Trending Topics:

Debacle for the Israel lobby: Booker jilts Boteach, and Netanyahu sinks AIPAC

on 109 Comments

The cascade of Democratic senators supporting the president on the Iran Deal continued today, with Heidi Heitkamp of N. Dakota, Mark Warner of VA, and Cory Booker of New Jersey. Seven senators remain undecided, per the Forward.

Booker is the big prize of course. He is bucking his political mentor Sen. Robert Menendez and his old friend Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. Booker’s statement is long and agonized and includes many arguments against the deal. “With this deal, we are legitimizing a vast and expanding nuclear program in Iran.”

Booker wants to give Israel bunker-busting bombs as a means of enforcement of the agreement. And he ends with a lot of talk about the Holocaust and Israel:

Some of the most painful, difficult and influential conversations I have had about this deal have been with valued and trusted friends from the Jewish community who have family members who survived or died in the Holocaust….

To be clear: when Iranians chant death to America or pledge themselves to the destruction of Israel, I take them at their word. My Jewish friends and others I have talked with are correct: Iran is an existential threat to the State of Israel and to the Jewish people.

While I may differ with many friends on the choice this deal presents us — and I do believe that this deal presents the better path of two options to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon — we share precisely the same goal. I am united with all who are determined to ensure that we never again see genocide in the world.

Boteach calls the decision “tragic.” Writing on Facebook, he says “Cory is my soul-friend and no matter of policy will ever get personal or come between us,” but it would seem that the friendship is busted, and that Booker isn’t taking Boteach’s calls.

Cory never even once condemns the Iranian promise to exterminate the Jews of Israel or distance himself from a deal which he admits will legitimize a genocidal regime.

Boteach ends saying he can’t trust Booker:

Cory references his visit to Yad Vashem, the holocaust museum in Jerusalem, when he was 25, a trip that I arranged trusting that he would absorb the never-ending Jewish struggle for survival in a world inhabited by the kind of evil represented by the Iranian regime. … I subsequently introduced him to Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel and the three of us even held a public speech together in NYC in 2009.

I realize that amid his troubling and tragic choice to support this agreement, Cory pledges to be “united with all who are determined to ensure that we never again see genocide in the world.”

But I remind him about the famous and prophetic words of Elie Wiesel, whom I had asked Cory to meet with to discuss this deal, “We have learned to trust the threats of our enemies more than the promises of our friends.”

The Washington Post has an excellent report on the biggest setback in a generation to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC. It quotes the liberal Zionist group J Street’s spox, Dylan Williams, saying that the rightwing lobby has lost “blood” on this battle, and contends that AIPAC lost the game when it went along with a “debacle,” Israeli PM Netanyahu’s scheme of speaking to a joint session of Congress in March urging them to defy their president. Karoun Demirjian and Carol Morello report on the pressures Israel put on Jewish congresspeople.

Congress’s Jewish lawmakers came under some of the most intense pressure from anti-deal activists

While he isn’t sure if AIPAC could have improved the dialogue, [Tenn. Rep. Steve] Cohen said “the tenor was set when Netanyahu came to speak to Congress without the president’s knowledge and/or approval.”

“Having him come and try to influence the members of the Congress and lobby against what the president was working on, set the tenor,” Cohen continued. “Netanyahu should not get himself involved in American politics in the future, and AIPAC played a stronger hand than they should have.”

Other congressional aides pointed out that Israel’s unprecedented direct lobbying efforts against the deal by Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer worsened AIPAC’s position by association.

“There are a lot of people whose reaction to the Israeli ambassador’s lobbying was not a positive one,” said one Democratic aide to a Jewish lawmaker….

While AIPAC and Israel’s activities were not coordinated, some members of Congress felt the group was tacitly endorsing the Israeli government’s increasingly political line.

“They burned their bridges with Democrats before they got into this,” said a Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak frankly about AIPAC’s apparent failure.

“They were silent and a little complicit in the Netanyahu debacle. They were just standing by when it happened. They spent down their political capital before they got up to this effort.”

Message: the dual loyalty thing was a real issue in people’s minds, not a canard; and it bit AIPAC in the butt.

The Guardian also has a story about AIPAC’s loss of power. J Street’s Dylan Williams says that it has lost its power to threaten a lawmaker’s job. Even though fundraisers were canceled because of support for the deal, he says.

what has changed is that the fear of retribution no longer provides a deterrent for moderate Democrats tempted to resist the influence of Aipac.

“Sometimes resistance to the deal went into the realm of express threats of a political nature; fund raisers were cancelled after members of Congress came out in some cases [for the deal],” claims J-Street’s Williams.

“Yet once you take a stand and not only survive to fight another day but do so with even more pro-Israel backing than you started out with, that has the effect of vanquishing this finely-crafted myth that there is a terrible political price to pay by going against Israeli government policy.”

The fundraisers: It’s always been about money. The lobby is now trying to threaten moderate Dems who supported the deal. But today’s cascade shows that the Dems are not afraid. Rightwing Zionists have the Republican Party, liberal Zionists have the Democratic one, and a fight on their hands with those of us who want to end the special relationship.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

109 Responses

  1. Mooser on September 3, 2015, 10:00 pm
    • Krauss on September 4, 2015, 9:32 am

      It’s highly ironic that what was once a civil rights organization and has since turned into a Islamophobic lobbying outlet for a foreign government feels it has the moral weight to lecture people how to behave as model citizens.

      • JWalters on September 4, 2015, 6:42 pm

        Good point of history.

  2. Kathleen on September 3, 2015, 11:39 pm

    Clearly Booker, Mikulski, Warner, Heitcamp are voting for the National Security of the U.S., Israel and the world. Just that Israel and the I lobby refuse to see it. Let’s hope we get to 41 Senators. Keep calling. J Street has sent out an easy format for calling the undecided

    • Krauss on September 4, 2015, 9:33 am

      Booker waited until it was safe to come out for the deal. He’s a whimp. Had Mikulski and Nadler and the other senators not turned, he’d likely stay mum and vote in opposition.

      He has shown himself over and over again to be a total turncoat, whether on I/P, on Wall Street and every other issue.
      I don’t know why some liberals even count him as a principled senator.

      Lack of information.

      • Chu on September 4, 2015, 9:49 am

        Remember when he slow-played the entire gay-angle to get more votes?
        It’s no surprise his best bro’ is Boteach. He’s a perfect fit for the Beltway.

      • CigarGod on September 4, 2015, 10:05 am

        He thinks we don’t notice when he stands on a little step-stool…well protected in the center of the herd.

      • joemowrey on September 4, 2015, 11:10 am

        Principled senator? There’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever seen one. No such animal. You don’t get to join that club if you have principles. One way or another, these creatures are all on the auction block, available to the highest bidder. Same holds true for House of Reps.

      • Kathleen on September 4, 2015, 12:24 pm

        Nadler is a congress person. Was pleasantly surprised that he voted for the Iran deal. Have heard him speak about Israel on a panel not focused on the issue( don’t think Netroots has ever done such a panel) but somehow Israel came up and Nadler repeated his pledge of allegiance to Israel several times. Did not think there was an honest opening there.

        I don’t think Booker or anyone else who is supporting the deal is “jilting” Israel. I think they are actually being a better friend by supporting the deal. Really do believe this.

      • echinococcus on September 4, 2015, 2:28 pm

        Principled senators?
        Apart from the immediate considerations of the vote count, this “deal” is preparing the real war on Iran.
        With propaganda like Booker’s so-called peaceful vote “With this deal, we are legitimizing a vast and expanding nuclear program in Iran” it may have been better to let the Yahoo have his way.

      • annie on September 4, 2015, 2:31 pm

        nah, his words are for donors. no one else will remember them as anything other than damage control for lobby support. it’s his fig leaf to boteach. nothing more. it’s his vote that truly speak for him and his constituents.

      • echinococcus on September 5, 2015, 1:19 am

        Little Bo-Teach has wasted a preach
        and can’t tell what will help him;
        leave it alone, better go home
        dragging his tail behind him.

        Joking aside, this Lib-Zio deal is just as disgusting as Yahoo’s continuous bomb talk, even though it might provide some much-needed breathing room. It is legitimizing US bullying and it is legitimizing Zionist nukes.

    • Blownaway on September 4, 2015, 1:39 pm

      It’s easy for these democrats to vote yes because of the Cardin torpedo known as the AIPAC companion bill plan B

    • JWalters on September 4, 2015, 6:47 pm

      ” Just that Israel and the I lobby refuse to see it.”

      I agree they “refuse” to see it. In private they are seeing it well – and planning their next round of war profits. Their apparent irrationality is part of their cover story.

  3. David Doppler on September 4, 2015, 12:21 am

    41 would be so much better than 40. Just as 61 was so much worse than 60, in the Israeli election. Sometimes, every vote matters, every vote is in fact decisive. My vote is that 41 oppose, the bill fails, and, shortly thereafter, the Netanyahu coalition falls apart. For what it’s worth.

    • Bandolero on September 4, 2015, 7:09 am


      My vote is that 41 oppose, the bill fails, and, shortly thereafter, the Netanyahu coalition falls apart. For what it’s worth.

      I agree. I see that this is in the cards, too. But I like to think further. If Netanyahu falls over this, the next Israeli head of government will likely go along with the Iran deal, to mend ties with the US. That in turn would have an interesting effect for Republican presidential candidates who all promised to rip the deal apart for the sake of Israel. If Israel then goes with the deal, the Republicans would look quite stupid in their opposition to a deal supported by the whole world. And if the Republican stooges of Netanyahu won’t change their stance on the deal then, they would look suddenly not only as stooges of a foreign government, but also anti-Israel.

      That scenario can become quite funny, and have lasting consequences, not only for the election 2016, but for the time after the election, too.

    • Rodneywatts on September 4, 2015, 10:14 am

      David and Bandolero

      I love your comments and the degree of optimism expressed therein. We across the pond know that whatever happens in the US wrt Israel can make an enormous difference for good or ill, which cannot be matched here. I really hope and pray for that 41 and the possible consequences outlined by bandolero – Si! Si! Si!

  4. piotr on September 4, 2015, 2:31 am

    “Booker is the big prize of course. He is bucking his political mentor Sen. Robert Menendez and his old friend Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.”

    Menendez is damaged goods. And it is not clear that Booker will be interested in re-election: there is a talk that he may be a candidate for vice president, to add youth, color and “ideological balance” to the ticket. For example, right now there is a significant possibility of Ben Carson being the candidate of GOP, and Democrats may need someone like Booker, and the list of possibilities is quite short.

    Out of curiosity: do Zionist view Boteach as an inspiring figure, or rather pitiful and comical?

    About 41 Senators: because of my Polish background, I would strongly prefer 44 Senators. You see, in school we learn some weird Romantic poetry, and thus everyone knows a prophecy of a national savior to come: “Of alien mother, with blood of ancient heroes, and his name will be forty and four”.

  5. JWalters on September 4, 2015, 3:34 am

    Shmuley Boteach poses as a compassionate person, but in reality he is a cruel bigot. He laments endlessly over Jews who have suffered, but refuses to seriously discuss the PLAIN FACTS of massive Palestinian suffering inflicted unjustly by Jews. He replaces facts and analysis with empty scolding. For example,

    Boteach is quite simply not a compassionate person. He may be intelligent, but he is not compassionate. His “compassion” is an act, a fake. Perhaps he believes Palestinians are sub-humans, destined to serve God’s superior Chosen people, including himself. Perhaps he’s just in it for the money, leading the suckers around by the nose, like Glenn Beck.

    It is a tragedy when good people can be coerced into even the pretense of respect for a such an arrogantly cruel person.

    • Froggy on September 4, 2015, 11:30 am

      Shmuley’s Hand in Charity Cookie Jar

      In 1999, London’s Observer newspaper reported that Britain’s Charity Commission froze the bank account of Boteach’s “Oxford University L’Chaim Society and its associated charitable trust.”

      Showbiz writer Roger Friedman reported in May 2001 that the commission’s investigation into L’Chaim determined that “a number of apparent inappropriate payments” were being made by Boteach and his wife, and that “administrative expenses were high in relation to relatively low charitable expenditure.”

As a result of the inquiry, Friedman noted, the trustees decided to “wind up” the charity and its London and Oxford offices were closed.”


      London newspapers reported that Boteach was ousted from the L’Chaim Society of Oxford University for mismanagement of funds. (He allegedly used money from the charity to maintain a lavish home. Boteach insisted it was his right to do so.) He was also reportedly banned from having a pulpit in the U.K., although during our conversation last year he denied that.


      “It seems funny to me,” said a source at the Oxford Union, “that the headquarters for the L’Chaim Society of Oxford is in New York.”

      Frustrated by the lack of information from Boteach’s office, I subsequently wrote another story on Feb. 18, 2002, stating that Boteach’s tax-free foundation in the United States is alled Oxford L’Chaim Society, implying a tie to the prestigious British university.

      I also wrote that the L’Chaim Society’s 1999 public tax filing shows that the charity took in $300,000. Of that amount, $160,000 went to “management” and $122,000 was sent as a lump-sum donation to the L’Chaim Society of Cambridge, the other top British university.

      But, of course, representatives of the Cambridge Society swore to me last year that they hadn’t heard from Boteach in a long time. Certainly they didn’t mention a huge donation, and neither did Boteach.”


      The 2009 Form 990 filing indicates the charity took in more than $651K in contributions and other revenue and racked up $638K in operating and administrative expenses–but only $70 K of that figure amounted to charitable disbursements. According to Guidestar, a website that specializes in reporting on U.S. nonprofit companies, 2009 tax filings by This World–The Jewish Values Network reveals the the onetime spiritual adviser to Michael Jackson was paid $229K for his services as director of the charity. 

There doesn’t seem to be much of a commute involved either. This World lists Boteach’s Englewood, NJ home as its address.

      The 2009 Form 990 filing indicates the charity took in more than $651K in contributions and other revenue and racked up $638K in operating and administrative expenses–but only $70 K of that figure amounted to charitable disbursements.

Boteach’s 2009 pay was a big improvement over the previous year. The charity’s 2008 tax filing indicate Shmuley– who was named one of the 50 most influential rabbis by Newsweek magazine in 2007, ’08 and ’09–was paid approximately $59 K. 

Guidestar lists This World as a society “dedicated to promoting Judaism and to the continuing development of the state of Israel.”

      Would it be anti-Semitic of me to call him a gonif?

      Why does this person have so much influence?

      • traintosiberia on September 4, 2015, 10:43 pm

        He is polluting Judaism

      • JWalters on September 5, 2015, 6:53 pm

        Thanks for filling in that picture. It precisely fits the usual order. It’s still possible that Boteach thinks the greater good of the Jewish community requires his swindling some Jews.

      • Froggy on September 5, 2015, 11:14 pm

        Oh, I dunno. I think Boteach is an equal opportunity swindler.

    • druid on September 4, 2015, 3:22 pm


    • Shingo on September 4, 2015, 10:17 pm

      He may be intelligent, but he is not compassionate

      Would you care to enlighten us as to evidence of his intelligence? All I have ever read from him is shop warn and simplistic and banal talking points.

  6. WH on September 4, 2015, 4:38 am

    “Cory never even once condemns the Iranian promise to exterminate the Jews of Israel”

    That’s because no such promise exists!

  7. Kay24 on September 4, 2015, 6:04 am

    OT, but after that disturbing and sad picture of that little boy being washed up in the beach, it makes me mad to think that after interfering and making things worse in Syria, countries like Saudi Arabia, do not have the decency, to help out and accept some fraction of the refugees who are in dire need of help. Nations like the US, Israel and others who make things worse in many nations, by trying to overthrow despots, arming opposition, and training rebels, should realize that there are consequences for their actions, and it is always the innocent civilians who pay the price. How many refugees have Saudi Arabia and Qatar taken? ZERO

    Perhaps Obama should speak to the Saudi Arabia King when he visits.

    Emma Thompson: If refugees were white we would think differently:

    Thousands of innocent men, women, and children, are paying the price for the war games being
    played by nations who do not care for their suffering.

    • aiman on September 4, 2015, 7:04 am

      Bull’s eye, Kay24!

    • RockyMissouri on September 4, 2015, 11:08 am


    • John O on September 4, 2015, 12:14 pm

      Interesting article in today’s Independent (UK) by veteran Middle east reporter Robert Fisk on the irony of Muslim refugees heading for Christian (or post-religious) Europe rather than places like Saudi Arabia.–will-he-do-the-same-honour-for-little-aylan-kurdi-10485261.html

      • Froggy on September 4, 2015, 1:23 pm

        It is a brilliant article, one that should not be missed.

        Thank you.

    • Atlantaiconoclast on September 5, 2015, 3:01 pm

      Thank you! I wish more understood the US/British/French/Israel/Gulf State coalition to oust the secular Assad. The fact that Saudi Arabia/Israel are in this coalition is proof that it has no true concern for human rights in Syria. Same goes for what was done to Libya.

      • Kay24 on September 5, 2015, 10:22 pm

        They seem unable to learn from past mistakes. They ousted Saddam Hussein, and look at the devastation they have caused….As long as they have puppets dancing to their tune, they do not like tyrants who defy them.

      • echinococcus on September 5, 2015, 11:14 pm


        What “mistakes”? There were no mistakes. Destroying and dismembering Iraq and leaving it a shambles forever was part of the playbook as in the PNAC document, I believe by Feith on behalf of the Likud. Ditto for Libya, Syria, Iran. I don’t think the US is making many mistakes as long as it sticks to the Zionit marching orders. Looking at the high status of neocons in the Obama administration, there has been no change since 2001 and they are proceeding on schedule.

      • oldgeezer on September 6, 2015, 10:52 am


        Indeed… the destruction of these states (followed by the balkanization of them) is exactly the goal of the yinon plan and it”s americanized version put out by the necons/pnac.

        Still in progress and on course.

    • inbound39 on September 6, 2015, 6:47 am

      I was reading in Haaretz and Maan today that the UN and the Palestinians are putting pressure on Israel to let Palestinian Refugees back into the West Bank. Refugees from Syrian Camps and Lebanon etc that are currently under threat are being earmarked for return. The pressure is quite large at present with Resolution 194 being waved about quite loudly and Israel’s former commitment to implement it for full UN membership. Palestinians make up over a quarter of the Worlds refugees and we have Israel to thank and take full responsibility for that.

    • socialconscience on September 6, 2015, 9:13 am

      Well said Kay24

      theres very little mention in mainstream media of the direct affect that war mongering, arms dealing and plundering of oil and other resources buy the ‘developed’ nations of the world and their disastrous destabilizing consequences that have lead to this crisis.

      Those countries should be expected to pull their fair share of the weight in taking in refugees and disbanding the capitalist yoke that enslaves the peoples of the middle east and elsewhere.

      then again this would mean taking responsibility….

      I say fair play to Germany but 800,000 still is not enough.

      The U.S. in particular no longer attempts to throw even the thinnest veil over the use of their proxies Israel and S.A. in their vice grip of subjugation

      examples A. their unflagging support for Israel during recent operation protective edge with little or no rebuild B. no less thorough encouragement and assistance for S.A. in bombing Yemen back to the dark ages.

      • b.grand on September 6, 2015, 11:59 am

        Agree @ echinococcus, old geezer. Chaos inflicted.

        Today Netanyahu rejected a call to provide refuge to Syrian refugees, citing lack of “demographic depth”. How true. I.E. “We’re too racist to help.”

      • Froggy on September 6, 2015, 4:47 pm

        B.grand :

        Here is the iceing on the cake. From an article published in the Graun on 4 September :

        UK must emulate Kindertransport to aid refugee crisis, says Lord Sacks
        Former chief rabbi says Britain must respond to situation with gesture similar to aiding Jewish children before second world war

        ‘Jonathan Sacks said it was time for human compassion to triumph in the same way as the scheme that saved thousands of Jewish children before the second world war broke out. He said that a “very clear and conspicuous humanitarian gesture, like Kindertransport” would help to achieve that aim.

        “Europe is being tested as it has not been tested since the second world war … The European Union was created as a way of saying that we recognise human rights, after the catastrophe of two world wars and the Holocaust, and it’s very chilling to see some of these scenarios being re-enacted,” Lord Sacks told BBC2’s Newsnight on Thursday.’

        I don’t disagree with Rabbi Sacks, though the 10 000 number seems a mite small when one considers that Wembly seats 90 000.

        But since Rabbi Sacks has nothing to say about Israel’s obligation to these desperate refugees, and lacks the good grace to denounce Netanyahu’s bigotry, one can’t help but assume that Sacks seems to see this as a moral obligation for goyim alone.

        However, we can always count on the Americans… or maybe not. John Kerry had this to say about the role the US will play in the refugee crisis:

        ‘Kerry did not suggest that the U.S. should be taking in more refugees. Rather, he indicated that any increased American effort would focus on working with existing refugee camps in other countries.

        “I’m not talking about taking [in refugees] on a permanent basis,” Kerry said. “We have huge refugee camps in Jordan, in Lebanon. They’re spread more in the population. In Turkey, we have refugee camps. It may be that we have to set up some sort of refugee camp structure for the time being in order to deal with it.”

        This month, the United States announced it will accept up to 8,000 Syrian refugees in 2016. The U.S. has taken in 1,500 refugees since the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011. Germany, by contrast, moved last month to accept up to 800,000 Syrians by suspending European Union regulations on sharing the refugee influx.’

        For those of us who aren’t literate in Hebrew, here is what Netanyahu really said:

        Didn’t Hitler denounce the Jews as something like ‘infiltrators’?

      • CigarGod on September 6, 2015, 8:50 pm

        Gaza has 8 camps and 500k refugee’s
        WB has 750k refugee’s, 25% of which live in 19 camps.
        Israel is about 8k square miles.

        Where am I going with this….
        Oh yeah, move some of the settlers out of the WB and the Syrians in.

      • Froggy on September 7, 2015, 5:36 am


        What would the Palestinians, and by this I mean the people who actually have lived in the WB, have to say about that?

      • CigarGod on September 7, 2015, 9:45 am

        That was my %#@$ disturbing point, Froggy. If Iz can take in Syrians, how about Pal. Refugees?
        Bibi’s comments keep him outside the circle of civilized nations.

      • Froggy on September 7, 2015, 1:07 pm


      • straightline on September 6, 2015, 5:22 pm

        Apparently Netanyahu says that Israel is “too small” to accept refugees. Perhaps Mooser can enlighten us on the superhuman capacity of the Jews of France that Netanyahu wants to emigrate to Israel to occupy no space!

      • talknic on September 6, 2015, 11:48 pm

        How about Israel withdraw from the occupied Golan, taking all the illegal Israeli settlers as required by International Law … plenty of room, plenty of housing and resources incl oil

      • Kay24 on September 7, 2015, 10:41 am

        Maybe Benjy is simply wanting to hear the world say, “Okay Israel, steal more land. build more illegal settlements, and take in the refugees”. :))

  8. talknic on September 4, 2015, 8:15 am

    Iran reiterates the UNSC:

    Is there any difference in the essence of the following two statements?

    1) “Israel must end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”

    2) “The occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the pages of time”

    Resolution 476 (1980) unanimously adopted by the Security Council at its 2242nd meeting on 30 June 1980

    The Security Council,

    Having considered the letter of 28 May 1980 from the representative of Pakistan, the current Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as contained in document S/13966 of 28 May 1980,

    Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,

    Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city,

    Reaffirming its resolutions relevant to the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,

    Recalling the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,

    Deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

    Gravely concerned over the legislative steps initiated in the Israeli Knesset with the aim of changing the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

    1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

    2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;

    3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

    etc etc

    • inbound39 on September 6, 2015, 6:51 am

      Yes Talknic…..Israel has far more to answer for that Iran. Israel’s accusations against Iran fall on deaf ears and only find a home in the brains of the ignorant and uninformed.

  9. RobertHenryEller on September 4, 2015, 8:23 am

    Schmoozer Boteach and Menedez: two self-aggrandizing hustlers.

    Booker smelled the stench, and made a very wise long term political decision.

    Maybe someone reminded him of what happened to politicians who supported the Iraq invasion.

    • CigarGod on September 4, 2015, 9:19 am

      Maybe he took a look at the crowds that surround Schmuley and realized they didn’t look like mainstream America, but more like the mentally ill people on street corners. Wouldn’t look good on tv.

  10. Kay24 on September 4, 2015, 9:18 am

    Time Congress and future members of Congress, REJECTED the campaign donations from Israeli lobbies, and any other alien entities. By accepting it, and asking for it, they are compromising their integrity and putting the demands of an alien nation OVER the American people and their country.\

    This ridiculous situation, which clearly shows Israel having control over our Congress, making demands, and manipulating our political system, should never happen again.

    • ritzl on September 4, 2015, 1:18 pm

      Good point, Kay24. This setback for AIPAC may just be the lightning, with the thunderclap restoring the previous political status quo to follow shortly. But it might not.

      In the latter case, it’s probably not too soon to contemplate a going-forward strategy designed to make the current separation/seam durable and buildable.

      Above my pay grade, but I sure hope someone out there, at both the popular and political levels, has a follow-on plan. I sense that the window to solidify this is very short, and the opportunity may not present itself for another generation.

      (h/t to David Doppler and Bandolero)

  11. Boomer on September 4, 2015, 9:37 am

    Celebration may be premature. I don’t pretend to understand the politics of it, or what will happen, but at least one observer thinks Netanyahu got what he wanted, and won’t suffer any negative consequences:

    • traintosiberia on September 4, 2015, 10:00 am

      Long ago someone wrote that the posture of R Perle was to go to the extreme right ,then move a little to the left and then claim that he had compromised . Israel does same. Zionist dose same . Netanhayu
      can’t learn other techniques either .
      Gain of Israel will be money,land,and protection at UN and domestically AIPAC will say to its beneficiaries – hey ,look pal, we did not challenge or obstruct what you tried to do over Iran and we don’t begrudge your patriotic pro American pro deal but this is something different , you have to allow x,y,z and more here and there you know m you have to balance ,maintain the tradition and do what good . So sign up for x,y,z ..,

  12. Krauss on September 4, 2015, 9:46 am

    that has the effect of vanquishing this finely-crafted myth that there is a terrible political price to pay by going against Israeli government policy.

    The J Street spox is spreading a myth. There has been a terrible political price to pay by going against Israeli government policy for a lot of congresspeople.

    And considering how much Obama had to put in to get the votes, the notion that this wasn’t tough is a total lie. Why would the spox spread this lie? I don’t think he believes it.

    Also: consider that Obama had J Street in his corner. Before J Street you only had AIPAC and the rest of the gang. If that was still the case, would he have gotten the votes?

    The Street guy is full of shit on this one.

  13. traintosiberia on September 4, 2015, 9:53 am

    When the bar is so low ,Obama doesn’t need much To deafet AIPAC.
    Does he? Calling Schumer a Zionist would be labeled as defeat for Zionsim .
    How does Republican get away with this when 90% support the deal and GOP stay avidly anti deal?

    AIPAC always touts how it was defeated by Saudi Reagan. But the audacity of them to challenge a popular sitting president showed the power . It taught DC a lesson . That lesson DC still recaptures every morning before breakfast and every night before saying Amen – don’t disagree with Zionist.

  14. DaveS on September 4, 2015, 10:14 am

    It certainly is nice to see egg on the face of Netanyahu and various allies who deserve so much worse, some of them life imprisonment at hard labor. But I’m not convinced this is such a watershed moment. If Israel started yet another war in Gaza or Lebanon, the Congressional rush to support it would be just as near-unanimous as it’s ever been. It never was a reasonable position that Iran posed a serious threat to Israel, and this whole spectacle may have been little more than a side show. If Netanyahu had managed to defeat the deal, there may have been more blowback against him.

    • Boomer on September 4, 2015, 10:40 am

      re David Samel, “I’m not convinced this is such a watershed moment.”

      With the caveat (as noted previously) that I don’t pretend to understand the politics of it, or to know what will happen, I tend to agree with you. I worry about whether the pro-Israel forces used Obama’s desire to get the agreement with Iran as an opportunity to extract concessions, such as a commitment to veto any Security Resolution that Israel does not approve.

      • DaveS on September 4, 2015, 10:58 am

        Boomer, I just read the article you linked and have to say I found it fairly persuasive. I have never known if Netanyahu’s obsession with Iran was genuine though grotesquely exaggerated or entirely faked. But the concessions he has won are undeniable, and it’s not like this agreement truly makes his country less safe. Also, he has managed to divert world attention from Palestine to Iran.

      • ritzl on September 4, 2015, 1:59 pm

        Hi Boomer and David Samel.


        It is, however, possible to parse this into short-term and long-term “undeniabilities,” level of undeniability TBD.

        The 972 article makes a great case for the short-term win for Netanyahu, but imho, this Iran deal has great potential to take Iran-as-whipping-boy off the table in the long-term. If that happens, and normalization by the P”4″+1 takes place, there can be no more* deflection away from Palestine issues by Israel, no matter who is in power there. That’s a huge loss of global popular and political leverage.

        That loss of leverage also means that it is* unlikely that Israel will be able to extract future aid and diplomatic concessions with its obvious “red line then demurral” strategy. Maybe there are other big bugaboos out there that can be used in place of Iran, but since the GoI has been milking Iran for about 15+ years now, it’s hard to see what the next massive inflammatory issue might be now that Iran has been “solved.”

        I don’t dismiss, though, the creativity of the GoI, its ability to “media-tize” anything, and the craven-ness of US pols, but post-deal it seems that a lot of the air has been let out of that political balloon.

        * Stated as an absolute for the sake of brevity. Many factors are still in play so it is not an absolute.

      • MHughes976 on September 4, 2015, 6:00 pm

        I didn’t find the 972 article that convincing. The public failure to control the US political class is a serious matter – how could it not be when so much is spent on the effort? It is true that this class of people would support Israel in any new act of terrible violence – but even then I’m not sure that there wouldn’t be important dissenters, notably more than in the past. But Netanyahu knows that there are other things to be considered than congressional votes. He can’t stop the steady move of world opinion against Israel with every fierce campaign or the increasingly hollow sound of the reply that ‘you only say this because you’re prejudiced against Jews’ – and he knows that this process does matter in the long run.

      • MHughes976 on September 4, 2015, 6:08 pm

        I’d also suggest that this is the hour of the liberal Zionists, the people who have backed Obama. They will move increasingly to centre stage, meeting the wild applause of the huge world majority that thinks a 2ss the obvious way out. This may have positive effects even if the 2ss is the half-mythical or at least transient being that I would think it is.

      • JWalters on September 4, 2015, 7:29 pm

        I share ritzl’s picture here, and also agree with Samel on the forces behind Netanyahu continuing to fight fang and claw. But this is a big change in the fundamental terrain. A brilliant battle by Obama.

    • W.Jones on September 15, 2015, 3:09 pm

      You wrote:

      If Israel started yet another war in Gaza or Lebanon, the Congressional rush to support it would be just as near-unanimous as it’s ever been.

      As you may know, one of the main reasons JVP banned Alison Weir this summer was because in their eyes she has a “tail wags dog” idea about US-Israeli relations, which JVP’s Statement on her calls “chauvinist”.

      Previously here on Mondoweiss you made an excellent defense of Ali Abunimah when he was attacked by M.J. Rosenberg as “anti-Semitic” because Ali A. misrepresents “Zionists” and stereotypes them in his view.

      What do you think about the scandal this summer with Alison Weir, and what did you think about the Solidarity activists’ writings about it:

      Mondoweiss Roundtable with J.Hitchcock, S.Landau, R.Greenleaf, and about 1000 comments, a very large majority of which favor Weir
      JVP member A.Kisch’s “Response to JVP regarding their excommunication of Alison Weir”
      “Ned Rosenberg”, JVP Member writes a “dissident view” of the expulsion
      Media With a Conscience, “Open Letter” to CEIO
      H.Norr on VOMENA radio “on the Accusations against Alison Weir”

  15. Marnie on September 4, 2015, 10:27 am

    “Cory references his visit to Yad Vashem, the holocaust museum in Jerusalem, when he was 25, a trip that I arranged trusting that he would absorb the never-ending Jewish struggle for survival in a world inhabited by the kind of evil represented by the Iranian regime. … I subsequently introduced him to Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel and the three of us even held a public speech together in NYC in 2009.”

    Boteach sounds like a guy complaining about wining and dining a woman who at the end of the night, just wasn’t that into him and wouldn’t put out. Not even a BJ. Hell hath no fury like a zionist made-for-teevee rabbi scorned.

    “trusting that he would absorb the never-ending Jewish struggle for survival……”

    So Cory drank the koolaid, but didn’t swallow?

    I can replace Iranian regime with the GoI and it works too!

    • annie on September 4, 2015, 11:36 am

      Boteach sounds like a guy complaining about wining and dining a woman who at the end of the night, just wasn’t that into him and wouldn’t put out.

      as the groomer, point by point he followed his own advice, all the same steps on lust, and still he got dumped.

      really, who could resist these advances

      ‘references her visit to toujours lingerie, champagne & european-style sleepwear in a quaint setting in san francisco when he was 17, a trip that I arranged trusting that he would absorb the never-ending struggle for survival in a world inhabited by the kind of evil represented by sex without love … I subsequently introduced him to my masseur, Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel and the three of us shared a public sauna together in NYC in 2009.’

      • John O on September 4, 2015, 12:18 pm

        That’s a horrible mental picture. Can we have a Parental Advisory sticker for this sort of post?

      • JWalters on September 4, 2015, 7:32 pm

        Are there tapes?

  16. annie on September 4, 2015, 12:15 pm

    jennifer rubin cranks it up. corry “crumbles in the face of White House pressure.” although she’d never say ‘crumbles in the face of lobby pressure’ had his vote gone the other way.

  17. bpm on September 4, 2015, 12:32 pm

    Yes, yes, of course. But Israel keeps on building on more stolen land. And Palestinians keep on dying, whether by bullet or a long, slow strangulation. Don’t be surprised if the next Gaza massacre will find renewed support in Congress by those trying to once again prove their loyalty to Zionism. Israel will continue its aggressive wars, both in Palestine and elsewhere. Now, the possibility of an Iranian nuclear capability to deter that aggression is dead. Israel is now in an even stronger position to continue its expansion and killing. This wasn’t a setback. But it helps Israel to pretend it was.

    • Pixel on September 4, 2015, 1:58 pm


      B.E.S.T. MondoW “custom picture” / comment round thing E.V.E.R!


      (If haters appear, ignore them.)

  18. Froggy on September 4, 2015, 12:38 pm

    ‘But I remind him about the famous and prophetic words of Elie Wiesel, whom I had asked Cory to meet with to discuss this deal, “We have learned to trust the threats of our enemies more than the promises of our friends.” ‘

    Okaaaay…. Let’s talk about the Samson Option.

  19. rensanceman on September 4, 2015, 12:39 pm

    Is it not time for the Administration to set in motion the proper wheels to require AIPAC to register as a lobby for a foreign government? And to join the IAEA bcause of its undeclared nuclear arsenal? And to honor the numerous Resolutions (u.n.) to cease abrogating the U.N Charter? To remove the Separation Wall as suggested by the ICC? As long as Zionism remains the guiding essential political dogma for Eretz Israel, we will witness a gathering critical mass of opposition to the Zionist state, and it will be transformed or destroyed. The more I learn of the evils inspired by the Zionist dogma, the more I am convinced that the main threat to our world’s security and well-being is Israel.

    • JWalters on September 4, 2015, 7:35 pm

      It’s very much time to do just this! JFK was trying to do exactly this when he was murdered.

    • Marnie on September 5, 2015, 10:47 am

      @ rensanceman – Yes on every point.

  20. Kathleen on September 4, 2015, 1:09 pm

    Just got through to Senator Bennet’s office in D.C. again. He just announced support for the deal! Yee haw. Folks here in Colorado have been working on him a great deal. Cardin of course voted against U.S. National Security and the standing Dem President and all of the work with the P5+1 along with Schumer and Menendez. What a sorry lot

    • Pixel on September 4, 2015, 2:01 pm

      You GO, gurl!

    • annie on September 4, 2015, 2:24 pm

      i just called jared huffman’s office (again) here in san rafael. he’s still undecided. the phone person said he was still consulting security experts. i asked if his office would disclose which security experts he was listening to. she said no. i mentioned a lot of things including that was a journalist and going to write about him if he didn’t come out in support of the deal and that people are talking about the need to primary him if he goes against it. i reminded her we’d been represented by lynn woolsey for a long time, that was the seat he was replacing, and if he thought he could get away this and still be considered progressive he had another thing coming.

      • Kathleen on September 4, 2015, 9:33 pm

        We worked hard on Bennet and Polis (still out on the issue) here in Colorado. Was in Ohio all summer and tried to stir up people to go after Senator Portman We knew Senator Brown would vote for. The congressional district I have property in Athens Ohio was ruled by Dems for decades (worked for so many candidates in Ohio my head spins when I think about it.) Strickland was our congress person for I believe at least 12 years then Governor. Now running for Senate in 2016. A great man and Rep. . I say keep pressuring them even if they are a Republican or Schumer until the vote is done.

        If Polis goes Israel’s way lets hope Boulder stirs up someone to run against him next time around.

    • Bandolero on September 4, 2015, 4:18 pm

      Cardin is even on the way of doing more to sabotage the deal than just to vote against it.

      Jewish Press reports that he plans to use his credentials as a ranking Democrat to bail out Netanyahu and the Republicans and introduce new legislation aimed at sabotaging the deal and undermining Obama:

      • Kathleen on September 4, 2015, 9:27 pm

        You want to take in just how seedy Cardin is go watch his last appearance on Cspan’s Washington Journal. Just go to Cspan’s website. He was hammered pretty hard for his die hare allegiance to Israel trumping his allegiance to the U.S.

  21. surewin on September 4, 2015, 1:20 pm

    Assuming that AIPAC continues to operate, despite U.S. laws regarding agents of foreign governments, in the meantime we might refer to it as RIPAC: Republican Israel Public Affairs Committee.

  22. rolf on September 4, 2015, 4:24 pm

    are politicians like Booker kidding, being condescending to the rest of the constituents?!
    “we never again see genocide in the world”?! huh? so what is israeli zionsim doing since 1948, for 66+ years, not WWII 6 years: “incremental genocide” as even admitted by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe 2014-07-13 is what – tickling Palestinians?!

    NAKBA is not a myth but fact.
    Amnon Neumann, Israeli solider admits and regrets partaking in zionist ethnic cleansing/genocide 1948, in this Zochrot interview 2010-06-17

    IDF defectors “Breaking the Silence” movement since 2006 is no joke.
    Shministim – 12th graders accept imprisonment over military service
    Conscientious Objectors are an israeli reality that israel & brainwashed West are hiding and ignoring this problem is exactly why nothing in the M.E. will ever be solved.
    Hence we destabilize the region, invent/finance/train Al Qaeda/Isis etc.

    Israel has been imposed on Palestine – which never caused the holocaust!
    Israel since inception is a rogue terrorist state, having been born out of the initial 20th C terrorist groups, inventors of modern terrorism in 1947-48: Irgun Zvai Leumi / Stern Gang / Hagganah

    Hanan Ashrawi (Palestinian legislator/activist/scholar) reminds us so well:
    “We are the ONLY PEOPLE on Earth asked to GUARANTEE the SECURITY of our OCCUPIER!
    While Israel is the ONLY COUNTRY that calls for DEFENSE from its VICTIMS!”

    • JWalters on September 4, 2015, 7:46 pm

      Hanan Ashrawi is brilliantly down to earth. It’s a crime who the zionists keep off America’s media. Suppressing discussion is the core of modern tyranny.

      I’m guessing Booker will turn out to be shocked to discover there’s mass murder going on here. Maybe he could write about his awakening for Mondoweiss.

  23. piotr on September 4, 2015, 7:38 pm

    “… a trip that I arranged trusting that he would absorb the never-ending Jewish struggle for survival in a world inhabited by the kind of evil represented by the Iranian regime”

    So how the Jewish people survived their never-ending struggle? Boteach has one giant contribution: good sex (and he keeps displaying his sex partner and numerous results with justified pride, not to mention books, articles and so on). I would strongly recommend him to follow his own advise.

  24. Kathleen on September 4, 2015, 9:30 pm

    We are at 38 yes votes for the Iran deal. Think 6 or 7 still out. Damn it will be an incredible day if we hit 41…. for diplomacy and peace. Schumer, Menendez, Cardin should be persistently hammered for their no votes. Hammered

    • ckg on September 4, 2015, 9:55 pm

      Rachel Maddow noted that Joe Manchin supports the Iran deal but not the filibuster. So we may need 42 at least.

      • Kathleen on September 5, 2015, 12:23 am

        Had not heard that Manchin announced yet

      • ckg on September 5, 2015, 7:45 am

        It was actually Maddow’s producer, Steve Benen, writing on MaddowBlog on Thursday:

        There are only seven Democrats remaining who have not yet announced their position: Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Gary Peters (Mich.), and Ron Wyden (Ore.). How many are prepared to partner with the far-right, even knowing the proposal is doomed? Watch this space.

        At the risk of making this needlessly complicated, there is just one additional angle I want to put on readers’ radar: some Dems who support the deal may not support a filibuster. Manchin, in particular, appears to fall into this camp.

        I mention this because it’s not, strictly speaking, a matter of counting heads. It’s possible, if not likely, that there will be at least 41 Senate Democrats supporting the policy, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there will be 41 votes for blocking the bill. How they vote on the process and legislative procedures matters.

      • Kathleen on September 5, 2015, 9:23 am

        Thanks ckg

  25. for-peace on September 5, 2015, 1:04 am

    In reading an article on Tomdispatch, I learned of the following passage from George Washington’s Farewell Address in 1796, at the end of his Presidency. I thought others might find interesting with respect to the topic at hand, as I did. The full address is here: .

    It is interesting to see how the first ever President of the U.S. could see something so self evident, so clearly, yet over the last hundred years, such a self evident truth has metamorphosed into a mishmash of excuses and exceptionalism, cultivated by nothing more than good old fashioned corruption and blackmail, only if applied relentlessly.

    In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

    So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

    As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

  26. yourstruly on September 5, 2015, 2:27 am

    Now that the myth about the invincibility of the Israel lobby has been shattered, how long before the special relationship between Israel and the U.S. is no more? A year? Five years? And with the U.S. no longer Israel’s guardian angel, will Jewish Israelis begin to doubt Israel’s long term viability? How widespread does such doubt have to be before those Israelis who have dual citizenship play it safe and take off for some other land? No problem, though, because there’ll be plenty of Palestinians eager and ready to exercise their right of return, thereby taking the place of Israelis who opt to live elsewhere. Gradually, then, the peaceful dissolution of Israel. In its place, Palestine rising, the homeland of people of various religions and ethnicities, living together peacefully based on equality and justice for all.

    • echinococcus on September 5, 2015, 3:14 am

      If I could pray, I’d pray that your optimist be justified.
      What’s to be considered at all times is that the owners of the US and the makers-and-shakers of Zionism are practically the same crowd. Now that the frontal attack to complete annexation and genocide in their openly fascist style failed, I’m sure they will start taking down the Yahoo and similar tendencies and start hyping up the more insidious practitioners of the same conquest and genocide, i.e. the “liberal” Zionists. This is now almost-happening-going-on-already-happened in the US. The openly retarded seem to be losing prestige and pull.
      If they manage the turn, I’m afraid we’ll have a more dangerous and more effective Zionist lobby for several years to come. I imagine that they will easily co-opt even the resistance solidarity types who are friendly with the “liberal” Zionits, the JVP and the like.

  27. Pixel on September 5, 2015, 4:47 am

    Speaking of the devil.

    You know, sometimes, I just have to get away from all of this for a little while – as far away as I can get in the comfort of my own chair.

    So, here I am, cruising around on my Chinese movie sites a minute ago looking for a little diversionary entertainment when who should appear…


  28. RobertHenryEller on September 5, 2015, 9:05 am

    Here’s a problem:

    The U.S. will substantially increase military aid to Israel. We know how they will use it.

    Netanyahu will claim credit for the U.S. increase in military aid to Israel, while continuing to decry the “existential threat” of Iran. Israeli’s for the most part will swallow this. Netanyahu will be politically strengthened, not weakened. And Israel will if anything, move further, not closer, to releasing Palestinians from the Israeli concentration camp.

  29. NickJOCW on September 5, 2015, 9:14 am

    Opponents now find themselves in a position where, if they persist in opposition, they will be opposing the will of their President, over half the US electorate, the Security Council, world opinion, and the global industrial community, which, let’s face it, is a pretty heady place to find yourself for the doubtful benefits of having supported Bibi Netanyahu in a fast changing environment.

  30. traintosiberia on September 5, 2015, 10:14 am
    I kind of agree with Zogby .Netanyahu was not defeated or wounded . Neither Isreal.
    AIPAC also has benefitted from this months long year long 24/7 attention,meetings,announcement expressions.entreaties and requests made by one side to the other in most abject dependent servile apologetic manners possible .
    Somewhere down there is the possibility that the impotence and abuse of the US Lawmakers have been picked up both by the lawmakers and the citizen and one day payback would be in the order .

  31. RobertHenryEller on September 5, 2015, 10:38 am

    James Zogby has a more sober view of who has won and who has lost in the battle over the Iran deal.

    Conclusion: Netanyahu has not lost; Palestinians lost.

    • just on September 5, 2015, 11:01 am

      Good article, RHE.

      Zogby put into words my feelings exactly:

      “… In the first place, since the mid-1990’s Netanyahu and AIPAC have sought to divert US focus from the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” to Iran. They succeeded. Two decades later, with Israel having moved to the far right and the Palestinians in near total disarray, there is no longer any serious discussion of Israeli-Palestinian peace.

      I would like to see President Obama pivot from his Iran deal “victory” to an international effort to end the occupation and secure Palestinian rights–but I’m not holding my breath. Having pushed senators to buck AIPAC on the deal, I suppose that the White House will hesitate before challenging Israel one more time.

      Next, by throwing what amounted to a political and diplomatic tantrum, the Israeli side succeeded in making itself the center of attention for the Administration and Congress. In the last few months, there were more meetings held, more hours spent, and more effort expended on reassuring Israel and its supporters of America’s “unbreakable, unshakable” commitment, than in any period in our history. Not a week went by without reports of the President, Vice-President, or Secretary of State holding hours of meetings with supporters of Israel attempting to explain the deal and reaffirm their commitment.

      I’ve often described Netanyahu’s bad behavior to that of a spoiled child who knows that when he misbehaves not only will there be no punishment, instead the over-indulgent parent will offer more love. The net effect has been the recognition that bad behavior not only makes you the center of attention, it also has the potential of reaping rewards. …”

      I became exhausted and disgusted with the focus on Israel/Jewish voters 24/7. Little to zero effort was expended on the rest of the citizens of the US or the world. I do hope that others were paying close attention to this and that Zogby is right when he writes “But change is coming and dissent is fermenting.”

      • NickJOCW on September 5, 2015, 4:27 pm

        Maybe, and I suspect we will find the game changer is Russia, in alliance with Iran, Lebanon, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria (with or without Assad long-term), Cairo, and Jordan (when the time is ripe), all gathered together for the ostensible common purpose of first resolving the Syrian mess, followed by defeating ISIS and associated extremists. Once up and running this group will alter the face of the ME, and Israel will find itself truly surrounded by those who demand a blunt solution to the Palestine issue in accordance with UN resolutions and international law, and a nuclear free ME. No threat of any kind to Israel’s security which they will all doubtless be happy to join the US in vouching to support.

      • Boomer on September 6, 2015, 12:28 pm

        re: “I would like to see President Obama pivot from his Iran deal “victory” to an international effort to end the occupation and secure Palestinian rights–but I’m not holding my breath.”

        me too

      • CigarGod on September 6, 2015, 12:32 pm

        Maybe as soon as the deal is securely behind us. But who knows what promises were made to get the votes.

  32. Kay24 on September 5, 2015, 11:14 am

    So, one more obvious zionist supporter and devotee of Israel makes the wrong decision:

    “Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) said Friday that he will vote against a landmark nuclear agreement with Iran, breaking with President Obama and the vast majority of his party over a pact that has been condemned by the Israeli government and key Jewish American leaders.”


  33. piotr on September 6, 2015, 1:05 pm

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz made “difficult decision”, I could object to her statement, but I prefer to note a nice talking point: “the conclusion that we cannot now get a better deal, as I was unable to find a credible source to say otherwise.”

    In spite of considerable effort of herself and numerous staff. As we discussed, it should be a no-brainer that scuttling the deal/accord would hardly help Israel and it would hurt USA a lot. Once USA accumulates a lot of nonsense in foreign policy, it may loose support even among the sycophants.

    To cite other on-going nonsense, (1) still no daylight with extremist GoI (2) cooperation with the inhumane war of GCC on Yemen (3) unconstructive, to put it mildly, policy on Ukraine (4) assorted retrograde policies like proliferating the use of cluster bombs, foot dragging on global warming, woeful human right record on Guantanamo and torture etc. But here our sycophantic allies who put up with all of that already signaled that they would go ahead with dropping sanctions on their side regardless of what Congress will do. USA would get itself isolated over Congressional idiocy. Which could be beneficial given obnoxious outcomes of American influence on the above points, but that should prompt the retrograde-minded members of Congress to support the deal.

  34. Bandolero on September 6, 2015, 5:59 pm

    Oh, that thing is intersting. Chris Wallace blasts Dick Cheney during a live intervoew on Fox news:

    Dick Cheney faces surprise accusation on his own foreign policy

    “You and President Bush, the Bush-Cheney administration, dealt with Iran for eight years,” Chris Wallace, the host of “Fox News Sunday,” pointed out in an interview Sunday. And during that time, the host continued, “Iran went from zero known [nuclear] centrifuges in operation to more than 5,000.”

    The Fox News host flashed that data on screen so no one could miss it, and added: “So in fairness, didn’t you leave — the Bush-Cheney administration — leave President Obama with a mess?”

    “Well, I don’t think of it that way,” Cheney countered. “In fact, there was military action that had an impact on the Iranians. It was when we took down Saddam Hussein. There was a period of time when they stopped their program because they were scared that what we did to Saddam, we were going to do to them next.”

    “But the centrifuges went from zero to 5,000,” Wallace pressed.

    “Well, they may well have gone but that happened on Obama’s watch, not on our watch,” Cheney replied.

    “No, no, no,” Wallace said. “By 2009, they were at 5,000.”

    “Right,” said Cheney, who seemed to be losing air from somewhere in his lower back. “But I think we did a lot to deal with the arms control problem in the Middle East.”


    • CigarGod on September 6, 2015, 6:54 pm

      Nice catch.
      Looks like Liz is having Daddy take her around again.
      Last time she ran for senate here in Wyoming, she got her butt kicked. Being with Daddy while Chris kicks Dick’s butt, insn’t going to improve her chances next time.

  35. Nevada Ned on September 7, 2015, 11:39 pm

    Debacle for the Israel Lobby….and a big defeat for Nevada’s Shelly Berkley!

Leave a Reply