Trending Topics:

What Bernie Sanders should say at AIPAC (and cause a political revolution)

on 155 Comments

Good afternoon. Thank you for your invitation to speak here today.

Of all the candidates and other politicians who will be coming to your conference, I am the one most like the audience members I see before me today. And I am the one most unlike this audience, too.

How am I like you? I am a 74-year-old Jew, and most of the people before me are Jewish and of an older generation. My father immigrated to America from Poland when he was 16, escaping persecution in eastern Europe, and I know many of you had immigrant parents or grandparents from the old country. The rise of Hitler and the Holocaust were the signal events of my childhood. Most of my father’s relatives were wiped out by Hitler, and believe me, the lesson was not lost in our household. We learned that Jews were unsafe in countries that did not have strong protection for minorities. We learned that sometimes societies must support war to defeat evil. And as I told a town hall not long ago, my historical heroes are Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Because they stood up to the Third Reich, and smashed it.

Our belief in Jewish vulnerability was so strong in my parents’ household that the UN Resolution adopted on November 29, 1947, to establish a Jewish state in part of Palestine was heard by my parents as an act of deliverance. After 2000 years our people who had been persecuted and discriminated against and stuck in ghettoes and had lost all freedom of movement would be sovereign in their own land. At last, Jews would govern themselves!

My belief in Israel as a liberation story for the Jews was so deep and strong — as I believe it is for you — that when I was in my 20s I did what many in this audience did. I moved to Israel to try and build the country. I worked on a kibbutz in northern Israel for several months. I saw the vigorous society that Israel had built for its Jewish citizens. I stumbled along in Hebrew, and I believed it when friends said we were witnessing a historical miracle, the rebirth of Jewish nation on its ancient lands.

So I would say I am very much like the people I see before me.

Well then how am I, among all the politicians who will visit you during this lavish conference, most unlike you?

Because I no longer believe in the need for a Jewish state and I will not lie to you about that belief. Because my campaign is paid for my millions of donations from average citizens, I am not dependent on big campaign donors, many of whom are gathered before me; and therefore I will not tell the American people fairy tales about the state of Israel. I will tell them that it is an apartheid state that treats its Palestinian subjects much as Jews were treated in the lands from which our ancestors came. And I will tell them that its militaristic policies that are held up here as a model for the American role in the world are in fact a disastrous influence over America foreign policy; and in fact they played a part in the decision to invade Iraq, which has disrupted the Middle East and caused so much pain and suffering in our country too.

In fact, I am the only candidate who will tell these truths to Americans, because I am uniquely positioned. I am a Jewish American who once believed that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish democracy was the answer to the Holocaust. There are many special things about my campaign, and my American story; but today that is the most important thing I have to tell. And just as Barack Obama was in a unique position to move the country forward on race in his campaign of 2008, today I am going to tell you some uncomfortable truths. He gave Americans a race speech, I will give you my Jewish speech.

Israel began with great promise and it built great institutions. Very true. But it never could figure out the basic constitutional problem in its establishment, what is the role of the minority, the Arabs or Palestinians, in a Jewish democracy? Its failure to answer this basic question over 70 years and countless governments and countless international efforts to suggest a solution has resulted in the unfair society that we see before us today. In the West Bank, millions of Palestinians are subject to cruel checkpoints manned by teenage soldiers of a different ethnic background who often treat them with contempt. These Palestinians live alongside half a million Jewish colonists who have full rights while they have none, who have swimming pools while their own villages must ration water. In Gaza 1.8 million Palestinians live in an open air prison with zero freedom of movement, and are visited with heinous massacres every few years so as to tame any spirit of resistance. It is no surprise that they have turned to Islamic fundamentalists to lead them, because those leaders refuse to cooperate with the authoritarian regime that rules their lives. In East Jerusalem hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are called residents; but they cannot vote for the government that determines their lives, from building codes to who they can marry to where they can work.

Inside Israel, 1 million Palestinians are second-class citizens, enduring scores of laws that discriminate against them; and a recent Pew survey says that the overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis like it that way and half of those Jews want their government to expel the Palestinians.

That is the Jewish state that I celebrated when I was a child. That’s how it turned out, a cruel ethnocracy.

The so-called Jewish state has created the very sorts of discriminatory conditions that my father fled in Eastern Europe. So I have no choice but to oppose them today. And at least my father could immigrate to America. Israel has a discriminatory immigration policy. Any Jew in the world has a right to move to the country. But Palestinians who were born in what is now Israel and forced to flee in 1948 cannot go back to the village of their childhood. Many of them live in refugee camps that are reminiscent of the famous DP camps in Europe after World War II. With this notable exception. Those Palestinian families have lived there for generations, and the camps have helped to destabilize Israel’s neighbors.

While the DP camps moved the conscience of the world to act, moved Harry Truman to act.

I believe we must act now as a nation to try and relieve these conditions before they blow up, as they inevitably will, in a bloodbath that could destroy the entire society, as we have seen in Israel’s neighbor to the north, Syria. As Rabbi Hillel said, If not now, when? So when I am president, I will send the strongest signals to Israel that its behavior must change. I will not sign any bill that contains military aid to Israel. I will not, as my opponent has promised to do, invite the Israeli Prime Minister to the White House in the first year, let alone the first month, as she has promised. I will not engage in the charade of a peace process so long as Israel continues to engulf the West Bank and Jerusalem. That’s like negotiating over the division of a pizza while one person eats that pizza. I will not hire any aide who acts as Israel’s lawyer, as Hillary Clinton has; and I will not hire any aide who is steeped in neoconservatism, as all the Republicans will do. And I will reverse the White House policy on the boycott, divestment and sanctions, or BDS, movement. I will support BDS, as a nonviolent form of pressure aimed at curbing Israel’s behavior so that Palestinians don’t need to turn to violence — as Nelson Mandela turned to violence, as American revolutionaries turned to violence.

As you know, I have offered myself to the voters as a revolutionary; but let me be clear: the revolutions I believe in are nonviolent. And at this stage of history, mankind is capable of them. That is what I believe.

I have called for a revolution in the economic establishment and the political establishment and the media establishment, and let me say today: that includes the foreign policy establishment too.

That is the last way that I am different from the other candidates who stand before you: I do not think that Israel’s behavior toward its subjects and neighbors is a model for the American role in the world. Israel’s oppressive practices and indiscriminate bombing campaigns breed terrorism, rather than ending terrorism.

In fact, I believe the lessons of my youth in Brooklyn: a country is strong only when it respects the rights of minorities and allows all citizens to pursue their dreams in equality. That is the American dream, still unfulfilled. But it is why, for me, as a young man and then an adult living out my hopes and disappointments and fulfilments in a beautiful part of this country, the story of America superseded my youthful belief in the Jewish state as the stage for political deliverance in the 21st century.

Let me close by invoking the great culture that I share with so many of you. I didn’t always pay attention in synagogue and Hebrew school. I will admit that to you today. But one lesson I absorbed from my Jewish education in Brooklyn was Rabbi Hillel’s answer to the wiseass who asked him to teach him the entire Torah while standing on one leg. Hillel said: “That which is hateful unto you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary.”

Thank you very much.

[Raucous applause]

Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

155 Responses

  1. eljay on March 14, 2016, 1:15 pm

    || MaxNarr: So he would say he would violate United States law and sanction Israel for allowing individual Jews to live in Judea and Samaria? Ridiculous. ||

    1. Israel has no right to “allow” Jewish or non-Jewish Israelis to live outside of Israel’s / Partition borders.
    2. There is no “Judea and Samaria”.
    3. Yes, you are ridiculous.

  2. David Doppler on March 14, 2016, 1:57 pm

    “[Raucous applause]” Yeah, right.

    Maybe, since he’s running for President of the United States, he’d reach down for a basic American tenet with which to close: that all persons are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. Until Israel learns to respect its Arab citizens and the Palestinians whose land it occupies, as having equal rights, it is not deserving of the unshakable support from the United States that this organization demands.

    [Raucous crowd hostility]

    [But neither speech will ever happen.]

  3. Another Dave on March 14, 2016, 1:59 pm

    He would be hauled off of the stage long before he finished that speech.

    Nice to think that he’d make it, but it would be better if he just kept his distance.

    Let the other politicians display their loyalties to AIPAC, Bernie really doesn’t need to bother with them. And he shouldn’t.

    • echinococcus on March 14, 2016, 3:11 pm

      Your Bernie of course won’t talk to AIPAC. He is Zionist Bloc and J-Street. Duh.

  4. Steve Grover on March 14, 2016, 2:01 pm

    Phil Weiss meets Bernie Sanders:
    Phil Weiss: My name is Phil Weiss the founder of Mondoweiss.
    Bernie Sanders: I don’t speak with Israel haters. (Sanders proceeds to punch Weiss in the mouth)

    • eljay on March 14, 2016, 2:19 pm

      || Steve Grover: … (Sanders proceeds to punch Weiss in the mouth) ||

      Is Sanders really a violent anti-Semite, or are you just anti-Semitically portraying him as an irrationally violent Jewish-American male?

      • Steve Grover on March 14, 2016, 4:20 pm

        What makes you think for a second Eljay that Sanders would feel anything but disgust towards Israel haters?

      • eljay on March 14, 2016, 9:18 pm

        || Steve Grover: What makes you think for a second Eljay that Sanders would feel anything but disgust towards Israel haters? ||

        OK, so you’re saying that he’s a violent anti-Semite. Thanks for clearing that up.

    • amigo on March 14, 2016, 2:25 pm

      “Bernie Sanders: I don’t speak with Israel haters. (Sanders proceeds to punch Weiss in the mouth)” Grover

      Mods please. Incitement to violence.

      • Steve Grover on March 14, 2016, 2:34 pm

        You’re right Amigo. Phil should not go near Bernie Sanders.

      • Mooser on March 14, 2016, 2:51 pm

        And “Steve Grover” has another fantasy friend. I think I know where he keeps them all.

      • amigo on March 14, 2016, 3:40 pm

        Grover , I bet you couldn,t punch your way out of a paper bag, open on all four sides.

    • eljay on March 14, 2016, 2:48 pm

      || Steve Grover: … (Sanders proceeds to punch Weiss in the mouth) ||

      Maybe this is what hophmi was referring to when he predicted that “The Phils will fall away, as they always do.”

    • kalithea on March 14, 2016, 3:11 pm

      You SG are a hater, and your insinuation is pure Ziofascist-inspired garbage.

      • Steve Grover on March 14, 2016, 4:26 pm

        Good Aunt,
        You will be greatly disappointed if Sanders is elected President. You should vote for Cruz at least you won’t be disappointed.

      • Mooser on March 14, 2016, 4:56 pm

        “You SG are a hater,”

        His posts are at once more disassociated and inappropriate, while he seems desperate for inclusion. Ugh. “Grover’s” on a bender.

      • Steve Grover on March 14, 2016, 9:16 pm

        Mooser sez I seem desperate for inclusion. Not nearly as much as YoniFalic!

  5. Parity on March 14, 2016, 2:38 pm

    Phil, this is fantastic! You even managed to make the speech sound like Bernie, as any good speech writer would. What a game changer this speech would be!

    • echinococcus on March 14, 2016, 3:10 pm

      “Sound like Bernie”? How can it sound like “Bernie”, when the guy’s whole life has been against that. He is an obvious Zionist. Has been down in occupied Palestine on a “social”-thingamajig Kibbutz. Voted all actions of US complicity in the invasion, dispossession, repression and genocide of Palestinians, with the “Labor” Zionists through Nakba, conquest, military racist rule and 4 major wars. After the passage to Likud, continued to vote all support to the Zionist entity. Supported the massacre in Gaza, even as it was unfolding or almost, with hysterical cries of the totally illegal fiction “Israel has a right to defend itself”. Supported the PNAC invasions and aggressions. Supports the “Zionist Bloc/J-Street” line (Iran, etc.) and snubs the Yahoo.
      That guy make a speech like that? In your dreams. Only.

      • Parity on March 14, 2016, 4:57 pm

        “Sound like Bernie”? How can it sound like “Bernie”, when the guy’s whole life has been against that. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/what-bernie-sanders-should-say-at-aipac-and-change-the-world-as-we-know-it/#comment-829864

        It sounded like Bernie because it had themes Bernie often brings up and uses phrases he often uses, such as “I believe” and “let me be clear.”

        I suppose it would be the kiss of death for him to give this speech now, but I believe that his belief in justice is strong enough that when he gets the full facts (if he ever does–and it will depend on his adivsors), he will give this speech.

      • echinococcus on March 14, 2016, 5:04 pm

        He’s had the full facts as long as I have, in fact a couple years longer, and he’s been a goddam Zionist all his life.
        So it can’t sound like Bernie Sanders, whom we have listened to screeching “Israel has the right to defend himself” to defend the last genocidal massacre in Gaza.

      • WH on March 14, 2016, 6:04 pm

        During the First Intifada, he criticised Israel very vocally and said that aid to them should be contingent on changing their behaviour. Not much of that view is evident now, of course.

      • annie on March 14, 2016, 8:03 pm

        parity, don’t bother responding to echin on sanders conversations, it won’t make any difference because he trashes sanders every chance he gets. hence, it’s irrelevant what you say to him.

      • echinococcus on March 15, 2016, 1:02 am

        Annie,

        Don’t even try guessing the future. I have repeatedly approved some of Sanders’ proposals re domestic policy –they would have been nice if we could take a knife, cut the beast in different parts and have it still function, in cloud-cuckoo-land.
        Sanders is obviously a Zionist, and your interventions on behalf of others cannot replace an examination of your own ambiguous position.

      • kalithea on March 16, 2016, 11:20 am

        @Parity

        I agree with “echin”; Bernie has all the facts already. We shouldn’t deny otherwise or stray from reality-based arguments. Sanders is a Zionist and there is no excuse for his positions on Israel so far.

    • kalithea on March 14, 2016, 3:13 pm

      Lol! He should be hired as Bernie’s speech writer.

    • JWalters on March 14, 2016, 7:25 pm

      I agree! This is a great thought experiment, and a great potential speech to have pinging around the internet. I raises these issues in a compelling way. I think Bernie is capable of this speech, but the timing would be very important.

  6. Emory Riddle on March 14, 2016, 2:48 pm

    Bernie has neither the balls not the inclination to take on the Zionists.

    Love his domestic programs — they are just common sense.

    He is very suspect on his foreign affairs — seemingly just part of the establishment.

    And keep in mind the president, with a hostile congress, can get very little done domestically. But wields great power over foreign affairs.

    There is only one candidate the “Lobby” fears and so has spent so much time and effort trying to destroy. trump. His domestic policies are bad — albeit better than Kasich, Cruz, and Rubio. His foreign policy appears as if it may be sane.

  7. pabelmont on March 14, 2016, 2:59 pm

    Phil, What fun to write someone else’s speech! I once wrote one for the Pope and was astounded to see some (hardly all) of my points in a speech of his. (No, he couldn’t really call for birth control and abortion, whatever the state of the earth’s human overpopulation.)

    And then to add “Raucous applause”. (Again, writing someone else’s speech!).

    Love the speech. Hope one of his aides reads it and shows it to him. Don’t all pols need a “rabbi” ?

  8. lonely rico on March 14, 2016, 3:21 pm

    Great speech Phil, and (despite my atheism) I pray that Sanders will make it.

    I don’t think he will rise to the occasion, but sooner or later somebody is going to stand up to AIPAC and related neo-cons, and make such a speech, and survive the raucous disapproval, and Americans will (again) be confronted with the question as to why they support this violent racist state, and whether it is really in the interest of the USA to continue doing so at such great financial, moral and physical cost to America.

    • echinococcus on March 14, 2016, 4:55 pm

      When are you guys gonna get that the Zionist lobby has different organizations, that BS belongs to the LAbor and J-Street faction, and that it ain’t any different if you are facing the Zionist’s gun barrel?

  9. echinococcus on March 14, 2016, 3:33 pm

    Also, to address more nonsense. “Cause a political revolution”.
    Who the hell has ever seen an apolitical revolution?
    Please explain.

  10. kalithea on March 14, 2016, 3:34 pm

    Members of the press can email Bernie, sooooo why not send it to him?

    http://www.sanders.senate.gov/contact

    I hope he doesn’t go. That would be a red line; even associating himself with J Street is a red line. However, if that’s the kind of speech he’d deliver; I’d be thrilled!

  11. joer on March 14, 2016, 4:03 pm

    …or he could take the approach he took with Rahm Emanuel: I don’t want AIPAC’s endorsement because by its very definition it pursues the interests of a foreign government-which incidentally is guilty of closing schools, killing unarmed civilians and many other or the same crimes that make me denounce Rahm’s endorsement.

    Frankly Phil, I believe most voters are a little tired of Jewish /Zionist self exploration and navel gazing.

    • Steve Grover on March 14, 2016, 7:01 pm

      He distanced himself from Rahm because of Rahm’s current unpopularity among Black voters in Chicago since the release of the video showing the murder of Laquan McDonald by a Chicago Police officer. Connecting Rahm and Hillary is his strategy but Bill Clinton who is popular in the Black community visited Churches mostly attended by African Americans on Sunday.

      • joer on March 14, 2016, 9:06 pm

        Thanks for filling in the back story for the folks unfamiliar with it, Steve. Yes, there is always strategic calculations made in politics, and the strategy of bluntly stating recently taboo-but latent popular- opinions seems to be working these days. We will find out tomorrow if loudly denouncing the Mayor of Chicago helped him or hurt him. Maybe a similar statement in response to an invitation might tap into what a lot of people really feel: Why should we keep giving billions of dollars in aid to the richest country in the Mideast, especially when they are using that aid to destroy Palestinian society? I think we should at least get the right to vote on that issue.

      • Steve Grover on March 15, 2016, 11:58 pm

        Joer,
        I am perfectly happy with the aid and I support my tax dollars being used for it.

  12. Steve Macklevore on March 14, 2016, 5:07 pm

    Sad to say that I agree with the many sceptical comments people have already made.

    Bernie is a PEP (Progressive Except for Palestine). M

    He may well be PEP Lite or a troubled PEP, but when the chips are down and the bombers in the sky, Bernie will give his beloved Israel the benefit of the doubt.

    I hope I’m wrong.

  13. otc on March 14, 2016, 7:27 pm

    “I moved to Israel to try and build the country.”

    To nitpick a bit:
    Has Sanders ever gone on record re his motivations for spending time on a Kibbutz? Three months hardly seems to qualify as moving to Israel to build the country. If he went with that intent and became disillusioned that’s one thing. Per Joel Bienen, we know he wasn’t a member of the youth group that would have organized new immigrants for the kibbutz, Hashomer Hatzair.
    It’s possible his interest in Socialism, and therefore curiosity about the Kibbutz social and economic structure, was the motivation, not Zionism

    • kalithea on March 14, 2016, 10:24 pm

      A little OT but Hillary came out and called Trump a political arsonist and is critical of the fact that activists are beaten up at his rallies. But what few people know is that activists are beaten up at her events as well.:

      Hillary has nary an ounce of credibility. The thought of her as President scares me as much as anyone on the other side, with the exception of Rubio — they’re about even.

      So again, Bernie’s got Zionist issues and I get the beef with him BUT the alternative is nihilistic!

      Did anyone see how Hillary handled the question by a man Ricky Jackson who spent 39 years in prison and on death row for a crime he didn’t commit? She wouldn’t let go of the death penalty! She’s like a dog with a bone — kill, kill, kill.

      All that matters in life is our humanity. The further we stray from that part of ourselves, the more we create a world not worth living in; the more despair and alienation are engendered in our society. Our humanity is the only thing that will save us.

      We cannot allow any of the other candidates including Hillary to get power. I can’t stand the Zionist in Bernie! But how can we stop such a dire alternative when there is no alternative that a large majority, ie the stupid mass, will have the courage and more importantly the sense to support? We must reverse the path we’re on. Eight more years of this neocon shit and growing fascist intrusion is way too long. Life is too precious to have it destroyed by fools like we’re witnessing in these primaries.

      If Bernie attends the Aipac Conference; if he associates himself with J Street he’s finished in my book; but for now, this is all we have.

      Echinococcus, can you please provide an alternative? I get you; but to be fair, you should provide a viable alternative or your argument is going nowhere. We’re at a scary precipice here. All the alternatives stink! I can’t put it any other way. But you continue to write as if there’s some messiah that won’t manifest unless Bernie’s out of the way; so please enlighten me. If anyone here is sympathetic with your concerns; it’s me.

      I really get your concerns with Bernie; and you’re preaching to the choir with me and I suspect with others too. I know your skepticism borders on cynicism and I get that too, but – what is the viable alternative? This is all I want to know from now on. You’ve laid it all out; except the solution. Who do you suggest instead?

      • echinococcus on March 15, 2016, 3:19 am

        Kalithea (sorry, assumed that it was double L all this time),

        Just noticed your post.

        The problem with BS, more intense than with all other “Democrat” populist mountebanks before him, is that they are trotted out exclusively for the goal of nobbling any massive vote outside the single-party dictatorship masquerading as a Punch and Judy show.

        The huge attraction of Trump plus Sanders as protest votes show that, in the time irremediably wasted supporting the two-party comedy, a massive vote for a third party with a decent antimperialist program could have been organized. We’ll stipulate that the klutziness of said 3Ps may have been a more formidable hurdle than the legal shenanigans of the 2P dictatorship –in that case there would have been time enough to organize a really major abstention, enough to start destroying the lockdown. The current populist mountebank candidacy destroys all that –there is no time left by the time he is finished to call off the “lesser (!) evil” vote, with the so-called greater evil having been set up in the person of Trump.
        So yes, we are stuck again.

        Let me use some linear logic: is any improvement in imperialist policy, especially Palestine policy, possible with any of the 2P candidates? No.
        Is there any evidence that any one of them may be different from the others? Yes and no: not Sanders but Trump has shown some evidence that, if he weren’t totally loco, he could create problems for the Zionists. As confirmed by the defection of the Neocons to the Democrats! Again, not Sanders. Also, there is a lot of evidence that the Zionist Labor genocidaires are no different at all, and that Sanders emotionally belongs to them. Same about any aspect of US imperialism.
        Conclusion: there cannot be any difference to be reasonably expected among any of the 2P candidates (with a big perhaps re Trump.)
        Practical consideration: Sanders isn’t running for himself anyway. Even if success went to his head and he gets uppity, his chances are still slimmer than a Gaza kid.

        Not directly interesting the discussion here: is there any probability to improve domestic policy as divorced from imperialism? Like cutting the horse’s head and having it run regular? I say no. Would you be happy knowing that your measly couple pennies more for insurance and pensions (assuming Sanders is successful along the line) come from Palestinian and Syrian and Afghan murder money?

        So there is no “solution”, at least this election cycle.
        You have all my sympathy.
        Sometimes there is no hope. Sometimes you have to tell the patient you can only offer morphine and there is no point in choosing quack remedies over chemotherapy.
        We are in this mess because of people so desperate to hope against hope that they voted for Obama –the Super-Bernie, remember?

        There are a couple of personal hygiene items, though.
        Like refusing to kill with one’s own hands and strut across the neighborhood with bloody hands. I will vote my conscience, outside the 2P, by either voting or abstaining.
        I’ll also continue denouncing the Zionist mountebank Sanders –not that it’s very useful at this stage, but silence is incompatible with my personal hygiene.

      • kalithea on March 16, 2016, 1:56 am

        @echinococcus

        So in other words you have no solution or alternative. What does it solve then to put down the candidate who will do the least amount of harm to the Palestinian cause; when by doing so you end up helping the candidate that will or could do the most harm?

        The American public wears blinders when it comes to a third party; they’re programmed through fear and indoctrinated by the media not to think outside the 2-party system; and that’s why the system is so rigged. Instead of neutralizing the 2P system with an alternative; they put all their hopes in the messiah candidate, the most eloquent and charismatic or in Trump’s case, the flashier candidate who says whatever comes to mind and tells everyone what they want to hear, and these types always run in either of these two parties and end up betraying everyone when the primaries are over.

        You single out Trump as perhaps the lesser of all evils; but do you not see the fascist emergence there?

        This man is already censoring the press; denying credentials for certain members of the press for his events. He’s also threatening to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. So you think he will favor the Palestinians who for the most part are Muslim? Do you think he will show fairness towards them regardless of this bull about being neutral and in the same breath professing that no one loves Israel more than him? This is a man who agreed to appear in ads re-electing Netanyahu; and not for nothing did he lend him his support, don’t you think?

        Have we seen Bernie in any of Netanyahu’s campaign ads? Has Bernie appeared at the Aipac conferences? Personally I believe that someone who I’m convinced will force a deal on the Palestinians is much more dangerous than someone who says to Netanyahu: you don’t act in good faith therefore you cannot negotiate anything; which is what I believe Bernie would say to Netanyahu in private to exclude him from any negotiations, because he said he would bring like-minded people to the negotiating table. But regardless I do think he’s delusional anyway, because there is no viable land to transact. My reason for believing he’s the safest candidate has nothing to do with how he will advance the cause. I’m not sure he will.

        My greatest concern is the growing trend to criminalize BDS. My thinking is directed at protecting BDS from harmful legislation, because I don’t see a solution coming from the U.S. government or the American public in general. So BDS is very important to the cause for justice for Palestinians. The solution will come from a grassroots movement that grows in strength and numbers worldwide in condemning Zionism as an unjust, undemocratic and Apartheid system and ideology. Can I trust Trump not to harm the BDS movement? – Absolutely not. Trump is ushering in a kind of neo-fascist era. There is enough neo-fascism around already. Trump is already threatening the First Amendment and he’s still in the primaries!

        So, again give me the socialist who doesn’t go for the strong arm method; he’s the lessor threat to activism and the BDS movement.

      • echinococcus on March 16, 2016, 10:32 am

        Kalithea,

        It’s touching to see the dogged insistence that there must be “a solution” when the patient is dying. This, remember, is the religious frame of mind that already ensured the Obama victory and perpetuates the 2-party dictatorship.

        Also, re “Have we seen Bernie in any of Netanyahu’s campaign ads? Has Bernie appeared at the Aipac conferences?”, your Bernie is a “Labor / Zionist Bloc” Zionist –he’ll follow J-Street. They are much more dangerous.

    • Mooser on March 15, 2016, 12:13 pm

      “Has Sanders ever gone on record re his motivations for spending time on a Kibbutz? Three months hardly seems to qualify as moving to Israel to build the country.”

      “Dan”, c’mon, he was a young man, and at least at my particular Temple (North Shore Synagogue) we all knew that ‘free love’ (I’ll have to ask “Yoni” what the Israeli Hebrew phrase for it is) had full sway (a brave vibration each way free!) on all the Kibbutz’s.

      “If he went with that intent and became disillusioned that’s one thing”
      That’s right. If they tease but won’t please, you might as well leave.

  14. Nevada Ned on March 14, 2016, 8:48 pm

    Great speech.

    Too bad AIPAC won’t invite Bernie to address them.

    And of course Bernie won’t ask Phil Weiss to be his speechwriter.

    I am reminded of a slim book authored by Howard Zinn in the late 1960’s, entitled
    “How to End The War in Vietnam.”

    The book was a compendium of various pretexts given by hawks to justify the war, all refuted by Zinn.

    In an Appendix, Zinn included the text of a possible speech (authored by Zinn) for delivery by Lyndon Johnson, announcing the withdrawal of all US troops from Vietnam, and the end of the war.

    Did LBJ pay any attention? At the time, of course not! Finn’s helpful advice was ignored. Too bad: it would have saved hundreds of thousands (or millions) of lives.

    Will Bernie give Phil’s excellent speech? Eventually, yes. But not for the foreseeable future. I do expect that something like that speech will happen at some point in the future.

  15. Tom Callaghan on March 14, 2016, 9:00 pm

    Managing the “Israel Account” is one of the most challenging jobs any President will have.
    Carter and Bush l were viewed by some as insufficiently supportive of Israel and that perception contributed to their re-election losses.

    Reagan enjoys the perception of having been very supportive of Israel. Actually, early in his first term he opposed Israel on a couple of high profile matters…the sale of AWACS to the
    Saudis and ending the Siege of Beirut in the summer of 1982.

    In my opinion, one of the most admirable things Reagan ever did was to demand that Prime
    Minister Begin end the slaughter in Beirut “or the entire relationship between Israel and the
    United States would be effected.” Details of Reagan’s conversations with Begin can be found
    in Reagan’s Autobiography.

    I look at the current cast of presidential aspirants and wonder who would have the guts to do what Reagan did if Israel decides to hit Gaza or Lebanon again. Who will pick up the phone and say that the slaughter has gone too far?

    I think Bernie would have no trouble doing that. I think Kasich could do it. I’m not so sure about Hillary.

    http://www.wednesdayswars.com

  16. John Fearey on March 14, 2016, 9:01 pm

    “Raucous applause” indeed. A great and historic speech. Nice work Phil.

  17. Tom Callaghan on March 14, 2016, 9:28 pm

    During the Siege of Beirut in the summer of 1982 Israel, under Prime Minister Begin, inflicted massive civilian casualties. Ronald Reagan called Begin and told him that the bombardment had to stop and that if it didn’t “the entire relationship between Israel and the US would be effected. Details of that conversation are documented in Reagan’s Autobiography.

    Who among the current group of presidential aspirants will have the guts to make that kind of call when Israel decides to hit Gaza or Lebanon gain for what the Israelis call “mowing the grass.”

    The one person whose sense of right and wrong is so obvious in his demeanor and record is Bernie Sanders. He’d make the call. He’s a mensch.

    http://www.wednesdayswars.com

    • echinococcus on March 15, 2016, 4:04 am

      He defended the genocidal massacre in Gaza (while it was tapering off) with hysterical behavior and totally illegal cries of “Israel has a right to defend itself” –already as a plain Senator with no electoral obligation to the Zionist lobby.
      So there is a lot of evidence that you are talking through your hat.
      Also, I don’t believe for a second that you’re unaware of the evidence.

      • Tom Callaghan on March 15, 2016, 5:06 pm

        I’m aware of a Sanders town hall in Vermont where he did as you said. I’m trying to assume the best about what Bernie would do in the future.

        I think one thing many Americans are disgusted with is the timidity of the American Press on all things Israel. With the composition of Bernie’s support base being heavily peace/fair play oriented I think it would be very difficult for a President Sanders to become a parrot of AIPAC talking points. I think his wife would leave him as well as a large group of his supporters.

      • echinococcus on March 16, 2016, 8:35 am

        Well, he also religiously voted at each turn the credits for our full complicity with Zionist invasion and genocide; he supported our PNAC-ordered wars of aggression.

        I’m trying to assume the best about what Bernie would do in the future.

        Assuming the best in the near future when 30 years of official records show the diametrical opposite in the past doesn’t strike me as a particularly smart attitude.

        With the composition of Bernie’s support base being heavily peace/fair play oriented I think it would be very difficult for a President Sanders to become a parrot of AIPAC talking points

        Difficult? It’s as easy as the mountebank number he is doing now, to a crowd of people who are deaf to the facts and need –yet again– “hope”. When things go too hard, he can do a onetime flip like his grandstanding, meaningless Nay vote and fiery speech on Iraq where it didn’t count at all (because he had voted AUMF) to pacify his seething Vermont base, then go vote yes to the war budget.

        Also, he don’t need no AIPAC talking points and can afford to snub the Yahoo because he is a “Labor” Zionist obeying J-Street instructions. Just as genocidal as AIPAC. Check it out.

      • Tom Callaghan on March 16, 2016, 2:31 pm

        I see from the above and the below that you have strong views and an eagerness to express them. Maybe you should start a website with your actual name and picture attached.

        Regarding Bernie, and what he might do at a moment of truth in the mideast. Like, for instance, when Reagan called Begin and demanded that the assault on Beirut stop immediately. It did.

        Reagan had to be dragged to make that call by Mike Deaver who told his boss he could no longer work for him if he didn’t do something about the slaughter in Beirut. Reagan made the call.

        I view the political process as dynamic and ongoing. Supporters of a candidate have influence on a candidate before elections and after. Change and evolution are the only constants.

        You’re a purist and a critic. Good for you. Seriously.

        I remember the advice of former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell…”don’t let the perfect be an enemy of the good.”

        http://www.wednesdayswars.com

      • Sibiriak on March 16, 2016, 11:47 pm

        Tom Callaghan: I see from the above and the below that you have strong views and an eagerness to express them. Maybe you should start a website with your actual name and picture attached.
        —————-

        I’ve never understood that idiotic line of attack. As if an argument were somehow less valid simply because its author was anonymous! (Ad hominem fallacy.)

        As if posting opinions anonymously wasn’t a very wise move in many cases.

      • annie on March 17, 2016, 12:43 am

        I’ve never understood that idiotic line of attack.

        Sibiriak, sanders is clearly the most progressive of all the ‘mainstream’ (if you could call him that) options. and yet echin spends an exorbitant amount of time and effort trashing him. for what purpose? it’s not as if there are others better. he’s not offering alternatives. that’s what seems idiotic to me. it’s a constant clog on all the threads as far as i am concerned. once or twice or once in awhile, but no .. for him it’s a constant. makes me question if he’s a psych-ops working for the clinton campaign.

      • Sibiriak on March 17, 2016, 1:36 am

        Annie Robbins: … sanders is clearly the most progressive of all the ‘mainstream’ (if you could call him that) options. and yet echin spends an exorbitant amount of time and effort trashing him. for what purpose?
        —————-

        I was referring only to the idea that if one has strong opinions, one should not express those opinions anonymously.

        Otherwise I basically agree with you. Echino is a moral purist; he likes to define the highest moral standard and judge everything against that standard. That’s what he does: judge. You either meet the standard, or you are essentially worthless. Judgment is made; sentence is passed; and he moves on. Next case! Actually achieving positive change in the world, however limited, however compromised, doesn’t seem to be much of a priority.

      • annie on March 17, 2016, 1:39 am

        You either meet his standard, or you are essentially worthless.

        yeah.

        I was referring only to the idea that if one has strong opinions, one should not express those opinions anonymously.

        yes i know. you just mentioned idiotic and i thought i’d share. ;)

      • Jon66 on March 17, 2016, 6:33 am

        Echi is afraid that Bernie was turned into a Manchurian Candidate by Mossad during his kibbutz stay.

        ‘Bernie Sanders is the kindest, warmest…’

      • echinococcus on March 17, 2016, 3:58 pm

        Annie,

        sanders is clearly the most progressive of all the ‘mainstream’ (if you could call him that) options. and yet echin spends an exorbitant amount of time and effort trashing him. for what purpose?

        The purpose should be clear by now: Sanders is a goddam Zionist! Also, “progressive” and a token should get me on the subway. When it comes to Palestine and US aggression, there are a lot of conservative, retrograde or plain obscurantist actors that are main actors or our allies, from Hamas to Ron Paul , while “progressives” often are Zionists, support Zionists and often are warmongers –like all those fine “liberals” cheering for the rape of Palestine, Libya, Syria ad Egypt. This is about Zionism and Palestinian resistance here –and you, the star editor of Mondoweiss, are cheering a Zionist and an imperialist.
        And no, he’s not imperialist-lite. The record is clear and has been discussed ad nauseam

        it’s not as if there are others better. he’s not offering alternatives

        Oh no? Writing not enough? There are perfectly good alternatives to promoting the vote for a Zionist. The anti-Zionist or isolationist third party of your choice (in my case I would go with Dr Stein), or if none is to your liking, abstention. There is no better solution today, period.

        that’s what seems idiotic to me. it’s a constant clog on all the threads as far as i am concerned. once or twice or once in awhile, but no .. for him it’s a constant

        Tough shoot. You’ll have to agree that it’s not really the expected default situation to have the star editor of a Palestine solidarity site cheering for an obvious imperialist and Zionist and attacking third party promoters.

      • annie on March 17, 2016, 4:03 pm

      • echinococcus on March 17, 2016, 4:26 pm

        Of course chomp chomp. The guy was pulled out of the reserve drawer especially for the purpose of preempting any third party vote, in a period in which there was a maximal potential for a massive departure from both dictatorship parties. He’ll pied-piper all these starry-eyed hope-and-optimism liberals until primary time and throw the vote to the Empress’ Lesser Evil, having totally destroyed any possibility of having better voices heard up until then.

      • echinococcus on March 17, 2016, 11:19 pm

        Sibiriak,

        I’ll just note that someone rejecting a Zionist (and Democrat-Republican operator) is being called “moral purist”.

  18. on March 15, 2016, 3:21 am

    Bernie is 74 years old, an age most people would not have lived to up until just a few decades ago. If he possess slight sentimental attachment to the Israeli nation-state project, it is too late to expect him to change his mentality now for him to be critical of Israel in the same level as Palestinian activists. It’s ridiculous, and stupid on your part. Considering his upbringing and early indoctrination, he is extremely reasonable wrt the IP issue.

    Let the man be, and keep focusing on the grassroots, where we are seeing tremendous shift among millennials of all nationality, faith and ethnicity in favor of Palestine. After all, this is what democracy means right? For the masses to collectively wake up and demand for their rights and aspirations to be heard by their leaders? When majority of the people actively demand justice for Palestine, they would elect a leader to facilitate that exact goal.

    • Mooser on March 15, 2016, 12:33 pm

      “When majority of the people actively demand justice for Palestine, they would elect a leader to facilitate that exact goal.”

      Shorter “rugal b”: ‘Leave Israel alooooone!!!’

      • on March 16, 2016, 12:09 am

        You appear to possess little understanding of how a democracy is supposed to function. Whether Bernie is a Zionist or not should not matter, as long as the majority demands a leader to support Palestinian rights. In such circumstances, Bernie, regardless of his personal convictions, will have no choice but to act within his capacity as an elected leader to help the Palestinians as per the wishes of his voters. If he won’t or can’t, then he will simply be replaced by a person who can and will help the Palestinians. Ultimately, the power to act is placed solely on the peoples, not individuals who claim to represent people.

      • annie on March 16, 2016, 1:02 am

        the power to act is placed solely on the peoples, not individuals who claim to represent people.

        You appear to possess little understanding of how our democracy functions.

  19. Pixel on March 15, 2016, 6:20 am

    I am a Jewish American

    I am an American who is Jewish…

    • hophmi on March 15, 2016, 8:39 am

      Let me know how it turns out when you tell African Americans that they’re Americans who are African.

      • eljay on March 15, 2016, 9:27 am

        || hophmi: Let me know how it turns out when you tell African Americans that they’re Americans who are African. ||

        Yup, African Americans are not African. And Jewish Americans are neither Israeli nor (ancient) Israelites.

      • on March 15, 2016, 10:02 am

        White Americans are unwelcomed occupiers of native American land in the same manner American Jews are in the occupied territories of Palestine. Both are invaders, but the former is obviously far more successful. If white Americans magically gained the right to settle on stolen land just through generations of breeding, I see no reason why American Jews should not attempt the same strategy in Palestine.

      • eljay on March 15, 2016, 10:38 am

        || rugal_b: … If white Americans magically gained the right to settle on stolen land just through generations of breeding, I see no reason why American Jews should not attempt the same strategy in Palestine. ||

        If white Americans magically gained the right to settle on stolen land just through generations of breeding, you might see no reason why white Israelis should not attempt the same strategy in Israel.

        You might see no reason. I see no moral value to the Zio-supremacist argument “murderers exist, so it’s OK to rape”.

      • Mooser on March 15, 2016, 11:20 am

        “If white Americans magically gained the right to settle on stolen land just through generations of breeding, I see no reason why American Jews should not attempt the same strategy in Palestine. “

        Finally!! A plain statement of your racist beliefs. I knew you would stop spinning and come clean sooner or later. Nobody can spin forever.

      • YoniFalic on March 15, 2016, 11:58 am

        @rugal_b gives a standard Zionist argument.

        Most Americans unlike racist “Jewish” Zionists are willing to acknowledge that the treatment of native Americans was wrong.

        Zionists consider such treatment the ideal.

        Customary international law with respect to genocide starts with Nuremberg, and after Auschwitz, it is despicable and inexcusable to found a state in post-Auschwitz genocide.

      • on March 15, 2016, 12:29 pm

        Hold up Yoni, that is an extremely poor argument to make, even though I still respect you alot.

        White people lose absolutely nothing by saying their ancestors were evil crooks, they still own 99% of the material wealth of the nation, own the most land and receive the most income. At the same time, the indigenous Natives are relegated to a pitiful existence on land with little economic value, their numbers minimized and all form of empowering valuables, such as their language, ancestry, culture and sovereignty ruthlessly suppressed or destroyed all together.

        If the same arrangement were to occur in Israel and Palestine, where the (White) Jews and Palestinians represent white Americans and Natives rerespectively, of course even the most ardent right wing Zionist would have no qualms admitting their past wrongdoings and acknowledging the status of Palestinians as the true indigenous people of Israel/Palestine. It would mean absolutely shit for them then, as it would to the Palestinians.

      • amigo on March 15, 2016, 3:15 pm

        ” Nobody can spin forever.”Mooser.

        Ah , yes the perpetual motion machine.The only drawback is it would take forever to test it.

        https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/whynot.htm

    • wondering jew on March 16, 2016, 4:27 am

      Pixel seems to feel that the formulation “Jewish American” places too much importance on “Jewish” and needs correction by rephrasing this question of identity by the phrase “I am an American who is Jewish”, the interpretation this reformulation suggests is “I am an American who happens to be Jewish”. It seems to oppose the hybrid or hyphenated identity implied in the original text and seems to assert the secondary (or tertiary) status of the Jewish aspect of either Pixel’s identity or Bernie Sanders’ identity. Based on the polling it is certainly feasible that most Jews who live in America today would prefer a formulation of their identity that de emphasizes the Jewish aspect.

      • Mooser on March 16, 2016, 12:21 pm

        “Based on the polling it is certainly feasible that most Jews who live in America today would prefer a formulation of their identity that de emphasizes the Jewish aspect.”

        “Yonah Fredman” why are you intent on spreading the LIE that the US Government keeps track of Jewish American citizens by religion? I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.

        The “Jewish aspect” of a person’s (“Jews who live in America today“? All packed for Aliyah) identity is entirely their own business in America, not the government’s.
        Why, would you prefer it the other way?

  20. Lewis Elbinger on March 15, 2016, 9:32 am

    This is the best statement on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict I have ever read.
    It expresses my sentiments, beliefs and opinions exactly.
    Many thanks to Philip Weiss​ and Mondoweiss for helping us to move beyond Zionism to a place where peace and justice reside.

  21. mariapalestina on March 15, 2016, 9:32 am

    @hophmi. “African” isn’t a religion.

    • Jon66 on March 15, 2016, 9:52 am

      Maria,

      Search Mondo for “Muslim American”.
      Here’s one example: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/fissures-american-community/

      There are many others.

      The phrase “—- American” is standard. Jewish American, Muslim American, Catholic American. No one says ‘American who is Catholic’.

      • amigo on March 15, 2016, 3:42 pm

        “No one says ‘American who is Catholic’.” Jon 66

        Jon 66 , where did Maria mention religion , except to point out that “African isn,t a religion.Why are you rattling on about Muslims, Catholics and Jews all of which can be be African.

      • Jon66 on March 15, 2016, 5:20 pm

        Amigo,

        The post in this thread inverted the ‘Jewish American’ into ‘American who is Jewish’. My point was the original ‘Jewish American’ is the form adopted by almost all Americans to describe religious, ethnic, or national origin descriptors

        Its not unique to Judiasm

      • annie on March 16, 2016, 12:49 am

        pixel wrote “I am an American who is Jewish”. that’s a perfectly normal thing to say.

      • Jon66 on March 16, 2016, 7:34 am

        Annie,
        I agree. I also think ‘Jewish American’ is perfectly normal. I didn’t understand the point of the original comment.

      • amigo on March 16, 2016, 12:23 pm

        “No one says ‘American who is Catholic’.” Jon 66

        Of course they do not.And they do not say “I am a Catholic who is American.Since when do normal folks start an introduction by stating their religion.

        Your problem is you consider being Jewish as something other than a religion.It is not a nationality , just as Catholicism or Hinduism are not.Telling someone you are a Jewish American just informs them you are an American who is an adherent of Judaism.

        If an American of Irish background states they are Irish American or American Irish the listener still has no idea of what religion they practice , unless that person is labouring under the misunderstanding that all Irish people are Catholics.Indeed and thankfully so , they are not.

        Your problem is that most people view the term “Jewish” as related to a religion in spite of nutandyahoo and co , includes you, going to endless efforts to claim it refers to a nationality.

      • Jon66 on March 16, 2016, 1:08 pm

        Amigo,

        Here are two quick examples from Mondo itself.

        The headlines describe the participants as Muslim Americans. Jewish Americans use similar descriptors. Most Jewish Americans whose relatives were most recently living in Eastern Europe before immigration identify ethnically as Jewish rather than Polish, Russian, Lithuanian, etc.

        Top ten ways Muslim-Americans can do more
        Saja Raoof on December 29, 2015
        It’s time for Muslim-Americans to step up and demand to be cavity searched.
        Since the San Bernardino shootings the public sphere has been rife with demands that Muslims do more to combat extremism in their midst. Saja Raoof offers ten easy suggestions for Muslim-Americans who want to address the widely perceived collective guilt being directed at their community. Step 1: Denounce yourself and your family.

        36
        #IStandWithAhmed: Story of Muslim-American teenager arrested for bringing clock to school goes viral (Updated)
        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/?s=Muslim+American#sthash.5EIL72Nc.dpuf

    • amigo on March 16, 2016, 4:14 pm

      ” Most Jewish Americans whose relatives were most recently living in Eastern Europe before immigration identify ethnically as Jewish rather than Polish, Russian, Lithuanian, etc. ” Jon66

      Sorry Jon , but what exactly is an “Ethnic ” Jew. What ethnic group do they belong to. Does an Irish Jew have the same ethnicity as a Nigerian Jew.Do explain.Does a Argentinian Jew share the same ethnicity as a Jew from New Zealand or outer Mongolia.

      • echinococcus on March 16, 2016, 4:50 pm

        You’ll notice that the only “Jews” worth the name for him are Yiddish-speaking Eastern European Eskenazis.

      • Jon66 on March 16, 2016, 9:29 pm

        Amigo and Echi,

        Perhaps I was unclear. I believe that the majority of Eastern European Jewish Americans identify themselves as ‘Jewish Americans’ and not with adjectives describing their countries of origin. I don’t know enough about Jewish Americans from other countries to speak about them. That is why I didn’t reference them. I don’t know why you think that is a value judgement.

        Incidentally, at least in my family, my grandparents were using these terms prior to the founding of Israel.

      • echinococcus on March 17, 2016, 12:21 am

        Of course your grandparents did, as East European Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazis. They weren’t aware of any other groups of historically Jewish people up in their hometown or where they landed in the States. You, or anyone of later generations, don’t have that excuse.

  22. CigarGod on March 15, 2016, 10:04 am

    Well channelled style, Phil.
    I’m a child of the 60’s…I can appreciate a good hallucination flash back.
    Unfortunately, if Bernie had any of that Palestinian Equality substance in him, we’d have seen it prior to his 75th birthday.

    I guess there is a chance a bolt of lightning could hit him and totally reorder his brain. Can you channell John Travolta?

  23. Boo on March 15, 2016, 10:57 am

    Of course I’d love to see Bernie give this speech. But perhaps a likelier scenario is for him simply to forgo the invitation. If you agree, here’s how to let him know:

    http://diy.rootsaction.org/petitions/tell-bernie-sanders-to-reject-aipac-s-invitation-1

  24. hophmi on March 15, 2016, 12:53 pm

    Ladies and gentlemen, Israel has the strongest protections for minority populations in the Middle East, and everyone knows it; look around that region of the world and you’ll find that it has descended into tribal warfare precisely because these country have no history of minority protection; though some of them treated us comparatively well, we were still second-class citizens who were susceptible at any time to a whimsical rulers who could decide to make our lives difficult, and G-d forbid we should show any political consciousness.

    And ladies and gentlemen, though I’m a democratic socialist, I’m no radical authoritarian, and I’m certainly no fool. Minority protections have NEVER protected Jews from persecution. Europe in the 1930’s was full of countries where Jews seemed to be doing well, and Germany was considered the most culturally advanced country on Earth. Didn’t save the Jews. Neither did assimilation. Neither did conversion. After World War II, Jews were finished depending on others for their safety and security, and though antisemitism is up these days (funny how the same people who want an end to Israel also deny that Europe has an antisemitism problem), we have earned the respect of our fellow human beings, rather than their endless and useless pity. You know why minority protections don’t ensure safety? Because nothing ensures safety against an angry mob. And that’s what this country is becoming.

    Look at this country right now. The Republican frontrunner is a neo-fascist who incites people to violence, calls for restricting press freedoms, talks about total war, and is supported by white supremacists. He’s probably the only candidate attracting larger crowds than I am. The radicals who hate our people are willing to ignore his neo-fascism because he claimed that he’d be neutral between Israel and the Palestinians, as if being neutral was possible for the United States in the Middle East, where the choices are being pro-Israel or being pro-chaos. So remember that folks: It’s more important to be neutral on Israel-Palestine than it is to be an adherent of democracy. No wonder they’re willing to sign on to the Arab Middle East’s latest look-anywhere-but-here tactic, BDS. Three generations of Arab boycotts didn’t work, so they took the show on the road, and it seems like their main achievement is passing resolutions on college campuses, where kids know zero about the conflict.

    Even I’m popular, and I’m popular because I’ve united lots of people against big money. Of course, big money in politics is a problem, but history shows that antisemites often take that one step further and blame the Jews for working class problems. First they start by pointing out all the Jews in finance. A website called Mondoweiss loves to do this, and commentators there love to post lists of rich Jews from those white supremacy websites in the moderated comment section. These people were on the fringes of the Occupy Wall Street movement, but it seems like there are a lot of them. You know where that leads.

    I love America. It’s been a great place for Jewish Americans, who have made contributions to American society totally out of proportion to their numbers, something which always engenders a lot of jealousy, which in turn causes some our brethren to internalize the hatred against us, as it always has. I love that we have actually been able to live not just as Americans who happen to be Jewish, but, should we so desire, as proud and practicing Jews in a country that celebrates diversity, rather than forcing people to drown in a melting pot, like France, which also has minority protections that somehow, hasn’t saved French Muslims from systematic discrimination. But the country has its problems. Of course, the BDS movement is trying to undue a lot of that, and yes, the same people who tell us to put our trust in American minority rights protections are the people who are most likely to bash America on a regular basis and to talk about how the United States misuses its power and oppresses people of color. It’s hypocritical, but subscribing to a dumb idea like BDS is a sign that the subscriber is illogical.

    For people like African-Americans, minority protections are becoming a bigger and bigger bad joke. So it takes a special level of obtuseness to claim that Jews should put all of their eggs in the minority protection basket. It takes someone who wouldn’t give a damn if 100 years from now, Jews and Judaism were extinct. May America be a safe place for Jews for many years to come, and may it become a safer place for others. But may Jews never take the place for granted, or become re-enamored with the idea that we may be saved by some Christian savior. We’ve been there, done that.

    • eljay on March 15, 2016, 1:22 pm

      || hophmi @ March 15, 2016, 12:53 pm ||

      What a lovely speech! But you left out the parts where, as a Jewish Zio-supremacist, he says:

      – Jews are entitled to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.

      – Although he believes in equality for all citizens of America, he does not believe in equality for all citizens of Israel. Rather, he believes that all Jewish Israelis and all non-Israeli Jews are entitled to Jewish supremacism in a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” of Israel in as much as possible of Palestine.

      – Israel is his “ancient homeland”, his “historic homeland” and his “one true homeland”.

      – Israel must not be held accountable for its past and on-going (war) crimes.

      – Israel shouldn’t have to honour its obligations under international law.

      – Israel is a “moral beacon” and a “light unto the nations” that’s not quite as bad as Saudi Arabia, Mali and African “hell-holes”.

    • Mooser on March 15, 2016, 1:34 pm

      “Ladies and gentlemen, Israel has…

      “Hophmi” said the magic word:

      “Phil agrees with me, by the way, that I put up with a lot of nonsense here; I’ve written him a number of times, and he’s always been a gentleman. I think he’s repulsed by a good deal of the commentary here.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/hophmi/?keyword=gentleman#sthash.DYdx0fFz.dpuf

      Oddly enough, in the same thread with the classic “The Phils Will Fall Away” comment. Fickle, that “Hophmi”

    • Mooser on March 15, 2016, 3:04 pm

      “It’s been a great place for Jewish Americans, who have made contributions to American society totally out of proportion to their numbers, something which always engenders a lot of jealousy, which in turn causes some our brethren to internalize the hatred against us, as it always has

      Okay, now it’s out in the open, “Hophmi” definitely wants Trump to win. Sure, “Hoph”, that’s just what Sanders should say. That’s Outreach baby!

      O BTW, “Hophmi”, since you seem to be soooo familiar with the syndrome, can you point me towards, oh, two or three Jewish Americans who are suffering from this universally, clinically and medically recognized “internalize the hatred” syndrome? And all that jealousy against us sure is rough. You poor guy.

      • annie on March 15, 2016, 3:15 pm

        who have made contributions to American society totally out of proportion to their numbers, something which always engenders a lot of jealousy

        triple yawn. mondoweiss comment section was the first place i ever learned (a long time ago) the theory people were racist against jews because they were allegedly jealous. somehow i had lived my entire life up to that point without ever even hearing of this theory. what a bunch of crap.

      • Mooser on March 15, 2016, 5:20 pm

        “So it takes a special level of obtuseness to claim that Jews should put all of their eggs in the minority protection basket.”

        Yup, takes a Zionist like “Hophmi” to equate equality under the law with “the minority protection basket”.

        Insulting and arrogant, and stupider than hell, all in one. OUTREACH! JMVA board-member style!

      • hophmi on March 16, 2016, 11:06 am

        “triple yawn. ”

        Translation: I can’t deal with any criticism whatsoever.

        “mondoweiss comment section was the first place i ever learned (a long time ago) the theory people were racist against jews because they were allegedly jealous. somehow i had lived my entire life up to that point without ever even hearing of this theory.”

        LOL. Have you also never heard that just because you’ve never heard a theory, that does not make it untrue?

        In fact, jealousy has been a motivating factor for antisemites for hundreds of years. The peasants aren’t doing well? The Rothchilds have too much money.

      • Mooser on March 16, 2016, 12:49 pm

        “In fact, jealousy has been a motivating factor for antisemites for hundreds of years.”

        That’s why I very much appreciate your efforts to change that, “Hophmi”! You are doing a wonderful job at showing people there’s really nothing to be jealous of!

        Okay, sometimes I think you go a little bit over-the-top in your efforts, but that’s just me. I probably have too much ethno-religious pride anyway, so it’s good for me to see you bring it all down below the lowest common denominator.

    • eljay on March 15, 2016, 3:36 pm

      || hophmi: … A website called Mondoweiss loves to do this, and commentators there love to post lists of rich Jews … I love America. It’s been a great place for Jewish Americans, who have made contributions to American society totally out of proportion to their numbers … ||

      “Bernie” condemns anti-Semitism…and then anti-Semitically “counts Jews”. Interesting.

    • Mooser on March 15, 2016, 3:54 pm

      “Even I’m popular, and I’m popular because I’ve united lots of people against big money. Of course, big money in politics is a problem, but history shows that antisemites often take that one step further and blame the Jews for working class problems. First they start by pointing out all the Jews in finance. A website called Mondoweiss loves to do this, and commentators there love to post lists of rich Jews from those white supremacy websites in the moderated comment section.

      ROTFLMSJAO!!! “Hophmi”, if you are going to have wet dreams, try and wait until you are asleep. “Mondo” denounced by Bernie Sanders at the Democratic Convention!

    • Keith on March 15, 2016, 5:45 pm

      HOPHMI-
      Perceived anti-Semitism is the mother’s milk of Zionism, however, your anti-Gentilism is above and beyond mere dutiful hasbara. Your contempt and loathing of non-Jews is extreme.

      • hophmi on March 16, 2016, 11:09 am

        LOL. I don’t have any contempt for “non-Jews.” I just don’t trust my safety and security to those who have shown no ability over time to ensure it. You, however, have lots of contempt for Jews, whom you apparently expect to turn the other cheek until they’re dead.

      • Mooser on March 16, 2016, 1:03 pm

        ” I just don’t trust my safety and security to those who have shown no ability over time to ensure it.”

        Just keep saying a brocha every day for the NYPD and NYFD, they’ve done all right by you so far.

      • Mooser on March 16, 2016, 1:37 pm

        ” You, however, have lots of contempt for Jews, whom you apparently expect to turn the other cheek until they’re dead.”

        “Hophmi”, you are doing a bang-up job of reducing jealousy toward Jews.

      • hophmi on March 16, 2016, 2:35 pm

        “Just keep saying a brocha every day for the NYPD and NYFD, they’ve done all right by you so far.”

        I do, every day. Have you seen what goes on at these Trump rallies, or are you deaf, dumb, and blind?

      • Mooser on March 16, 2016, 3:26 pm

        “Have you seen what goes on at these Trump rallies”

        No, what are they doing to Jews at “Trump rallies”?

      • echinococcus on March 16, 2016, 4:15 pm

        Horrrible Antisemitism they are doing at Trump rallies! Trump is saying something like being impartial if one wants to be an honest broker.
        Murder! Hollowcost! Hitler! Help!

      • Keith on March 16, 2016, 6:46 pm

        HOPHMI- “…whom you apparently expect to turn the other cheek until they’re dead.”

        Live in fear do you? Experienced a lot of persecution have you? You are just a whiny, spoiled Zionist, savoring your gilded victimhood and oozing anti-Gentile bias.

      • Mooser on March 16, 2016, 7:45 pm

        “whom you apparently expect to turn the other cheek until they’re dead.”

        Oooh, good use of “turn the other cheek” as a sarcastic slur, “Hophmi”! More of that famous outreach.

    • echinococcus on March 16, 2016, 8:48 am

      I love America

      That’s why I chose a fictitious “homeland” elsewhere, which commands my exclusive loyalty.

      It’s been a great place for Jewish Americans, who have made contributions to American society totally out of proportion to their numbers

      Lemme fix that for you: for Zionist Americans, who have made financial contributions, to lobbying and to Constitution-subverting American parties, totally out of proportion to their numbers.

  25. Mooser on March 15, 2016, 2:56 pm

    “Minority protections have NEVER protected Jews from persecution.”

    ROTFLMSJAO!!!! Yup, right you are, “Hophmi”!! In the US, Jews have never received “minority protections” and look what happened! Yes, far from receiving “minority protections” the bastards just made us “persons” from the start. And thus the Silent Holocaust began!

    Shorter “Hophmi”: ‘The fact that Jews were taken as “persons” in the US and were assimilated and acculturated only proves how much they hate us!!’

    • hophmi on March 16, 2016, 11:09 am

      Shorter Mooser: I can’t read. Can someone help me read?

  26. jon s on March 15, 2016, 5:15 pm

    What Phil can’t seem to accept is that you can be against the occupation , and oppose the settlements and support the peace movement, and also still see the need for a Jewish state.

    • Mooser on March 15, 2016, 5:31 pm

      “What Phil can’t seem to accept is that you can be against the occupation , and oppose the settlements and support the peace movement, and also still see the need for a Jewish state.”

      Why, sure, “Jon s”! In fact those (occupation, the settlements, and no peace) are the very things which prove the need for a “Jewish state”!

    • amigo on March 15, 2016, 5:35 pm

      Maybe what Phil , like the rest of us cannot understand , is why your Jewish State has to be created as a result of the ethnic cleansing of other people from their state and why it should be a democracy for Jews only and a supremacist oppressive state.You are the one who doesn,t get it.

    • eljay on March 15, 2016, 7:58 pm

      || jon s: What Phil can’t seem to accept is that you can … still see the need for a Jewish state. ||

      Perhaps he can’t accept it because there still is no need for a “Jewish State”.

    • echinococcus on March 16, 2016, 12:23 am

      Maybe Phil has some logic. Logic 101: two statements canceling each other cannot coexist.
      A “Jewish state” is necessarily the negation of any peace; it is necessarily bringing occupation and colonial settlement.
      Go back to your country.

  27. jon s on March 15, 2016, 5:58 pm

    Amigo,
    The state didn’t have to be created by ethnic cleansing.
    It should be a democracy for all, equal rights for all.

    • Mooser on March 15, 2016, 6:11 pm

      “The state didn’t have to be created by ethnic cleansing.”

      And so therefore it wasn’t. Whatever it did or didn’t have to be, the fact remains it is what it is!
      And that fact, the creation of a “Jewish State” (rooolph!) will hang like an albatross and a noose around the neck of every Jew for an eternity.
      And BTW, thanks “Jon s” for, in your ignorance and arrogance, for making it seem even worse than it was.
      So “The state didn’t have to be created by ethnic cleansing” it was just more fun that way?
      What’s wrong with you?

    • amigo on March 15, 2016, 6:20 pm

      “It should be a democracy for all, equal rights for all.” Jon s.

      You can have one or the other.

      Jewish State or a Democratic State. You choose.

      • Mooser on March 15, 2016, 6:39 pm

        “You can have one or the other.”

        Amigo, I very much doubt if “Jon s” wants to see Palestinians have equal access to the courts and to politics. “Jon s” idea of equal rights, is equal right of conquest for Zionists, when you strip away the BS.

      • eljay on March 16, 2016, 12:58 pm

        jon s believes in “peace” and “equality” as long as:
        – “peace” does not involve justice or accountability; and
        – “equality” involves some amount of inequality that favours Jewish people.

        Like all Zio-supremacists – even the “liberal Zionist” types – he wants and expects Israel to remain a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”…
        – primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews; and
        – with a legally-enshrined, permanent majority status* for Jewish people.

        He and his co-collectivists do not want or expect Israel to become a secular and democratic Israeli state of and for all of its citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.

        If they did, they wouldn’t be Zio-supremacists.
        _________________
        (*Non-murderous options presented so far include preferential immigration for people who hold the religion-based identity of “Jewish”, and redrawing borders to excise – and render stateless – any non-Jewish “threatening demographic”.)

    • oldgeezer on March 15, 2016, 7:21 pm

      @jon s
      “The state didn’t have to be created by ethnic cleansing. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/what-bernie-sanders-should-say-at-aipac-and-change-the-world-as-we-know-it/#comment-830131

      But it was. It is still expanding it’s territory using the means.

      “It should be a democracy for all, equal rights for all. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/what-bernie-sanders-should-say-at-aipac-and-change-the-world-as-we-know-it/#comment-830131

      But it’s not and if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

      70 years is plenty of times to adjust for growing pains yet Israel moves further and further into nondemocratic forms of rule. It commits crimes against humanity to expand it’s territory stealing land belonging to others.

      Might have been a nice dream but we need to deal with the reality. That reality is killing the Palestinians and dispossessing millions of people.

    • eljay on March 15, 2016, 8:02 pm

      || jon s: Amigo,
      The state didn’t have to be created by ethnic cleansing. … ||

      Of course it didn’t. It could have been created by non-Jews courteously agreeing:
      – to live as second-class citizens in a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”;
      – to abandon their homes and lands and leave Palestine;
      – to drop dead.

      || … It should be a democracy for all, equal rights for all. ||

      It should be…but that not what a single Zio-supremacist wants it to be.

    • echinococcus on March 16, 2016, 12:09 am

      John S,

      The state didn’t have to be created by ethnic cleansing. It should be a democracy for all, equal rights for all.

      Even conceding that ditsy “didn’t have to”, it has been created by ethnic cleansing and is practicing genocide and is the opposite of a democracy and you personally, an illegal American immigrant protected by military might, are supporting it and even working overtime for the propaganda of genocide and dictatorship.
      Get the hell out of there and back to your country if you don’t want to risk your skin in the precarious situation of a legally approved target.

    • talknic on March 16, 2016, 3:21 am

      @ jon s “The state didn’t have to be created by ethnic cleansing.”

      So why was it?

      “It should be a democracy for all, equal rights for all.”

      So why isn’t it?

    • bryan on March 16, 2016, 6:28 am

      “The state didn’t have to be created by ethnic cleansing.”

      A number of commentators have half conceded this ludicrous statement, by arguing that “it did not have to” but actually “it did utilise ethnic cleansing”.

      To set the record straight the Zionist state DID HAVE TO BE CREATED BY ETHNIC CLEANSING and it could not possibly have been created without ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing was not a mishap, an accident, something that just happened in the fog of war; it was part and parcel, the core of the Zionist rationale. A Jewish home within a binational state did not require ethnic cleansing, but that was never the objective, and those few cultural Zionists who advocated for this were quickly overruled.

      Zionism was a project to build a Jewish state, not in an empty land, but in a land brim-full of Palestinian Arabs. Adherents of the Jewish culture and religion were generally unpersuaded of the desirability of this project – a vast majority preferred to soldier on in the diaspora, building alternative projects such as Bundism, or if they were to move from persecution in eastern Europe, to migrate to the New World and the West European democracies, where opportunity and real freedom beckoned, rather than to face the arduous perils of “recolonizing” an ancient land. By the time the tragedy of the holocaust befell Europe’s Jews and justified the notion of refuge, too few remained to achieve demographic domination.

      The secular leaders of Zionism exploited religious fantasies for all they were worth; as Ben Gurion wrote in his memoirs: “Without a messianic, emotional, ideological impulse, without the vision of restoration and redemption, there is no earthly reason why even oppressed and underprivileged Jews … should wander off to Israel of all places”. This “vision of restoration and redemption” inevitably contained the contradictions of clearing malarial swamps and making the desert bloom, but also building iron walls and driving out the indigenous people. An excellent commentary on this theme is Nur Masalha’s ‘Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948″ (http://www.amazon.com/Expulsion-Palestinians-Transfer-Political-1882-1948/dp/0887282423)

      Even in the area designated for a Jewish state by the UN in 1947 Jews were barely a majority, and if adequate account were to be made for non-sedentary Bedouins then perhaps they were not even a majority. The Jewish state, with secure boundaries and an effective apparatus to secure privilege for existing and future Jewish citizens required far more demographic preponderance. This could only be achieved with mass expulsions (0.75 million in 1948), addition expulsions of Bedouin from the Negev in the 1950s and from the West Bank in 1967, plus a raft of other measures like denying residency to Arab Jerusalemites, denying family reunification for non-Jews, denying return to non-Jewish refugees, denying political asylum to refugees from Somalia who followed in the footsteps of Moses and Joshua, cajoling the Mizrahi populations of Africa and Asia to forsake their homelands, and inviting dubiously authentic Jews from Ethiopia, Russia and Peru to provide ballast for this highly dubious project. And still ethic supremacy has not been achieved within Eretz Israel, which is why conditions must continually degrade in the prison camp of Gaza and the Bantustans of the West Bank to encourage the voluntary emigration of the owners of the land.

    • echinococcus on March 16, 2016, 7:34 am

      The state didn’t have to be created by ethnic cleansing.

      Let’s get back to that supremely asinine statement.
      In 1945 Palestine, the Zionists with regular Palestinian citizenship were still a small minority, even assuming that those with citizenship would be included in a plebiscite thanks to the colonialist power shenanigans.
      As has just been shown again, even disregarding the population counts and only calculating land ownership by religion of the owner (totally illegal when considering sovereignty) and counting state ownership as if it were a third party totally divorced from the population didn’t allow a plebiscite result, even if heavily manipulated, in favor of the Zionists. So they skipped the absolutely indispensable plebiscite and managed to pass the totally illegal partition proposal [you all out there telling me that the statement that Jewish organizations wield disproportionate power is “Antisemitic” can go climb a tree] disregarding all these limitations.

      But there still were hurdles, even with the illegal partition: namely the Zionists were still a minority in the area they wanted in their first step of conquest. So that’s how you manufacture democracy: violate the partition proposal even if it illegally favors you, pre-empt it by war of aggression, reduce by massacre and expulsion the population from a majority to the acceptable quota of 15% (as defined in the Jewish agency report authored by Weitz) and put them under military rule.

      So Jewish democracy could only be realized by committing all known colonial illegal tricks plus “ethnic cleansing” (which by the way is a fuzzy euphemism, as it consists of actions that are fully within the purview of the Convention against Genocide.)

      The post hoc whitewashing by the colonial powers through recognition and other tricks is totally worthless: all this is squarely against the UN charter and the dispositions re self-determination of colonial peoples. The hammering by different posters here that once recognized, the initial (self declared!) Zionist entity borders become legitimate is so much hogwash helping Zionist propaganda, no matter how it is packaged.

      You, John S, are an illegal squatter on illegally conquered land and shoudl go back to your country asap.

      • jon s on March 17, 2016, 7:46 am

        The Zionists intention was to establish a Jewish state, with a Jewish majority. Logically that could be achieved either by drastically reducing the number of non-Jews or by dramatically increasing the Jewish population. Those who say that Zionism intended from the outset to get rid of the Palestinian population, to replace them, are ignoring the second path: immigration, leading eventually to a Jewish majority in the country.
        All the Zionist leaders, the “classical ” leaders such as Herzl, Weizmann, Jabotinsky, Ben Gurion, and others, consistently expressed the intention and need to co-exist in peace with the Arab population. The Jewish majority was to be achieved through Jewish immigration, not through expulsion of everyone else.
        Now, obviously , the Palestinians (at least many of them) objected and resisted those intentions, which is quite understandable from their perspective. So, as far as what “had to be” or what “could have been”, in my opinion the conflict was inevitable.

      • eljay on March 17, 2016, 8:24 am

        || jon s: The Zionists intention was to establish a Jewish state, with a Jewish majority. … ||

        Exactly. Israel was not envisioned or established as a secular and democratic Israeli state – a state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.

        Israel was envisioned and established as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” – a state primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews.

        That’s what you Zio-supremacists wanted back then, that’s what you’ve wanted all along and that’s what you continue to want.

        || … Now, obviously , the Palestinians (at least many of them) objected and resisted those intentions, which is quite understandable from their perspective. So, as far as what “had to be” or what “could have been”, in my opinion the conflict was inevitable. ||

        The break-and-enter rapist wanted “peace” and “democracy” in his new (but eternal) home. Now, obviously, the resident family objected and resisted to being chained in the basement, which is quite understandable from their perspective. So, as far as what “had to be” or what “could have been”, the conflict was inevitable.

      • Mooser on March 17, 2016, 5:02 pm

        “The Zionists intention was to establish a Jewish state, with a Jewish majority. Logically that could be achieved either by drastically reducing the number of non-Jews or by dramatically increasing the Jewish population.”

        And once again, as he always does, “Jon s” the history mayhven is unable to distinguish between real estate and national territory.

        And so freakin’ what if they “dramatically increase the Jewish population”? How the f–k does that give the the right to take over the place?

        I guess Jews in America should have reduced rights and political representation, being such a tiny percentage? Oh wait, I forgot, you would love that, “Jon s”. Anything which can make a Jew miserable on that basis, Zionists are in favor of.

  28. rosross on March 15, 2016, 7:28 pm

    If only. Perhaps the most troubling thing is that most of the comments Sanders has made in regard to Palestine are in support of Israel as occupier, coloniser and apartheid State. They may be covert statements but the suggestions are clearly there.

    The problem with Judaism as a religion, and it is similar to other religions like Islam, and Hinduism for that matter, is that the religious culture takes precedence over nationality – loyalties are divided and therein lies the problem for democracies where State and religion are separated.

    I have read arguments saying that Sanders, as a Jew, could more easily than a goy, resist Israel, but I am not so sure about that because emotional connections, particularly when denied, are often most powerful.

    Hillary Clinton sold her soul to Zionist/Israeli/Jewish interests to win her Senate seat and clearly is well-funded by all of them. Her ability to separate the interests of Israel from the interests of the US, is possibly greater because her connection is not emotional but financial and one presumes if she became President, the financial issue would be less important, and so she is more likely than Sanders to choose American interests before Israeli interests.

    It would depend how much evidence there is to force her to continue to play ball, but she is most likely, given that she would want to prove herself as a woman, and as a better President than her husband, not a hard task, and she is an American first and foremost and seemingly, not religious in a fundamentalist Christian way.

    However, since her crass comment regarding Gaddafi: We came, We saw, He died, delivered with much merriment, it is hard to see how she deserves any public office let alone that of the President.

    • hophmi on March 16, 2016, 11:12 am

      “The problem with Judaism as a religion, and it is similar to other religions like Islam, and Hinduism for that matter, is that the religious culture takes precedence over nationality – loyalties are divided and therein lies the problem for democracies where State and religion are separated.”

      LOL. Where did this bigot come from? Why is this garbage permitted here?

      • amigo on March 16, 2016, 12:42 pm

        “LOL. Where did this bigot come from? Why is this garbage permitted here?” hopknee

        What,s the problem hoppy.Did you only read the first seven words.Unless you wish to convince us you care about bigotry against Islam and Hinduism.

      • hophmi on March 16, 2016, 1:02 pm

        “What,s the problem hoppy.Did you only read the first seven words.Unless you wish to convince us you care about bigotry against Islam and Hinduism.”

        I do, actually. But, as you apparently fail to notice, rosross didn’t mention Christianity. That’s a sign for me. And of course, there are rosross’s other anti-Jewish statements.

      • echinococcus on March 16, 2016, 1:29 pm

        Garbage? I’d say Rosross is exceptionally mild. Consider your own identification for example. The archive has very many pieces where you identify as a “Jew” first and last, defending a rogue state against all. And yet, you seem to be American. Do you deny that this is the MO of most people who still identify themselves as “Jewish”? Rosross is extremely measured; I would have drawn a stark difference between the Jewish and Islamic religion, in that the latter not only is not racially determined, but the Umma (Am, to you) never includes any non-believers, it is a nation of believers. Whereas the Jewish religion continues to include all born to a “Jewish woman” as part of the Umma, the Nation,no matter their actual religion.

      • amigo on March 16, 2016, 2:52 pm

        “I do, actually. But, as you apparently fail to notice, rosross didn’t mention Christianity.” hophead

        Thanks for pointing that out hoppy.

        Hey rosross , what,e the big Idea ?? , getting hoppy,s gander up by excluding Christianity.Don,t you know Hoppy is sensitive and supports inclusiveness.

      • echinococcus on March 16, 2016, 3:31 pm

        More nonsense. Having been raised in an exclusively Zionist cocoon, Hophmi is completely bereft of even the most basic knowledge of things that we consider compulsory for any normal 8-year-old.
        When have Christians last considered themselves a “Nation”? He wouldn’t even know that.

      • rosross on March 16, 2016, 10:07 pm

        @hophmi,

        There was a reason why I did not mention Christianity and that is because Christianity is somewhat unique amongst religions in that it reaches out to all and sees it as important to be an integral part of society and to seek to help others, regardless of whether or not they are Christian.

        This means that it is easier to identify as a nationality practising a religion.

        Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and I could add Jainism, and no doubt a few other religions, put the focus on followers and ignore non-members of the religion, in the main, in terms of helping others.

        They also emphasise the need to ‘marry in’ which creates a community less likely to fully assimilate and makes it more difficult to put the religion second to nationality.

        This is a generalisation of course and if you study the history of Christianity you can find periods in history when various groups, for similar reasons, sought to retain a level of separation, but, because Christianity has as a core belief it has a responsibility to serve others, all, and society in general, there has never been the levels of insularity and separation you find in religions like Judaism, Islam, Jainism etc.

        Judaism, in particular, seeing itself as ‘other’ and ‘chosen’ and ‘exceptional’ is more likely to develop an environment where the most important thing for a Jew is the religion. You see the same sorts of things in Islam and Hinduism and I say that having been exposed to both religions living in India for many years.

        I have also worked for and with Israelis and spent time in Israel and I have Jewish relatives, and many Jewish friends (as well as Muslim, Hindu and Jain) around the world.

        I gave up religion long ago, having explored many but found them all wanting with particular exploration of Anglican, Catholic, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Islam, not forgetting Quakers, Lutherans and a few others.

        I fully respect the choice of individuals to have religious belief and practice but I also believe that some religions, because of their nature and particularly when practised as separative and fundamentalist, make it difficult for the sort of assimilation required in a developed democracy where the individual and the society will be a comfortable fit. However, that is a digression.

      • rosross on March 16, 2016, 10:12 pm

        @ echinococcus,

        How can Islam be racially defined when we have Muslims as Indians, Indonesians, Nigerians, Tanzanians, Malawians, South Africans and more on the African continent, not to mention in Iran, China, Malaysia and probably most countries on the planet?

        Muslims, like all religions contain all races and hundreds of nationalities.

        And if you are thinking Arab, that is not a race, that is a culture. Indonesians, Iranians, Chinese, Indians etc., none of them are Arabic in culture.

        Israelis are actually more culturally Arabic than a lot of Muslims around the world.

      • on March 17, 2016, 12:03 am

        Rossross, your white entitlement is showing, please stop trying to explain other cultures as if your some kinda expert in them just because they’re nonwhite and you spoken to one of two of their peoples. Stay in your lane and limit your cultural lectures to your own and let others speak for themselves.

        Islam is definitely being racialized, the same way Jews were racialized in pre-modern Europe, as being the defining trait of the “other” relative to the union of white peoples. Islam is definitely seen as the religion of POC, even though Islam to my knowledge has almost zero affiliation to any particular race or culture. It was an early form of socialism/Marxism not unlike the anti-establishment Christianity preached by Jesus and just like Marxism, these movements are fundamentally inclusive and anti-racist. Its white people who is racializing Islam in order to demonize and talk down to POC.

  29. Kathleen on March 16, 2016, 11:37 am

    We can dream.

    However is this April fools day early here at MW.

    So sad that so many Dem voters in Ohio were willing to ignore Clinton’s proven and very bloody war record and of course her ties to Wall Street. Sanders has proven he is not into “regime change” and what an incredible candidate he is.

  30. kalithea on March 16, 2016, 12:53 pm

    Oh lord, was my comment on Obama’s Justice appointment and the threat to BDS with this appointment just deleted??? Why on earth for?

    • Mooser on March 16, 2016, 1:46 pm

      “Why on earth for?”

      I think the commenting system is a bit unstable right now. Dropping stuff.
      After yesterday’s revelation that they left the “_” weakness uncorrected to be exploited, for months, too. That was disappointing.

  31. echinococcus on March 16, 2016, 1:18 pm

    Sanders has proved with his voting and statement record that he is an imperialist, differing from the Dynastic Empress only in that he has not been sitting at the buttons. While she is proper Nuremberg material, he is only a wannabe.

    Maybe a number of the misguided Ohio Dims (all Democratic and Republican voters are either misguided or criminal) did compare the records instead of the flowery words, correctly concluding that there is no difference? You may want to go over that record with a nitcomb, too.

    Not everybody is into Obamacare and higher pensions and such socialdemocratic perks, after all. I suppose that MW readers include some non-socialdemocrats, after all –that’s why our common scope here is Palestine.

  32. rosross on March 16, 2016, 9:56 pm

    There is no doubt that religion plays a much more ‘important’ or obvious role in the US than in any other developed nation.

    Australia is a largely secular society and in truth, I have no idea what, if any religion, many of my friends have. A good friend, not intimately close, but a good friend of 40 years died recently and only at her funeral did I realise she was Catholic. Her religion was her own private business which really is where religion should be anyway.

    The decision to separate Church and State was made for sensible reasons.

    Unless the conversation is about religion I cannot see why it is necessary to identify the religion to which one belongs. If indeed there is any religion to which one chooses to belong.

  33. rosross on March 16, 2016, 10:13 pm

    @ Amigo,

    I meant to offend no-one but I recognise that there are many who will choose to take offence on this issue.

Leave a Reply