this particular deal. I think if people were informed that sanctions can be ratcheted up and Iran can be forced to make more concessions, then more people would be opposed to the deal.

        Overall, I don’t think the deal is really so awful for Israel. In some senses, it may be better than just letting this whole thing fester. It’s difficult to tell.

      • annie on July 24, 2015, 9:23 am

        i’m glad you can savor something ;)

        It’s basically told people “you have 2 choices: this or Iraq II.” …. I think if people were informed that sanctions can be ratcheted up and Iran can be forced to make more concessions, then more people would be opposed to the deal.

        people have been informed (over and over) that sanctions can be ratcheted up and Iran can be forced to make more concessions. but realistically, i don’t think that’s true. i think it’s more likely certain countries, like russia and china and india, would not go along with more sanctions for iran. and i’m not sure iran would go along with more concessions. plus, informed americans are aware of what 10 years of sanctions did to iraq. it weakened iraq and then when it was weak we decimated the country — based on lies. so i don’t think it’s entirely incorrect that americans believe they have 2 choices: this or Iraq II (actually, likely much worse than iraq2). it was a long long war that has left permanent damage and a much worse situation in iraq. iran is a stable country (relatively speaking) in an unstable neighborhood.

        because americans were lied to in a gargantuous way (“mission accomplished”, wmd’s ..etc) it’s unlikely they will want another war anytime soon. for most americans that’s probably as much instinctual as it is a logical choice.

        and iran initiating an attack on israel would be suicidal, i don’t see any indication of suicidal behavior from that country. whereas, israel (netanyahu in particular) has a chicken little/the sky is falling syndrome. for over 20 years we’ve been listening to these hysterics about how iran poses an imminent danger to the world….. it’s time to stop this nonsense.

      • MHughes976 on July 24, 2015, 7:11 am

        I suppose that most Jewish people in the United States still have a Democratic loyalty. It’s interesting that most Jewish people in the United Kingdom seem to be quite committed to the Conservative Party.

      • catalan on July 24, 2015, 8:47 am

        “Americans tend to be a deeply backward and ignorant people. – ” froggy
        True, but the one about the virgins awaiting guys in heaven is the oddest belief. 10 percent of human males apparently share it.

      • Froggy on July 24, 2015, 1:14 pm

        Catalan : Nah. Nothing is weirder than a belief that every person has a Guardian Angel who follows each person around.

        http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5833399

        Dumb as a sack of rocks. And that’s just religion. Add to that the really bad system of education.

      • DoubleStandard on July 24, 2015, 12:46 pm

        Well, China and India and Russia want to import oil from Iran. But the US and Europe have total control over the world banking system, and don’t have to lift the financial sanctions that have been imposed by Congress.

      • echinococcus on July 24, 2015, 5:35 pm

        Annie,
        Without wanting to get involved in a discussion of rudeness or politeness, the fact that some of us are not like X or Y does not mean that a statistical conclusion cannot be drawn, or that some valid criteria for comparison cannot be established.
        For those of us who live on both sides of the water the difference is obvious -even though there are a good number of ignorant people and/or *holes over there, too.

      • RoHa on September 7, 2015, 4:08 am

        MHughes, don’t forget that the American Democrats are more right-wing than the British Conservatives.

  18. Doubtom on July 23, 2015, 1:56 am

    The president talks with Jewish groups and the Secretary of State goes to Israel over the Iran deal and yet AIPAC continues to insist that it doesn’t exert any undue influence on our foreign policy. What a crock? Watch New York’s Senator Schumer (Israel’s Senator) on this issue. Watch ‘Weasel’ Lieberman come out of the closet and start stumping for Israel all over again. The Weasel has been trying to get us involved in a war for Israel forever. We have way too many dual-allegiance citizens in this nation–time to separate the real Americans from those whose main concern is for Israel’s interests.

  19. Froggy on July 24, 2015, 5:11 am

    IOW, they are squatters.

  20. Kay24 on July 24, 2015, 6:03 am

    It seems one Jewish group is trying hard to oppose the war mongers. It is good that J Street is quite active in this matter, and trying to oppose the Netanyahu puppets in the US.

    “JTA – Hundreds of stridently pro-Israel AIPAC activists from across the country will descend on Capitol Hill next week to press members of Congress to reject the nuclear deal with Iran.

    Meanwhile, J Street, the pro-peace liberal Jewish Middle East policy group that supports the deal, is planning to launch a media offensive to back the historic nuclear accord.

    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.667554

    J Street raised more than $2 million to run TV ads on news networks and is bringing in prominent Israelis who back the agreement, including a former consul general in New York, Alon Pinkas, and former Knesset member Amram Mitzna. On Thursday, J Street ran a full-page ad in The New York Times backing the deal.”

  21. Citizen on July 24, 2015, 8:35 am

    MSNBC showing now: Morning Joe interviews Thomas Friedman: US produced power vacum with Iraq War. Deal is best way forward: Price is business boom for Iran.

  22. Citizen on July 24, 2015, 8:45 am

    Friedman also says Congress should now authorize the POTUS to use force anytime against Iran to stop it from getting the bomb.

  23. Citizen on July 24, 2015, 10:00 am

    Very anti Iran TV ad moments ago: from International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. The organization, founded by a rabbi, has regular current ads on Fox news, asking for charity from the ignorant Evangelicals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fellowship_of_Christians_and_Jews#Activities

    • annie on July 24, 2015, 11:32 am

      Very anti Iran TV ad moments ago

      what region of the country are you in citizen, if i may ask?

  24. A Davies on September 7, 2015, 3:34 am

    To the poster that stated that the average American is not going to care much about this issue, you are grossly misinformed. Most Christians are extremely supportive of Israel and any stance that PM Netanyahu has, we are right behind him. So this Iran treaty is of extreme importance to Christian Americans and probably many Catholics. The Christians I know are fierce supporters of Israel to the point that we pray for Israel daily. So don’t be mistaken in thinking that there isn’t a large percentage of Americans that have their eyes and ears open daily about this issue. It’s critical to us, since the Bible warns that those who touch Israel will come under the judgment of God.

    • talknic on September 7, 2015, 4:16 am

      @ A Davies

      Say, is that the same G-d who didn’t bother to show up for the Holocaust?

      • Froggy on September 7, 2015, 6:31 am

        talknic : “Say, is that the same G-d who didn’t bother to show up for the Holocaust?”

        And the same christianist sects that opposed the Jews entry into the US when they tried to escape the Nazis.

      • Mooser on September 7, 2015, 1:04 pm

        “Say, is that the same G-d who didn’t bother to show up for the Holocaust?”

        “talknic” you need to get your priorities straight! The Holocaust was all about people, Jews, sometimes called “Israel”. We can always make more people, and I’m sure I needn’t detail how.
        Now, “A Davies” is talking about “Israel” the land!. And God ain’t making any more of that! So the relative value is easy to see.

      • talknic on September 7, 2015, 10:54 pm

        @ Mooser If the pearly gates do actually exist and you ever go that way, be sure to pose that hyp(e)othesis to the wondrous one.

        Personally if I find myself knocking on that door I’m not gonna beat about the bush even if it is ablaze. I’m gonna go straight for the jugular

    • just on September 7, 2015, 4:54 am

      Sounds like the CUFI sect/cult of Christianity.

      Here’s an excerpt from a MW article with a link to the entire article, A Davies:

      “Inside a CUFI Summit: Christian Zionists dance the hora and prepare for end times in Washington DC

      …Today, CUFI continues to duteously back Israel no matter what it does and is currently devoted to sabotaging the Iran nuclear deal. At CUFI’s 2015 summit, held earlier this month, roughly 5,000 of Israel’s most extreme supporters met to discuss how they can undermine the international diplomacy. Just days ago, it held an off-the-record event with Wall Street Journal foreign affairs columnist and editor Bret Stephens, secretly plotting against its own government’s international negotiations. …” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/christian-zionists-washington#sthash.yq8Qluf3.dpuf

      +1, talknic.

      • bintbiba on September 7, 2015, 5:12 am

        ‘Just’, I never cease to scratch my head in befuddlement and nonplussed-ment at the strange beliefs of some people !

        +1 , talkic, from me ,too

      • Sibiriak on September 7, 2015, 1:04 pm

        MHughes976: those bad people will one day sense the arc of the universe bending away from them
        ————————————-

        Unfortunately, no such “arc” has ever been observed, nor any traces empirically detected.

    • Froggy on September 7, 2015, 6:25 am

      A Davies : “It’s critical to us, since the Bible warns that those who touch Israel will come under the judgment of God.”

      Not real Christians, but born-again, fundy, Bible-babbling, christianist freaks… y’know, the people who backed Romney almost 100%.

      You lot aren’t gonna get your Rapture until all the Jews, every Jew on Earth, is back in Israel.

      Now the Jews may have something to say about that, as the American Jews that I know are contented Yankee Doodlers happily living in NY, Philly, and S. Floriduh.

    • straightline on September 7, 2015, 6:55 am

      It’s been a while but I don’t recall anything about “Blessed are the bigots, for they shall have the right to kill and steal” in the Sermon on the Mount. I don’t know what flavour of Christianity you speak for A Davies but it has no relationship to anything I was taught in (Protestant) Sunday School. And I doubt whether it has much to do with the views of the current Pope either.

    • a blah chick on September 7, 2015, 7:35 am

      When do the killers of the family from Duma come under the judgement of God?

      • just on September 7, 2015, 8:59 am

        I wouldn’t hold my breath for an answer, abc. I think we already know it when A. Davies writes:

        “… any stance that PM Netanyahu has, we are right behind him.”

        So they’ll willingly follow a mortal person to the ends of the earth and the end times…no matter how evil that mortal is.

        Scary.

        I think it was a hit and run, anyway. Late to the show and a first post, too.

      • MHughes976 on September 7, 2015, 10:15 am

        I think, abc, that those bad people will one day sense the arc of the universe bending away from them: that will let them know that God is not mocked.
        I also think that I’m as good a Christian as A Davies is.
        The Evangelical Lutheran theologian Robert O. Smith’s 2010 book ‘More Desired than our Owne Salvation’ traces Christian Zionism from the 1500s in England to now in America. His figures are a bit out of date but make it clear that Christian support for the American preference for Israel has long been far from unanimous – but I would concede to Mr. Davies that those who are doubtful about this policy are likely to be much less keen and committed than those who support it are.
        Smith reveals that George Bush’s Gog and Magog talk echoes no less a person than Martin Luther, who used it of the Ottoman Empire.

    • RoHa on September 7, 2015, 8:17 am

      So God approves of murder, theft, oppression, persecution, ethnic cleansing, and continual lying ? He doesn’t seem to be a very nice God.

      “Christian Americans and probably many Catholics.”

      Catholics are Christians. They are the largest Christian denomination.

      • Froggy on September 7, 2015, 1:18 pm

        RoHa, born-again, fundy christianists don’t consider Catholics to be ‘real’ Christians. Not Anglicans either, or so the Fundy Freaks I knew in the US told me.

      • RoHa on September 7, 2015, 7:17 pm

        I actually know that, Froggy. I just like to annoy them. They are a bunch of mean-spirited nuts.

        When I want a Christian (though I hardly ever do) I will look for someone like our Michelle or MHughes.

    • Mooser on September 7, 2015, 12:57 pm

      “It’s critical to us, since the Bible warns that those….”

      ROTFLMSJAO! Hey “Davies” did you hear? The four-times-married Kim Davis was busted out of Federal incarceration by a bolt of lightening this morning!

      • Froggy on September 7, 2015, 1:20 pm

        … and carried away by an angel choir.

    • eljay on September 7, 2015, 7:56 pm

      || A Davies: To the poster that stated that the average American is not going to care much about this issue, you are grossly misinformed. … this Iran treaty is of extreme importance to Christian Americans … It’s critical to us, since the Bible warns that those who touch Israel will come under the judgment of God. ||

      This bit of religion-inspired blather makes no sense. Since “god” already has the matter under control – f*ck with Israel and s/he will judge you – why on earth would the Iran treaty be “critical” to Christian supporters of Jewish supremacism (CJS) in/and a supremacist “Jewish State”?

      Is it because CJS think they’re entitled to interfere in “god’s” work? Or maybe it’s because they know better than “god” how to handle the Iran issue?

Leave a Reply