Trending Topics:

Define ‘establishment candidate’: Rubio and Clinton both love Netanyahu

US Politics
on 43 Comments

One of the main storylines coming out of Iowa is that two Establishment candidates won out there. Hillary Clinton, with her razor thin margin over Bernie Sanders. And Senator Marco Rubio, with his surprising 3d place finish at 23 percent, just behind Donald Trump. Both are hailed as Establishment candidates, and the mainstream press is firming up around them out of fear of the abyss that is represented by Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The New York Times endorsed Clinton for the nomination, and Chris Matthews embraced Clinton last night. The Washington Post and Paul Krugman have led the vilification effort against Sanders.

One sign of Rubio and Clinton’s acceptability to the Establishment is the love they share: they both praise Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And both have sought to advance their campaigns by kissing up to Israel.

Rubio has promised that on his first day in office he would tear up the Iran deal. Hillary Clinton has promised that on her first day in office she would invite Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to visit the White House within a month. So love for Israel is the definition of an Establishment candidate.

Let’s look at Marco Rubio first. His Iowa showing has solidified his status as the neoconservative favorite, with all the contributions that flow from such an endorsement. Noah Pollak of the Emergency Committee for Israel tweeted today:

Friend in Republican donor-world: “Out of respect they’re waiting a week before leaving Jeb for Marco, but emotionally they’re already gone”

Eli Clifton reports at Lobelog that Rubio is now poised to win the vaunted Sheldon Adelson primary, the candidate on whom the billionaire would pour his resources. He says Rubio has

made a crucial play for the long-sought endorsement from casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam. If secured, their support could unlock the key to as much as $100 million in supportive super PAC spending, if the past presidential election cycle is any indication as to their future political investments.

Going into last night, Rubio struggled to secure the most important endorsement of the hawkish pro-Israel wing of the Republican Party. To be clear, he had the next best thing: the endorsement of billionaire hedge funder Paul Singer who contributed $2.5 million to a super PAC supporting Rubio and held fundraisers for the candidate. Singer, like Adelson, is a generous supporter to groups and politicians that have opposed the White House’s diplomatic efforts to constrain Iran’s nuclear program. They are both board members of the neoconservative and pro-Likud Republican Jewish Coalition.

Rubio, like Singer, has staked out hawkish foreign policy positions. He cryptically accused Obama of betraying “the commitment this nation has made to the right of a Jewish state to exist in peace.” Pledging his unconditional support to Israel if elected president, Rubio promised he would “absolutely” revoke the Iran nuclear deal if elected president.

As you read that, remember that Adelson called on Obama to nuke Iran, that Donald Trump said that Adelson would mold Rubio into his “perfect little puppet,” and that Paul Singer is a liberal on such issues as marriage equality. But Israel comes first for him.

Last month David Corn called out Rubio at Mother Jones: “Is Marco Rubio a Sleeper Agent for Netanyahu? Why else would the GOP presidential candidate oppose US intelligence keeping an eye on Israel?” Corn focused on an ad in which Rubio attacked Obama for the news that the US had spied on Netanyahu during the Iran deal, so as to counter his moves.

as part of his indictment of Obama, Rubio huffs, “He spies on Israel.”

Rubio’s message seems to be that a strong and effective US leader would not spy on Israel, and that Rubio would not green-light espionage operations that keep an eye on that nation…

Yet Rubio, a favorite of Likud-loving neocons (and reportedly Adelson), castigates Obama for spying on Israel and its spies. Would he really turn off all US espionage programs focused on Israel, which would give the Israelis a free hand to continue their intelligence operations against the United States?

Rubio got his start at a national level with the backing of Norman Braman, a Florida billionaire who regards Israel as the necessary historical answer to the Holocaust, when Jews went like lambs to the slaughter in his view; and that the U.S. must back Israel for it to survive. Rubio first went to Israel just days after he was elected to the Senate in 2010, with Braman.

Now let’s move to Hillary Clinton. Being the establishment candidate on the Democratic side also means being Netanyahu’s friend. Clinton has already won the Haim Saban primary in her party; last summer she promised the megadonor that she would work with Republicans to oppose the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign aimed at Israel.

Then last December she went further, telling the Saban Forum at the Brookings Institution during a conference on the future of Israel and Palestine (to which no Palestinian speakers were invited), that Israel’s “prowess” in war is “inspiring”, that she and the Jewish state were born within months of one another, and she would take the relationship between the U.S. and Israel to “the next level.” That means on her very first day in office she would reach out to Netanyahu:

on the first day I would extend an invitation to the Israeli prime minister to come to the United States hopefully within the first month, certainly as soon as it could be arranged to do exactly what I briefly outlined. To work toward very much strengthening and intensifying our relationship on military matters, on terrorism and on everything else that we can do more to cooperate on that will send a strong message to our own peoples as well as the rest of the world. So that is on my list for the first day.
Marjorie Cohn at Truthdig reminds us of Clinton’s obedient service to Israel after it slaughtered 2100 Palestinians in 2014, including 500 children.

When [Jeffrey] Goldberg asked Clinton whom she held responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian children, she demurred, saying, “[I]t’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war.” She blamed only the Palestinians, saying, “There’s no doubt in my mind that Hamas initiated this conflict.” Claiming “Israel has a right to defend itself,” she said, “I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets.”

Cohn says that Clinton affects cluelessness on the cause of the conflict, and international condemnation of the Gaza slaughter:

Yet Clinton was puzzled by what she calls “this enormous international reaction against Israel,” adding, “This reaction is uncalled for and unfair.”

She attributed the “enormous international reaction” to “a number of factors” but only mentioned anti-Semitism, never citing Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands or its periodic massacres in Gaza.

A wonderful piece of reporting by Peter Beinart from last year is now circulating on the net, in which he showed that Clinton has sided with Netanyahu again and again, against the Obama administration and even her own husband’s policies.

In her book [Hard Choices], Hillary also implies that Obama pressured Netanyahu too much. In 2009, in a widely reported encounter, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told Obama, “If you want Israel to take risks, then its leaders must know that the United States is right next to them.” Obama disagreed. “When there is no daylight,” he said, “Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states.” In “Hard Choices,” Hillary takes Hoenlein’s side. “I learned,” she writes, “that Bibi would fight if he felt he was being cornered, but if you connected with him as a friend, there was a chance you could get something done together.”

So eager is Hillary to prove that Netanyahu responded to her reassurances that she abandons the parameters for a two-state solution her husband famously laid out in 2000. In “Hard Choices,” she mentions that Abbas “said that he could live with an Israeli military deployment in the Jordan Valley for a few years beyond the establishment of a new state,” while Netanyahu “insisted that Israeli troops remain along the border for many decades without a fixed date for withdrawal.” Hillary deems these two perspectives equally valid, and even sees in Bibi’s a glimmer of hope. “I thought that was a potentially significant opening,” she writes. “If the conversation was about years, not decades or months, then perhaps the right mix of international security support and advanced border protection tactics and techniques could bridge the gap.”

What Hillary doesn’t mention is that Abbas’ approach conforms to the Clinton parameters – the very document she elsewhere in the book slams Yasser Arafat for not accepting – which propose that Israel leave the Jordan Valley in three years. Netanyahu’s approach, by contrast, flagrantly contradicts those parameters.

In the year since Hillary released her book, she’s done this again and again: Embraced Netanyahu’s perspective even though it eviscerates her husband’s, and Obama’s, vision of a viable Palestinian state.

It’s more understandable that Marco Rubio is running with Netanyahu at his side. Apart from Trump’s possible jibes, what’s the downside? The Christian Zionist branch of the Israel lobby pervades the Republican grass roots. And the rightwing Jewish branch of the lobby, neoconservatism, defines the Republican establishment. So Rubio is a neoconservative “sleeper agent” for the prime minister, as Mother Jones put it in its sensational headline. Though if Donald Trump finds himself in a struggle to the death with Rubio, we can expect him to go after neoconservative donors, in much the way he made fun of the Republican Jewish Coalition for wanting to buy its candidates.

As for Democrats, many despise Netanyahu– Netanyahu ought to be a liability for the Democratic base. Last year two-thirds of Democrats opposed Netanyahu’s appearance at Congress when he defied our president on the Iran deal; only 12 percent of Democrats had a favorable view of him. That number is surely even lower among African-Americans and the young. Of course, the Israel lobby is still such a powerful force in the Democratic Party that even the president was fawning to the Netanyahu administration last week at the Israeli Embassy, but the liberal Zionist branch of the Israel lobby (J Street, Beinart, Peace Now) doesn’t like Netanyahu either. But that’s the establishment! Bernie Sanders is an anti-establishment candidate. Shouldn’t he be running against Netanyahu right now? He wants to expose substantive differences between himself and Clinton. This is one of them.

Thanks to Jewish Insider, James North, Hazel Kahan, Annie Robbins and Adam Horowitz.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

43 Responses

  1. kalithea
    February 3, 2016, 2:00 pm

    I’m glad you put this out there. The primary lineup is beyond pathetic, but it’s still important to make clear who is an establishment candidate and is the least likely to break from the mold.

    Bernie and Trump are making huge mistakes already in their post Iowa stumps. Trump is doing exactly the opposite of what I wrote earlier he should be doing; as a matter of fact he’s taking his vindictiveness over the edge with Cruz and that’s a huge mistake because while he’s obsessing over Cruz’s win in Iowa; Rubio is sprinting to 1st place. Why isn’t he attacking Rubio’s establishment creds? He’s an idiot taking on Cruz in NH when Cruz is slated for 3rd place there. And he considers himself savvy and the smartest guy in the room…oh bruuuther!

    Bernie oh Bernie! What a blunder attacking Hillary’s social and domestic progressive values, when there is so much foreign policy baggage to unpack with her!

    The problem with Sanders is that he and Hillary are not that far apart on social and domestic issues, so he should stop attacking her in this arena except where it concerns special interest funding and billionaire donors, like Saban and her Lobby accreditation.

    Instead he needs to distinguish himself on foreign policy issues! He’ll never make it past New Hampshire if he continues to hide his foreign policy strategy and it can’t be two degrees of separation from Hillary’s either. His constituents in Vermont are looking for a harder line with Israel and so are progressives everywhere else, and even some Jews. He can get more Independent support and progressive support if he adopts at a minimum a Rand Paul position on foreign policy; heck maybe he’ll even pick up some Libertarians now that Paul is out of the race.

    He needs to expose Hillary’s weakness is foreign policy because she’s a hawk and emphasize her blunders on Iraq, Libya and Syria and that she’ll continue down the disastrous path of the past 20 years! He needs to attack her on the Patriot Act and unconstitutional NSA surveillance that she supports, and finally adopt a different position on Israel! He can’t continue to stand on the wrong side of history and international law in this regard! Foreign policy decisions over the past 20 years have successively led to disastrous consequences in every sense including financially! There are so many blunders to exploit in this terrain.

    He would generate a heck of a lot more enthusiasm as he leaves New Hampshire for other states if he rolls out his foreign policy instead of hiding behind it; because if he continues acting coy; deliberately rebuffing questions on Israel and shying away from foreign policy; he’s done after NH. Does he really think he can advance with an ambiguous foreign policy agenda? Hell no! He’s not running for CFO; he’s running for CEO aka POTUS and his denial has got to go or he’s finished.

    • echinococcus
      February 3, 2016, 3:15 pm

      Well said, Kallithea. He won’t do it because he is a Zionist; while the authors here decry the “establishment” candidates’ loyalty to Netanyahoo/AIPAC, they somehow don’t even mention Sanders’ Zionist Bloc/Labor/J-Street angle.

      Can we now please look at it, not from the “establishment – non-establishment” angle, but from the viewpoint of a Palestinian, a Nakba’ed-then Gaza’ed-then repeatedly shot and bombed Gazan, let’s say.

      Where is the difference? Spell it out.

      • Krauss
        February 3, 2016, 4:09 pm

        I confess to be a Sanders supporter, so I’m naturally biased, but I do not think it’s correct to assume that he’ll be on the same level as Hillary. Progress takes time. If Sanders would by some small miracle get the nomination, he’d be better than Obama on I/P without any question, but he’d still be pretty terrible on the issue.

        Hillary would notch up the slaving to a whole ‘nother level. Sanders wouldn’t outright go for BDS, but I don’t think he’s the kind of person who swears personal loyalty to Saban on BDS. I doubt he’d get involved in the campus wars.

        Remember when some Palestinan activists got thrown out from a Sanders rally(by a Jewish Zionist volunteer from the looks of it) for comparing Ferguson to Gaza? Sanders’ campaign immediatedly clarified that they were welcome back and she got fired.

        Now imagine if it had been Clinton. She’d have applauded them getting kicked out and would probably even run off to her Zionist donors trying to fundraise off the issue while it was still hot. Also, since Sanders is Jewish, it would give cover to criticise Israel more for those with weak spines in the liberal press(meaning, most of them).

      • echinococcus
        February 3, 2016, 9:27 pm


        I think you put it very well. The difference is not sufficient to make any kind of change in the end result of US participation and complicity in Zionist crime (the measurable outcome being the effect on Palestinian rights), yet it falsely appears different to American eyes.
        The support that you and millions of well-intentioned people give to this operation (lured by image) distracts from any more effective protest, until it becomes too late in the election game to be doing anything more serious (i.e. until Sanders throws his support to the Empress at the primary).

    • Kris
      February 3, 2016, 4:57 pm

      @Kalithea: “The problem with Sanders is that he and Hillary are not that far apart on social and domestic issues,…

      Actually, they are far apart on many important social and domestic issues; here are a few of the ways:

      3. Sanders wants to end the prohibition of marijuana. Clinton does not.

      4. Sanders wants to end the death penalty. Clinton does not.

      5. Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Clinton does not.

      6. Sanders wants to break up the biggest banks. Clinton does not.

      7. Sanders voted against the Wall Street bailout. Clinton did not.

      8. Sanders introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United. Clinton did not.

      9. Sanders refuses to accept money from super PACs. Clinton does not.

      10. Sanders supports a single-payer healthcare system. Clinton does not.

      11. Sanders refrains from waging personal attacks for political gains. Clinton does not.

      12. Sanders considers climate change our nation’s biggest threat. Clinton does not.

      13. Sanders opposed the Keystone XL Pipeline since day one. Clinton did not.

      14. Sanders voted against the Patriot Act. Clinton did not.

      There are other issues on which they are diametrically opposed as well, such as mandatory GMO labelling, free tuition at public universities, the for-profit prisons industry, etc.

      • amigo
        February 3, 2016, 5:31 pm

        Kris , given that list of issues Clinton is opposed to , shouldn,t she just go ahead and join the GOP.

      • Kris
        February 3, 2016, 6:12 pm

        Amigo, since Clinton is basically a Republican, what could be better for her backers than for Clinton to win the Democratic nomination?

        Then if Clinton wins, her backers will win, and if the Republican nominee wins, they will still win.

      • kalithea
        February 3, 2016, 6:29 pm

        Okay, there’s differences, but here’s one difference you didn’t mention that affects his viability:

        Everyone knows Hillary is a centrist and right of centre on Israel; but the difference between she and he is that she isn’t a hypocrite when it comes to Israel. Everyone knows she’s a hawk in general and she hasn’t concealed that; so her foreign policy is pretty consistent and not that inconsistent with her centrist domestic policy either.

        But Bernie is a total hypocrite, because he’s obviously a real progressive; but he hasn’t proven he’s progressive and liberal when it comes to Israel, when it comes to human rights to an enclave ruled by Jews inflicting oppression on another nation, therefore when it regards rights legal and social for Palestinians.

        Now for me; the biggest disparity between them is that she actually has more political integrity even though I can’t stand her or her policies, while he lacks that integrity at least up to now, and in fact Obama suffered from a similar problem although it’s everyone’s perception that was really flawed in 2004.

        Obama was in fact more centrist than the public wanted to believe and did a good job of hiding it in the primaries. Everyone was so desperate to get something radically different from Bush that there was a whole lot of denial and delusion afflicting his progressive supporters.

        Hopefully progressives have learned a lesson from the Obama experience and will demand integrity and commitment from Bernie now rather than projecting their hopes on someone who in reality is not what they imagine him to be.

        Let’s not forget that Obama was against the war in Iraq as well; but look how he turned out: drone killings, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and of course pandering to Israel with greater funding and more weapons and zero support for the Palestinian peaceful initiative. He was a total fraud.

        I’m saying that people shouldn’t get swept up in the whole domestic progressive issue with Sanders and let him use that façade to cover the fact that he’s not really progressive when it comes to foreign policy and the issue of Israel and rights for Palestinians.

        His feet should be held to the fire on foreign policy now rather than being fooled again by a progressive veneer. I kind of suspect that at his age change doesn’t come easy, but someone who’s pushing a political revolution better be transparent and be ready to demonstrate consistency and integrity. Otherwise he’s just another fraud, like Obama.

      • echinococcus
        February 3, 2016, 9:09 pm


        Is any of these things a solidarity site with Palestinian resistance has to agree to? Both the so-called duopoly Parties are complicit in all Zionist crimes, so one may imagine that preference for one or the other should be out of bounds. I’d hate to see a place I come to for reading about Palestinian solidarity transformed into yet another US electoral propaganda hell.

      • Atlantaiconoclast
        February 4, 2016, 11:24 am

        If Sanders really cared about income inequality, he would work to end the Federal Reserve.

  2. Krauss
    February 3, 2016, 3:55 pm

    I don’t focus so much on the GOP primary. The press loves a horse race, but demographically the GOP is already finished. I kind of hope that Rubio wins, because it will show that the mythological “moderate” hispanic candidate who embraces amnesty and endless foreign wars is never going to win an election.

    That’s why I keep donating to Sanders, because the real election is right now. Whoever gets the democratic nod gets the White House. Those are the rules now. The U.S. is turning into one large California, permanent democratic control.

    That being said, it was obvious from 3000 miles away that Hillary was going to be slavish to Israel in a way that even Obama never was. This is why I’ve been calling for the understanding that even if the grassroots are gone for the lobby, it will take a decade or more for this to make a significant impact.

    Secondly, the most powerful aspect of the lobby isn’t AIPAC or J Street, it’s the media. Look at this attack from someone who is often understood as a liberal against Sweden’s FM for daring to criticise Israel:

    This is a guy who has built a reputation of taking on the settlers. This is classic, virtue signalling by taking on the (easy) targets of the settler youth, but whenever there is any *real* pressure on Israel, they all fall back into line, shoulder to shoulder, defending Israel to death.

    This media presence is what separates white Apartheid from Jewish apartheid. Nobody defended white Apartheid in the Western media in the 70s and 80s aside from a few token examples. The opposite is the case on Israel.

    Basically the Jewish establishment in the media has to be taken on, and nobody is willing to do that because A) there is no critical mass, and nobody wants to be the martyr and B) many of the pre-supposed critics are already in relationships with members of the Jewish establishment, either as spouses or as close friends. The reality is that the Palestinian presence is virutally nil in the U.S. media so there’s simply no contest there and most of the non-Jews in the media are too cowardly to call out their Jewish friends/spouses on their racism vis-a-vis Jewish Apartheid/Palestinians. You see this all the time.

    The white establishment has merged, we see that with Trump(two of his kids have Jewish spouses, his doctor and some of his closest advisors are Jews), Clinton(self-explanatory) and of course Bernie, who is fully assimilated but who nevertheless retains a sentimental attachment to Zionism. Neither of the people in that establishment will call out the Jews in their circles. Who in Bernie’s circle is going to stand up to him? Now think about the same situation in the media.

    People underestimate the importance of sociology and personal relationships. So even if I agree with those that say that we can’t wait for the Jewish community to rid themselves of the racism, my counter is that many of the elites are already very comfortable with Jews in general and aren’t comfortable at all with Palestinians(as brown muslims).

    Ultimately, what helped white Apartheid to fall is that white liberals turned against it, especially in the media and in the universities. Until elite Jewish liberals in the media/academia turn against Jewish apartheid, nobody in their circle will force them. The only way out I can see is a critical mass of muslim activists, but right now they are too few and too weak and most of them are dealing with issues of Islamophobia in the U.S.

    My guess is that most of these Jewish elites will unlikely find their anti-racist voice because for so many of them, Zionism is basically what their identity revolves around. As Max Blumenthal said (somewhat acidly), remove Zionism and they are just another conventional white liberal. They have no other identity aside from Zionism that set them apart from their Christian white liberal counterparts.

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      February 4, 2016, 11:10 am

      This is why it is so foolish to expect any real change in policy till the masses turn against Israel. There will always be powerful elites who support Israel, no matter what it does. But if the masses learn the truth about what Israel has done to the US, it is finished. Too many are afraid to take this route, out of fear of being called “conspiracy theorists” and anti Semites. But it is the only way to get meaningful change.

  3. Herchel
    February 3, 2016, 7:04 pm

    Between Trump, Cruz, Clinton and Carson, nearly all the front runners are pro-Israel. (Sanders’ embrace of Israel may not be as tight as the others but he’s a huge improvement over the current occupant of the White House)… So tell me again how the tides of American opinion are supposedly turning? Regardless of who wins in November, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel will win. I know it’s easier to perpetuate your fantasy world by telling yourself that one old Jew in Las Vegas is to blame for all this… but the reality is that civilized people tend to support other civilized people on their own – particularly when they are surrounded by […].

    • eljay
      February 3, 2016, 8:00 pm

      || Herchel: … the reality is that civilized people tend to support other civilized people on their own … ||

      It’s good to know that when the tide finally does turn against the Zio-supremacist, (war) criminal state of Israel and justice, accountability and equality are finally applied to the I-P issue:
      – you will continue acknowledge the reality of civilized people tending to support other civilized people; and
      – you won’t suddenly starting screaming anti-Semitism and “Jew hatred”.

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      February 4, 2016, 11:04 am

      One day, maybe not till after I die, an American leader will come forward who is not afraid to tell the truth about Israel, and what it has done to the US. When that happens, wave goodbye to your precious Israel.

    • bryan
      February 4, 2016, 3:03 pm

      Herchel: “civilized people tend to support other civilized people on their own – particularly when they are surrounded by […].”

      Looking at the leading contender in the current Presidential race (an utterly illiberal misogynistic racist) the jury is probably out as to whether Americans (who I assume you are refering to) qualify as a civilised people, but you are probably right when you claim they support a savage people “committed to causing death and destruction.”

    • Annie Robbins
      February 4, 2016, 5:25 pm

      not sure how that completely racist comment made it thru moderation. sorry everyone.

      • Mooser
        February 5, 2016, 1:12 pm

        “not sure how that completely racist comment made it thru moderation.”

        Is maybe somebody practicing transcendental moderation?

      • Annie Robbins
        February 5, 2016, 2:21 pm

        ha ha ;) not i!

      • Herchel
        February 6, 2016, 4:33 pm

        There actually is a lot of racism in the world. It’s too bad that many who experienced have to deal with the boy who cried Wolf syndrome due to pathetic claims like this.

        Stabbing a 65-year-old woman walking down the street for no other reason than the fact she is Jewish is savagery. It is what they do or try to do every single day. So sorry if it offends your delicate sensibilities but that, by definition, makes them savages.,7340,L-4762614,00.html

      • oldgeezer
        February 6, 2016, 4:49 pm


        Yeah the idf and border guards shooting unarmed kids is as bad if not worse. That makes israelis and israel even less than savages. Beyond redemption.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 6, 2016, 5:04 pm

        slaughtering a child holding a pair of scissors, who could easily be subdued, is immoral and disgusting and could only be applauded in a gravely demented and brainwashed society.

      • Mooser
        February 6, 2016, 8:08 pm

        “It is what they do or try to do every single day. So sorry if it offends your delicate sensibilities but that, by definition, makes them savages.”

        Shhhh! I’m doing transcendental moderating! Okay, sitting in lotus position, now for the mantra: ‘Lethimmakeanassofhimself,lethimmakeanassofhimself…’

  4. kalithea
    February 3, 2016, 8:21 pm

    First of all your comment is sickening on many levels, but bigotry like this is really over the top: but the reality is that civilized people tend to support other civilized people on their own – particularly when they are surrounded by savage radical islamists and frankly, I’m surprised you get away with it.

    Approximately 320 million of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world live in the neighborhood where your Zionist friends and maybe even you decided to squat and steal land from the Palestinians. So I suggest you take your bigotry and your supremacist bull and move to another neighborhood if you think you’re all so superior and surrounded by savages, cause the round hole ain’t gonna square for your ignorant peg any time soon or EVER.

    Yeah, you got it all covered for now with the American political charade parade, but you ain’t the masters of the universe you brag to be — more like a real annoying pain in the ass. And that’s about the size of your importance on this planet.

    • Mooser
      February 4, 2016, 3:26 pm

      “…I’m surprised you get away with it.”

      I think that the Mods have just about realized that Zionists like Herchel transcend moderation. Try to moderate “Herch” and his pals to some kind of grown-up standard? If that was enforced, all it would do is clear the field for more”liberal Zionist” obfuscation.

      Besides, he interests me. How do you grow a person like that? I wouldn’t have thought it could be done on our diet. New advances in fungiculture, must be.

    • Herchel
      February 9, 2016, 8:12 pm

      Wow, so now there were 320 Million palestinians in present-day Israel before the “nakba”?

  5. Bandolero
    February 3, 2016, 9:22 pm

    At a German weblog, published by a former campaign manager of Willy Brand, I recently found an image displaying the differences between Bernie, Hillary and the Republicans, which I found quite convincing:

  6. echinococcus
    February 3, 2016, 9:41 pm

    Propaganda, i.e. lie and dissimulation re Vote on War. Ricocheting all the way from Germany? Why, it’s a US product.

  7. Atlantaiconoclast
    February 4, 2016, 11:02 am

    America could have had Ron Paul. It didn’t deserve him.

  8. James Canning
    February 4, 2016, 1:31 pm

    Does Marco Rubio think the Palestinians should be forced out of the West Bank? Sheldon Adelson apparently takes this view.

  9. JLewisDickerson
    February 4, 2016, 9:30 pm

    RE: “Eli Clifton reports at Lobelog that Rubio is now poised to win the vaunted Sheldon Adelson primary, the candidate on whom the billionaire would pour his resources. He says Rubio has made a crucial play for the long-sought endorsement from casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam. If secured, their support could unlock the key to as much as $100 million in supportive super PAC spending, if the past presidential election cycle is any indication as to their future political investments. . . As you read that, remember that Adelson called on Obama to nuke Iran, that Donald Trump said that Adelson would mold Rubio into his “perfect little puppet,” . . . ~ Weiss

    AS YOU READ THE ABOVE REGARDING RUBIO’S BEING POISED TO WIN THE VAUNTED ‘SHELDON ADELSON PRIMARY’ (which could net Rubio as much as $100 million in supportive super PAC spending), BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID!
    BUT, DON’T LET THAT KEEP YOU FROM ENJOYING THIS HILARIOUS TAKEDOWN OF THE ‘SHELDON ADELSON PRIMARY’ (renamed “Sheldon Adelson’s Menagerie” and imbued with a bit of Tennessee-Williamsesque Southern Gothic* ambience.
    * [Wikipedia (Southern Gothic): [I]n the works of leading figures such as William Faulkner, Carson McCullers and Flannery O’Connor, the representation of the South blossomed into an absurdist critique of modernity as a whole.]
    Sheldon Adelson’s Menagerie (by Mark Fiore):

    Published on Apr 7, 2014 by Mark Fiore
    In case you missed it, a number of potential Republican presidential candidates went down to Las Vegas to bow at the feet of Sheldon Adelson, democracy-meddling billionaire extraordinaire. It was a pretty sorry sight as each of the potential candidates tried to out-Israel and out-tough the other as they vied for Adelson’s attention. (You can read more at )

    • Stay up-to-date with the latest animation!

    • Follow me on Twitter:!/markfiore

    • or on Facebook:

    • And of course, there’s an iPhone app!

  10. JLewisDickerson
    February 4, 2016, 10:10 pm

    RE: “On the first day I would extend an invitation to the Israeli prime minister[presumtively Netanyahu] to come to the United States hopefully within the first month, certainly as soon as it could be arranged to do exactly what I briefly outlined. To work toward very much strengthening and intensifying our relationship on military matters, on terrorism and on everything else that we can do more to cooperate on that will send a strong message to our own peoples as well as the rest of the world. So that is on my list for the first day.” ~ Hillary Clinton

    BILL CLINTON’S FIRST IMPRESSION OF NETANYAHU: In 1996, Bill Clinton remarked privately after his first meeting with Bibi, “Who the fuck does he think he is? Who’s the fucking superpower here?”*

    * SEE: “Perfect English or Not, Netanyahu Shares No Common Language With Obama” | By Akiva Eldar | | February 10, 2009

    [EXCERPT] . . . Netanyahu will find it hard to woo the new administration with empty promises to unfreeze negotiations and freeze the settlements. Presumably, former president Bill Clinton did not conceal his opinion of Bibi from his wife. If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has forgotten Bibi’s tricks then Dennis Ross, who was the coordinator of the peace process in the Clinton administration and is an advisor to Obama, can refer her to his book “The Missing Peace.”

    There he quotes president Clinton’s reaction to Bibi’s retreat from a commitment.

    “At times he was tough,” writes Ross, “yelling at Bibi when he retracted an earlier pledge on Palestinian prisoners. ‘This is just chicken shit. I’m not going to put up with this kind of bullshit.'”

    Aaron David Miller, who was Ross’ deputy, also documented the days of Bibi and Bill. In his book “The Much Too Promised Land,” Miller relates that during their first meeting in the summer of 1996, Bibi lectured the president about the Arab-Israeli issue, prompting Clinton to expostulate when it was over, “Who the fuck does he think he is? Who’s the fucking superpower here?”

    Most definite of all is Joe Lockhart, who was the White House spokesman at the time. In a recorded interview to Clayton Swisher, author of the book “The Truth About Camp David,” he described Netanyahu as “one of the most obnoxious individuals you’re going to come into – just a liar and a cheat. He could open his mouth and you could have no confidence that anything that came out of it was the truth.” . . .


    • JLewisDickerson
      February 4, 2016, 10:18 pm

      P.S. ALSO SEE: “A Boy Called Bibi” | by Uri Avnery | | February 5, 2015

      [EXCERPT] . . . On the eve of the last election, just now, Netanyahu announced that there would not be a Palestinian state as long as he was in power. When the Americans remonstrated, he repudiated himself. Why not? As his Likud predecessor, Yitzhak Shamir, famously said, “It is permitted to lie for the Fatherland.”

      Netanyahu will lie, cheat, repudiate himself, raise false flags – all for the purpose of achieving his one and only real goal, the Rock of our Existence (as he loves to say), the heritage of his father – the Jewish State from the sea to the river. . .


      • JLewisDickerson
        February 5, 2016, 6:00 pm

        RE: “As his [i.e., Netanyahu’s] Likud predecessor, Yitzhak Shamir, famously said, ‘It is permitted to lie for the Fatherland’.” – Uri Avnery (from above)

        ■ PHOTO: Netanyahu and Shamir in 1991 (Archive photo: AFP)

        NOTE: “Shamir ordered Bernadotte assassination to save Jerusalem for Jews. But will his obits tell you that?” | By Philip Weiss | | July 1, 2012

        [EXCERPT] Israeli president Shimon Peres is calling the late Yitzhak Shamir, dead at 96, a “brave warrior.” What does that mean? It means he used terrorism with very important political consequences. As head of the Stern Gang, Shamir authorized the assassinations of Lord Moyne, the British minister in Palestine, in 1944, and Folke Bernadotte, the U.N. envoy (and Swedish count) in 1948.

        The Bernadotte murder is particularly important: Bernadotte wanted to internationalize Jerusalem and limit the borders of the new Jewish state. His murder helped shift partition from 55 percent of Palestine to the Jewish state to 78 percent.

        But will the obits tell you that? CNN whitewash:

        Born in Poland, Shamir moved to Palestine and fought for Israeli independence…. Shamir was a leader of the Jewish Zionist underground group that fought the mandate in the 1940s.

        It wasn’t just the mandate, he fought the U.N.

        There is a shameful statement by Hillary Clinton at the end of that piece.

        “From his days working for Israel’s independence to his service as prime minister, he strengthened Israel’s security and advanced the partnership between the United States and Israel,” she said in a statement.

        I know she’s a diplomat, but could she have kept her mouth shut on some of this? Shamir was the Israeli prime minister, after all, who helped force Hillary’s husband Bill to run to George Bush’s right on settlements in 1992, a position that helped him to defeat the incumbent Bush, who had opposed settlements.

        The British are clear about this. Here is the lead of the Financial Times obit for Shamir.

        Yitzhak Shamir, who has died at the age of 96, is most likely to be remembered as a terrorist against British rule in Palestine during the 1940s and as a man whose aggressive Jewish settlement policy on Arab lands may have stymied Middle East peace for a generation.

        Compare that to the New York Times’ wishywashy Israel-o-philic lead . . .

        CONTINUED AT –

        P.S. ■ PHOTO: Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughs as she meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, September 27, 2012.

      • lysias
        February 5, 2016, 6:31 pm

        Shamir was also the head of the Stern Gang in 1941, when the organization tried to form a military alliance against Britain with Nazi Germany.

      • yonah fredman
        February 5, 2016, 7:59 pm

        Avraham Stern was the leader of the Lehi until his violent death by British guns in 1942. Shamir became a leader of Lehi in 1943.

      • JLewisDickerson
        February 10, 2016, 3:52 am

        RE: “Avraham Stern was the leader of the Lehi until his violent death by British guns in 1942” ~ yonah fredman

        SEE: Tell the truth about Yitzhak Shamir | By Stanley Heller | | July 23, 2012

        [EXCERPT] . . . In 1940, the Irgun split, and a faction left to start a group that called itself “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel,” or Lehi, according to its Hebrew initials. The Lehi broke off because it was opposed to stopping military action against the British.

        The reader may be dumbfounded by my calling Shamir part of a pro-Nazi gang, but it’s literally true. Lehi was fascist in form and practice, admired Nazi Germany right into 1942, and attempted to make a military alliance with Adolph Hitler.

        Lehi was commonly referred to by Palestinian Jews as “the Stern Gang” after its top leader Avraham Stern. Lenni Brenner has written extensively about its attempt to link with the Nazis. Documents found after the Second World War showed that in January and again in December of 1941, the group sent representatives to meet with Nazi officials to establish a military alliance. The Nazis weren’t interested.

        Now, the full dimensions of the Holocaust were not known in 1941, but the atrocities had certainly begun. After all, on “Kristallnacht” back in 1938, the Nazis murdered a hundred German Jews and put 30,000 in concentration camps. How in blazes could a Jewish group in 1941 want to ally with Nazi Germany?

        [Uri] Avnery explains things this way: “Stern was a logical person. The aim was to set up a Jewish state in all of Palestine. The enemy was the British empire. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Therefore, we must cooperate with the Nazis.” Avnery writes that in 1940, he himself was “tempted,” but in the end, he rejected Stern’s “atrocious logic.”

        As Stern explained it at the time, there were “persecutors” and there were “enemies.” The Nazis, he said, were “persecutors,” just like many others through the ages. Worse, though, were the “enemies” who ruled over the land that belonged to the Jews, the British. So according to this mad logic, the British were worse than the Nazis.

        BUT THERE was more to it. I rely on a 1992 article about Shamir and Lehi by the esteemed human rights advocate, the late Israel Shahak. He himself quotes from a book about the Lehi written by an Israeli named Dr. Yosef Heller (no relation), written in Hebrew in 1988.

        Heller explains that Avraham Stern admired the Nazi and Italian fascists. In 1940, Mussolini’s air force bombed Tel Aviv, killing 100 people and injuring hundreds more. No doubt most Palestinians, Jews and Arabs alike, were horrified. Stern had a different reaction. According to the Heller book, the attack “impressed him deeply,” and Stern became convinced that Italy would be victorious.

        Stern “expressly stated his wish to be like Quisling, already known then as the ruler of Norway on Hitler’s behalf. He wanted to perform the same role in the ‘kingdom of Israel’ allied with the Nazis.” And the borders of this kingdom? From the Nile to the Euphrates!

        Stern was serious about creating a monarchy. He detested democracy. According to Yosef Heller, Stern wrote, “Democracy as a goal in itself is something we should have nothing to do with.” In conformity with this notion, Lehi under Stern’s inspiration praised the Nazis extravagantly for locking the Polish Jews into the ghettos, contrasting this favorably with the conditions of Jewish life in Poland before the Nazi invasion.

        The Stern Gang killed a growing number of Jewish and British colonial police. The British caught up with Avraham Stern in Tel Aviv in February 1942 and, according to a witness, tied him up and murdered him. Shamir and others were arrested, but later escaped.

        No more was said about linking up with Hitler, but Lehi continued to fight against the British during the war. In 1944, they assassinated Lord Moyne, the highest British official in the Middle East. One of the killers was Eliyahu Bet-Zuri, who was later hanged. In 2011, the London Telegraph newspaper reported that MI5 files included a report saying that in 1944, Bet-Zuri suggested the group assassinate Winston Churchill.

        Obviously, they never did that, but they killed. They killed Arabs, they killed the UN’s first mediator (and Second World War rescuer of Jews) Count Folke Bernadotte, and they took part in the infamous Deir Yassin massacre. And they killed Jews–many Jews. In fact, most of their 42 assassinations were of Jews–some for supposedly collaborating, some for trying to leaving Lehi. . .


      • JLewisDickerson
        February 10, 2016, 4:16 am

        Zionism and the Third Reich | by Mark Weber | Institute for Historical Review | From The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1993 (Vol. 13, No. 4), pages 29-37

        [EXCERPTS] In early January 1941 a small but important Zionist organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel,” better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist “National Military Organization” (Irgun Zvai Leumi) over the group’s attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism.

        This remarkable Zionist proposal “for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation of the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany” is worth quoting at some length:/46

        In their speeches and statements, the leading statesmen of National Socialist Germany have often emphasized that a New Order in Europe requires as a prerequisite a radical solution of the Jewish question by evacuation. (“Jew-free Europe”)

        The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question. However, the only way this can be totally achieved is through settlement of these masses in the homeland of the Jewish people, Palestine, and by the establishment of a Jewish state in its historical boundaries.

        The goal of the political activity and the years of struggle by the Israel Freedom Movement, the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi), is to solve the Jewish problem in this way and thus completely liberate the Jewish people forever.

        The NMO, which is very familiar with the good will of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program, takes that view that:

        1. Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO.

        2. Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry [Hebräertum].

        3. The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.

        On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.

        This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the Jewish men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front by formed.

        The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

        The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England.

        There is no record of any German response. Acceptance was very unlikely anyway because by this time German policy was decisively pro-Arab./47 Remarkably, Stern’s group sought to conclude a pact with the Third Reich at a time when stories that Hitler was bent on exterminating Jews were already in wide circulation. Stern apparently either did not believe the stories or he was willing to collaborate with the mortal enemy of his people to help bring about a Jewish state. /48

        An important Lehi member at the time the group made this offer was Yitzhak Shamir, who later served as Israel’s Foreign Minister and then, during much of the 1980s and until June 1992, as Prime Minister. As Lehi operations chief following Stern’s death in 1942, Shamir organized numerous acts of terror, including the November 1944 assassination of British Middle East Minister Lord Moyne and the September 1948 slaying of Swedish United Nations mediator Count Bernadotte. Years later, when Shamir was asked about the 1941 offer, he confirmed that he was aware of his organization’s proposed alliance with wartime Germany. /49 . . .


        46. Original document in German Auswärtiges Amt Archiv, Bestand 47-59, E 224152 and E 234155-58. (Photocopy in author’s possession).; Complete original German text published in: David Yisraeli, The Palestine Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Israel: 1974), pp. 315-317. See also: Klaus Polkhen, “The Secret Contacts,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring-Summer 1976, pp. 78-80.; (At the time this offer was made, Stern’s Lehi group still regarded itself as the true Irgun/NMO.)

        47. Arab nationalists opposed Britain, which then dominated much of the Arab world, including Egypt, Iraq and Palestine. Because Britain and Germany were at war, Germany cultivated Arab support. The leader of Palestine’s Arabs, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini, worked closely with Germany during the war years. After escaping from Palestine, he spoke to the Arab world over German radio and helped raise Muslim recruits in Bosnia for the Waffen SS.

        48. Israel Shahak, “Yitzhak Shamir, Then and Now,” Middle East Policy (Washington, DC), Vol. 1, No. 1, (Whole No. 39), 1992, pp. 27-38.; Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s Fateful Hour (New York: Harper and Row, 1988), pp. 213-214. Quoted in: Andrew J. Hurley, Israel and the New World Order (Santa Barbara, Calif.: 1991), pp. 93, 208-209.; Avishai Margalit, “The Violent Life of Yitzhak Shamir,” New York Review of Books, May 14, 1992, pp. 18-24.; Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (1983), pp. 266-269.; L. Brenner, Jews in America Today (1986), pp. 175-177.; L. Brenner, “Yitzhak Shamir: On Hitler’s Side,” Arab Perspectives (League of Arab States), March 1984, pp. 11-13.

        49. Avishai Margalit, “The Violent Life of Yitzhak Shamir,” New York Review of Books, May 14, 1992, pp. 18-24.; Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (1983), pp. 266-269.; L. Brenner, Jews in America Today (1986), pp. 175-177.; L. Brenner, “Skeletons in Shamir’s Cupboard,” Middle East International, Sept. 30, 1983, pp. 15-16.; Sol Stern, L. Rapoport, “Israel’s Man of the Shadows,” Village Voice (New York), July 3, 1984, pp. 13 ff.


      • JLewisDickerson
        February 10, 2016, 4:52 am

        ALSO SEE – “Paper Breaks Taboo on Shamir, Nazi Link : Jerusalem Post Cites Stern Gang Past, Hits Stance on Peace Now” | From Reuters | | March 07, 1989

        JERUSALEM — Israel’s Jerusalem Post broke a national taboo today by writing of a 1941 link between Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s Stern Gang guerrillas and Nazi Germany.

        The episode, known to historians, is almost never mentioned in a country that reveres the memory of 6 million European Jews, including Shamir’s entire family, killed by the Nazis during World War II.

        The respected English-language daily [it had not yet been purchased by Conrad Black’s Hollinger Inc. and turned into the right-wing rag it is today – J.L.D.] which bitterly opposes Shamir, broke the silence in an editorial blasting “obscene attacks” by the premier and other right-wingers on the Peace Now movement’s contacts with Palestinians.

        Noting that Shamir said there would be “no KGB in Israel” to hunt down Peace Now activists, the Post commented:

        “That might be reassuring, but for the disturbing memory (of the Stern Gang) . . . which, with the Final Solution already under way in all but name, sought out German cooperation in the setting up here of a Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis.”

        The Stern Gang was an underground group of which Shamir was a leader. It tried to make an alliance with Nazi Germany in 1941 to oppose British rule in Palestine in exchange for the release of Jews from Nazi hands.

        Mainstream Jewish leaders in Palestine condemned the idea of a Nazi alliance. They considered the Sternists fanatics and outcasts and were at that time raising troops for the Allies.

        The Nazis rejected the plan because it clashed with their bid for support from Arab nationalists.

        With the exception of a hostile statement by concentration camp survivors against Shamir when he first took power in 1983, the Israeli press virtually never mentions the episode.

        Stern Gang memories caused controversy in January when British Foreign Office Minister William Waldegrave recalled Shamir’s role in the 1944 assassination of Lord Moyne, Britain’s minister-resident for the Middle East.

        Shamir, who regularly receives foreign politicians, snubbed Waldegrave when he visited Israel last week.

        SOURCE –

    • JLewisDickerson
      February 4, 2016, 10:36 pm

      P.P.S. AND SEE: “Prime minister’s wife accused in court of abusing staff” | By Lisa Goldman | | September 21, 2015

      [EXCERPT] Sara Netanyahu, the wife of the prime minister, is an alcoholic who drinks champagne from morning to night, terrorizes her employees with verbal and physical abuse and has her husband, the prime minister, so terrified of her rages that he does not dare utter a word that might appear to contradict her. This is according to testimony heard on Sunday in a Jerusalem court from former employees at the prime minister’s residence. Guy Eliahu, a former maintenance man at the official residence, is suing the Netanyahus for what he says is Sara’s abusive, inappropriate and inhumane treatment.

      According to a report published [only in Hebrew, of course] by Ynet, the Israeli digital media site, on Sunday a former cook, Etti Haim, who took the witness stand reluctantly after she was subpoenaed, described several shocking incidents.

      In one case, testified Haim, Sara Netanyahu went ballistic upon discovering that the patio awning had been rolled up after the al fresco dinner table had been fully set for dinner, including an array of prepared salads. Just before Sara Netanyahu appeared for the meal, the prime minister had asked Guy Eliahu, the maintenance man, to roll up the awning over the table. Upon seeing this Mrs. Netanyahu berated Eliahu, insisting the dinner table was now contaminated by dust. Haim said the prime minister did not intervene but sat silently on a bench near the table, avoiding eye contact with Eliahu. Mrs. Netanyahu ordered that the table be entirely cleared of dishes and food and re-set. When her son Avner said that his food was fine and should not be cleared away, Sara Netanyahu angrily accused him of taking the side of the servants. The prime minister’s wife then trashed the dinner table. Haim testified:

      “Guy and I stood there terrified. She jerked the cloth off the table so that all the dishes, salads and pickles landed on the floor. Then she said, ‘You have five minutes to re-set this table.’ And that’s exactly what we did.”

      Haim recounted another incident . . .


      • Kay24
        February 5, 2016, 2:21 am

        How ironic. The war monger that pounds his chest, breathes fire at unarmed Palestinians, and the rest of the world, is a spineless little mouse at home. His wife sounds like she lacks class and tolerance. A great pair. Maybe American leaders should learn from this virago exactly how to treat Nutty boy.
        Israelis should be so proud of this couple.

      • eljay
        February 5, 2016, 10:43 am

        Bibi is actually Squealer, but he likes to dress up as Napoleon when Sara’s not around.

  11. JLewisDickerson
    February 5, 2016, 3:24 am

    RE: “Rubio got his start at a national level with the backing of Norman Braman, a Florida billionaire who regards Israel as the necessary historical answer to the Holocaust . . .” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: Apparently, Norman Braman helps fund the settlement of Ariel* (along with John Hagee, of course), which is located so far into the West Bank as to prohibit the formation of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state.

    * PETER BEINART (in “Given the U.S. Presidential Candidates’ Views on Palestinians, I Miss Obama Already”,, 09 November 2015):

    . . . Start with the Republicans. On the subject of Israel-Palestine, the GOP presidential candidates fall into three overlapping categories: Those who propose keeping Palestinians under Israeli military occupation indefinitely; those who propose expelling Palestinians from Israel; and those who deny that Palestinians exist at all.

    In the first category sits Florida senator Marco Rubio, who last May told the Council on Foreign Relations, “I don’t think the conditions exist for” a Palestinian state “today.” Could that have anything to do with the fact that during Benjamin Netanyahu’s time as prime minister between 2009 and 2014, the settler population grew twice as fast as the population inside the Green Line? Not according to Rubio, who last year called Obama’s criticism of settlement building “deplorable” and whose largest funder also helps fund the settlement of Ariel. . .


Leave a Reply