Trending Topics:

Liberal Zionists see ‘window of opportunity’ for two states in last three months of Obama administration

on 50 Comments

We’ve written about Obama’s November surprise before: The liberal Zionist hope that President Obama will do something to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine before he leaves office, but after the election, because if he did anything now it would hurt Hillary Clinton.

Debra DeLee of Peace Now says Obama can make “a gift” to the next president by taking steps in international fora on the two state solution after the election. She gave voice to this hope at an Arab American Institute panel at the Democratic Convention last month that I’ve been meaning to catch up to. DeLee conceded that over the last eight years Obama “did not make progress on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I mean there’s no way to say that he did.”

But he could do something over the next five months. Here’s how:


If you look at the overlap of politics and policy and what we could reasonably hope for, I think the small window of opportunity is the time between election day and inauguration day, and I think there are a number of things that Obama can do after that. One, I think it’s important for him to articulate clear parameters of what a two state solution should look like. I should say, I believe that a two state solution is really the only path to resolve this conflict, where one preserves both the Jewish and democratic nature of Israel and provides freedom, dignity and sovereignty to the Palestinians…

So I believe one, he needs to clearly state, develop and state parameters that are based on the Clinton parameters. I think he needs to take a strong position on settlements, demand a settlement freeze immediately. I think that he needs to engage the potential allies to work with him on this, the EU, revive the Middle East Quartet… And the Arab world, to revitalize the Arab Peace Initiative, to work with the Arab world on that, and I think most importantly during that period of time, which we have urged him to do, is either to initiate or to lead or to support a UN initiative at the Security Council. If it’s based on two states, it is totally in keeping with US policy, I think it’s a critical move, and I think it is a gift that he could give to the next president.

Ronald Reagan opened up unprecedented talks with the PLO, which was a gift that he gave to Bush 1 which resulted in the Madrid Peace Conference. Bill Clinton… laid out the Clinton parameters which was a gift to Bush 2 and allowed Bush to be able …to support two states and to establish, or put forth he road map.

I believe the gift that Obama can give to the next president is a UN resolution that gives some effort and some availability on allies and some opening to move forward.

DeLee’s hope is threatened by two large political realities she mentioned: Netanyahu and the Israel lobby.

First, nothing will happen with Netanyahu in power.

I believe and we [at Americans for Peace Now] believe that as long as Bibi Netanyahu is the prime minister with this right wing government, that not only will we not have a successful peace negotiations, but that it will be non-productive, not successful, and that it will set back American diplomacy and leadership.

She did not say how you get Netanyahu out of the way, except that you work around him, go to the U.N.

As for the Israel lobby, the way to subvert the role of Jewish money in the elections is for Obama to wait till after November, and meantime, get liberal Zionists to reform the Jewish community. DeLee:

The reality will be raised… that if Barack Obama does it [takes an initiative] it will affect Democrats running up and down the ticket, particularly with the Jewish vote and particularly with Jewish money… The critical window of opportunity is from election day until the next president takes office. So you can set aside the political constraints that might come up with the election, and then you do what needs to be done.  You have to be preparing for it now.

Liberal Zionists have to work with politicians to show them that many Jews believe that supporting Israel doesn’t mean Israel is always right.

I think we’ve done it, I think J Street has made enormous strides. We have to get politicians up and down the ticket, to understand that there is not unanimity in the Jewish community. That the Jewish community does not all speak with one voice. The definition of being pro-Israel is not what politicians believe what pro Israel has been, Israel right or right. There are Jews who will come out and say what Israel has been doing is wrong… That is changing every day. I think we have to continue. We have to be everywhere… We have to change what the understanding of what the Jewish community is and what the Jewish community feels.

In fairness to DeLee, let’s see if Obama does anything in that three-month window. Myself, I believe this is just another way of not endorsing real pressure on both communities, by supporting Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, and countering Zionism in the American Jewish community. In the first case, the reality is that Netanyahu is actually beloved by the Israeli Jewish electorate on security grounds. Just look at Israeli Channel 2’s investigation of how he flipped the last election, and won big, or Larry Derfner’s latest column showing that most Israelis have no problem at all with the occupation. That’s who Israeli Jews are; and nothing will change that– except isolation. As for the US Jewish community, the primaries and 7-1/2 years of Obama making “no progress” have made it clear that the dead hand of the older Jewish generation is still controlling American electoral politics on this question. That’s why Hillary Clinton has embraced Netanyahu and sworn to fight BDS. If you want to counter that Jewish effect, the only answer is to have a real debate in the Jewish community. And a real debate means asking American Jews two questions DeLee doesn’t want them to answer: Do you want to live in a society that does not separate religion and state and gives more rights to the religious majority than the minority and denies some people the right to vote on a racial basis? If the answer is No, then why are you supporting such a system in Israel? Jewish Voice for Peace, Open Hillel and IfNotNow are having that discussion right now inside the Jewish community, and Peace Now should get with the young leadership now.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

50 Responses

  1. John Douglas on September 3, 2016, 4:32 pm

    One “gift” would be to refuse any more US aid to Israeli, slated now to be 50 Billion over ten years, until Israel dismantles 50% of existing, illegal settlements.

    • Citizen on September 3, 2016, 5:46 pm

      Obama has already agreed to the higher annual aid for the next decade package–the issue has been that Obama threw a curve ball,which was that he wanted to end allowing 26% of the annual aid figure to directly fund Israel’s military industrial complex, which competes with US MIC. Perhaps US MIC doesn’t like being #2 behind tiny Israel, in the sale of drone?

  2. annie on September 3, 2016, 5:12 pm

    If you want to counter that Jewish effect, the only answer is to have a real debate in the Jewish community.

    i don’t agree with this at all. the real debate can and will happen with many many americans as well as internationally. the time for this debate is long overdue. it’s already started and cannot be contained within “the jewish community” (regardless of what clinton thinks or how she acts) for it effects all of us.

    • Citizen on September 3, 2016, 5:57 pm

      I agree, Annie, it certainly impacts all of US, not merely the 2% comprising the USA’s Jewish community. I don’t see how the traditional adage not to air one’s dirty laundry in public should apply if you want it clean and dry, suitable for wear–not when the context is the sole nuclear-armed state in the geo-strategic Middle East, heavily funded and diplomatically immunized constantly by the sole superpower in the world against the best interests of both states in the longer run, not to mention an entire people, the Palestinians.

    • ritzl on September 3, 2016, 7:41 pm


  3. RoHa on September 3, 2016, 6:39 pm

    “I believe that a two state solution is really the only path to resolve this conflict, where one preserves both the Jewish and democratic nature of Israel ”

    But why is it necessary to preserve the Jewish nature of Israel?

    “and provides freedom, dignity and sovereignty to the Palestinians ”

    Would the Palestinians not have sovereignty as full, equal citizens of a unified state?

    • Mivasair on September 3, 2016, 7:41 pm

      A “two state solution” is (1) no longer possible and (2) not at all “the only path to resolve this conflict”. And how can a Jewish Israel be democratic?

      • eljay on September 3, 2016, 9:36 pm

        … I should say, I believe that a two state solution is really the only path to resolve this conflict, where one preserves both the Jewish and democratic nature of Israel and provides freedom, dignity and sovereignty to the Palestinians …

        A two-state solution should result in two secular and democratic states of and for their respective citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally. A two-state solution that…
        – allows Israel to remain a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”;
        – allows Israel to retain much (most?) of what it has stolen;
        – absolves Israel of its obligations under international law (including RoR of refugees); and
        – absolves Israel of responsibility and accountability for its past and on-going (war) crimes,
        …is not the path to take.

      • Marnie on September 4, 2016, 12:44 am

        A Jewish Israel can never be democratic, which is what we’ve had for 70 years. The land that was meant for a separate Palestinian state has been chopped to pieces by the metastatic settlement disease process. The only option imho is a secular democratic state for all. Not Jewish, not Palestinian, but with respect for all it’s citizens, not favoring one over the other and religion can play no part in making laws so no rabbinute, sanhedrin or whatever. Strictly democratic. Religions will be respected, but have no impact on anyone outside the individual practitioners. There will be civil marriages so no one will have to go outside israel to be married, etc., etc.

    • Eric on September 6, 2016, 10:51 am

      One person, one vote is the only way to bring democracy to Israel/Palestine. Anything else will maintain ethnosupremacism and colonialism and ensure turmoil forever.

  4. ckg on September 3, 2016, 7:13 pm

  5. wondering jew on September 3, 2016, 7:19 pm

    If trump gets elected, God forbid, I doubt Obama would make a major move like a un SC resolution or even a speech with Obama parameters. Not Obama’s lame duck role to present the president elect with a fait accomplis which a un resolution would amount to, and a statement of parameters would evoke laughter and scorn.

    If hillary gets elected it is still a long shot. I can’t see her giving her approval and then the dynamic of lame duck and president elect will again apply. To present this as hillary disagreeing with this Obama move, but forced to accept the reality of one president at a time, it’s tough to view this as a probable scenario.

    • Eric on September 7, 2016, 1:03 pm

      Agree with Yonah. The probability of this happening is zero, and as happens frequently, Phil wastes time and effort putting a pipe dream on his site.

  6. Boomer on September 3, 2016, 7:38 pm

    I can understand why Liberal Zionists want Obama to give them this: they would get to keep the Jewish state to which they are attached without any more of that nagging guilt about the dispossession and oppression of the Palestinians. (That nagging guilt, as far as I can tell, is the difference between a Zionist and a Liberal Zionist).

    But I do wonder what is in it for the Palestinians, what will they get? The leftovers? Whatever Israel hasn’t taken and doesn’t want? A bantustan under perpetual Israeli control? Netanyahu has said that they “can have their flag, their administration, their anthem.” That may be the best the Palestinians can hope for. Still, it seems they should have a voice.

    I don’t pretend to know what is the best possible outcome. One state or two? It’s not up to me. But I don’t agree that it should be decided exclusively by debate between the Zionists and the Liberal Zionists. In practice, in terms of political clout, that may be the reality.

    But morally, Palestinians deserve a voice too. And non-Jewish Americans. As one of them, I would like to see an end to our nation’s support for the continuing oppression and dispossession of the Palestinians. Beyond that, I’d like to see us do something meaningful to aid them, even though we can’t truly compensate them for what they have lost, in part due to our nation’s policies.

    • echinococcus on September 3, 2016, 8:15 pm

      That nagging guilt, as far as I can tell, is the difference between a Zionist and a Liberal Zionist

      May I try to refine that just a little?

      The difference between a Zionist and a Liberal Zionist is the consciousness that this kind of criminality doesn’t play well at all in front of the world and may derail the cozy eternal “negotiations”.

      The mentioned nagging guilt is the difference between a Zionist and a non-Zionist tribal cheering for a 2-state “solution”.

      • Boomer on September 5, 2016, 2:33 pm

        @ echinococcus, “The difference between a Zionist and a Liberal Zionist is the consciousness that this kind of criminality doesn’t play well at all in front of the world and may derail the cozy eternal ‘negotiations’.”

        I take your point. I may have been giving too much credit. To be fair, I have known a few (very few) self-described liberal Zionists who seemed distressed by the Palestinians’ plight, but it is hard to know how much of that is actual guilt, or mere embarrassment when with non-Jewish friends and neighbors, or simply strategic calculation, as you suggest. True guilt feelings, if powerful enough, may well push people out of the Liberal Zionist camp into some other category.

        Jonathan Haidt (The Happiness Hypothesis, The Righteous Mind) suggests that liberals (using the term in the American sense, to mean politically left or progressive) particularly value fairness and non-harm. If that is true, one might infer that liberal Zionists would be concerned about how Palestinians are treated. But on that topic, “it is complicated,” as apologists for Israel often say. Other factors may come into play. In any event, the term “liberal Zionist” does seem problematic.

      • Raphael on September 5, 2016, 3:03 pm


        I’m guessing but I think 99% of Zionists in the US that are not right wing AIPAC fundamentalist Zionists, would not want to be associated with liberals, or be called liberal Zionists.

        In the US I would call myself a liberal Zionist because I’m a anarchist Zionist, so I welcome the debates. But, I think, you would have to ask a American Jew that if, perhaps, progressive Zionist is something they are comfortable with. I think, though, actually most American Jews don’t care one way or the other.

      • annie on September 5, 2016, 4:18 pm

        do you base these ‘guesses’ or ‘you think, though, actually’ about american jews on anything other than your hunches? because there are a lot of self identified so called ‘liberal zionists’ here. most of the people disputing that are people who don’t believe zionism is compatible with liberalism. if 99% of Zionists “would not want to be associated with liberals, or be called liberal Zionists”, the term likely wouldn’t exist.

      • echinococcus on September 5, 2016, 3:10 pm


        No contest. In fact, I know not a few, but a largish number of sincerely troubled-to-the-very-core liberal Zionists, some self-described and some who even call themselves non-Zionist while following the same policies.

        Problem is, these are liberal Zionists like “our” liberals tout court –tho whom LZ belong, anyway. They are not leading. They are not deciding. They protest and wring hands a lot but fall in line when the time comes. Or even right from the start. Just look at the ex-Obamaniacs become Bernieberals (ex, too.) The mechanism is the same and the touchstone question remains “who’s the owner of this show?”
        Palestine, to the owners of the show, is an image problem.

      • Raphael on September 5, 2016, 6:00 pm


        I got into all this Jewishness stuff, years later, in my life. My parents were agnostic or atheists. I just found out the other day that my grandfather was also not much of a Jerusalem next year Orthodox Jew; though he was likely a Orthodox Jew.

        I had a choice in my life… and it literally got to the point where I had to pick one, or the other…
        either to be a American Jew, or a Zionist Israelite, because, I never was part of either one; though others would label me as being one or the other; especially later in life; because I look so Jewish.

        And, getting a nose job would not work, because, I would feel alienated within by trying to erase a part of who I am.

        I’ve always been interested, and curious in things about the Hebrews or Israelites on a spiritual level, though, I’m likely two generations, at least from those that were part of the tribe called Israelites…especially in how Israelis identify who is a Jew; that is in many ways different then how American Jews identify being with the tribe.

        But, if I self identify with the tribe, and want to remember my Israelite self; then that makes me a Israelite but not a Jew; because I’m not of the Jewish religion.

        Israel only required I prove that I have a Jewish father; to be a Israeli. I did not have to convert which I would have been required to do to be a American Jew… so it was my decision to become a Israeli American; rather then a American Jew. And, it seems obvious the brief time I’ve been a Israeli American, that being a Israeli citizen de facto makes me a Zionist; especially with the Arabs.

      • eljay on September 5, 2016, 7:36 pm

        || Raphael: … I had a choice in my life… and it literally got to the point where I had to pick one, or the other…
        either to be a American Jew, or a Zionist Israelite … ||

        More correctly, you literally got to the point where…
        – you decided that you had to make a choice;
        – you intentionally limited yourself to two options; and
        – you deliberately chose the more hateful and immoral option.

        You’re not a victim.

      • Mooser on September 5, 2016, 8:23 pm

        “Raphael” go for the cream-colored paper with faint blue lines, and leather covers, with a little lock.

        “And, getting a nose job would not work, because, I would feel alienated within by trying to erase a part of who I am.”

        On the other hand, some parts you don’t miss at all! Funny isn’t it?

      • Raphael on September 5, 2016, 10:40 pm


        – you deliberately chose the more hateful and immoral option.

        What the Arabs and the Jews believe about Israel is between them. I’m a outsider; I take no sides even if I wanted too. My opinions are my own about such things as a third Temple, current architectural changes that need to be done in Israel.

        I was born of the Hebrew Israelite tribe; probably something like 99% of the Jews and the Arabs never even heard of; because they were always part of a collective and born into it, where I’m a individual,born and baptized into a faith not Jewish. I was born a Hebrew Catholic… also something 99% of Jews and Arabs never even heard of.

        My Zionism is based upon the ancient historical land of Israel; my ancestors, and, of my election by God to the land and people of Israel, that is of a spiritual dimension that is not Jewish… it is the Zionism of a undefined mystical nature; not based upon strength, or empire.

        I did have to make a decision; because I was attacked because of anti-Semitic reasons. The American Jews would just assume that because; my mother is not Jewish; that the Arabs would simply leave me alone; if they even asked themselves the question, at all. Which I doubt they even asked themselves what if the Arabs after 9/11 would decide to also attack the non Jewish Jews that are not Jewish by rabbinic law; such as half Jews as myself.

        At least with the Israeli Jews I have reasonable discussions about this; the American Jews are generally hostile.

      • RoHa on September 6, 2016, 3:34 am


        “I got into all this Jewishness stuff, years later, in my life.”

        You would have done better to put you efforts into learning punctuation. It is much more important, much more useful, much more moral and socially beneficial, and far, far, better for your soul.

      • eljay on September 6, 2016, 10:27 am

        || Raphael @ September 5, 2016, 10:40 pm ||

        Wow, that’s a lot of words and semi-colons just to confirm what I wrote.

      • Mooser on September 6, 2016, 2:45 pm

        “You would have done better to put you efforts into learning punctuation.”

        Punctuation? “RoHa”, we don’t even have vowels! The only form of punctuation known to the ancient Israelites was the semi-colon.

      • Mooser on September 7, 2016, 2:36 pm

        “I did have to make a decision; because I was attacked because of anti-Semitic reasons. The American Jews would just assume that because; my mother is not Jewish; that the Arabs would simply leave me alone; if they even asked themselves the question, at all. Which I doubt they even asked themselves what if the Arabs after 9/11 would decide to also attack the non Jewish Jews that are not Jewish by rabbinic law; such as half Jews as myself.”

        Please think about that diary. Stop embarrassing yourself like this.

  7. ritzl on September 3, 2016, 7:46 pm

    If it’s two STATES they “want” the biggest and quickest thing Obama could do is recognize Palestine as, you know, a STATE.

    Stroke of the pen kinda stuff. He did it for South Sudan.

    • Boomer on September 10, 2016, 9:46 am

      On “Charlie Rose The Week” Rose interviewed some “consultant” who allowed as how he wouldn’t be surprised if Obama recognized Palestine after the election. It wasn’t made clear why anyone should care whether this guy would be surprised. As far as I’m concerned, your opinion counts as much as his.

      In any event, it would raise some questions, I guess. What would the U.S. do when Israel grabs more land in occupied Palestine, after we recognized it as a State? Anything different from what we do now? Would Gaza be part of the state? If so, would the U.S. take steps to end the blockade? Lots of issues for the next President. Perhaps the next President would “unrecognize” Palestine?

      • ritzl on September 10, 2016, 6:24 pm

        Great questions Boomer. Especially the last one. I have no idea.

        My only motivation for that comment was that the APN types SAY they want a Palestinian state but never quite get around to ask for (or even recommend) one directly. These sporadic, spasmodic LZ tizzies are the Shakespearean “…tale
        Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
        Signifying nothing.”

        It must be hell for them to doom themselves to be forever oblique and tangential.

  8. jsinton on September 3, 2016, 9:33 pm

    I’m waiting for the shoe to drop after the election. Obama will abstain from a UNSC resolution on the settlements.

  9. klm90046 on September 3, 2016, 10:37 pm

    Some good people believe that Israel will allow a two-state outcome. They live in a fool’s paradise. Some other good people believe that Israel will distribute citizenship papers to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. They live in Detroit.

    • Boomer on September 4, 2016, 3:02 pm

      I don’t know what the future holds, but I believe that under international pressure Israel would allow a “two state” option, provided that the Palestinian “state” is a tiny pseudo-state without the normal powers of a sovereign government (such as control of its borders, airspace, movement of people and goods, natural resources, defense, etc.). In short, I believe Israel would, under pressure, accept a tiny pseudo-state that that is controlled by Israel.

      I also believe that the U.S. elites would be quick to approve this “solution.” That would end the discussion in the U.S. about Palestinians (not that there is much discussion now, except at this site and a few others). Most Palestinians–those who are not now living on the West Bank and Gaza reservations–would continue to live as refugees outside historic Palestine. Eventually, they or their descendants will be permitted to become citizens of other countries.

      In other words, I think the Zionists won long ago. First they “won” the Nakba. Then they conquered the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the U.S. government.

      Given that belief, for me, the moral response for America would be to invite to the U.S. those Palestinians who wish to move here and become citizens. Because the U.S. has done so much to help Israel help itself to the Palestinians’ homes and homeland, that seems the least we could do. I realize, of course, that the current political climate makes this unlikely. Still, we took in a million Vietnamese after the war there; we could do the same for the Palestinians. I think they would enrich our society. We would be the better for it.

      • ritzl on September 4, 2016, 3:31 pm

        @Boomer I pretty much agree with your observations but draw the opposite conclusion.

        The Zionists have lost.

        The seeds of Zionism all-but-notional demise were embedded in both the premise and the entitled, excessive implementation right from the start.

        I don’t know if Israel would accept (as opposed to desire) a Palestinian statelet because I believe they know that that would inarguably complete the definition of, and broadly perceived moral equivalence to, South African Apartheid. No more ambiguity.

        Similarly they’re hosed if the DO NOT do something to physically segregate end masse and simply occupy in perpetuity. That’s half de jure, half de facto One State and becomes equally inarguable to suppress the political and human rights of more than half the people under your control forever.

        Lose-Lose, imho. Timing TBD, but the enabling ambiguity seems to be fading in real time (though glacially so).

        Agree about the refugees though, should they wish to come.

      • echinococcus on September 4, 2016, 6:18 pm

        Entirely correct, Boomer.

        Everybody loves a nice, well-behaved Bantustan. That solution is capable of keeping the Zionist abomination alive much longer.

        We are very fortunate that the Bantustan solution is unacceptable to Zionists. They have too much Blut und Boden in their twisted minds. They are trying to get a maximum of both and all of Palestine seems a minimum, sine qua non, for both Yahoos and Labor liberals.

        Otherwise, if the Bantustan were official, we’d have the same dire situation but with even less hopes of getting anywhere.

      • Boomer on September 4, 2016, 7:56 pm

        @ritzl re: “@Boomer I pretty much agree with your observations but draw the opposite conclusion.”

        You may well be right. It is interesting how people can see the same things, agree on the picture, yet reach different conclusions.

    • ckg on September 4, 2016, 3:20 pm

      They live in a fool’s paradise…They live in Detroit.

      I dunno about that. Most of us fools here in Detroit don’t think of it as paradise. But everything else you say makes sense.

  10. Atlantaiconoclast on September 3, 2016, 11:38 pm

    How do liberal Zionists not see a contradiction in their call for preserving Israel’s Jewish character, and their objections to the calls of White people in the Alt Right for preserving the White majority in the US?

    How do they tolerate Israel’s wall, on another people’s land, yet brand Trump as racist for wanting a barrier on US land?

    The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.

    • MHughes976 on September 4, 2016, 9:28 am

      That’s a good question, Atlanta. I think it’s the influence of the Bible as it has been interpreted of late.

      • Atlantaiconoclast on September 4, 2016, 11:26 pm

        influence of the Bible on whom? Not sure that liberal Zionists care much for the Bible

      • MHughes976 on September 5, 2016, 3:34 pm

        I believe – maybe I’m wrong!! – that the cultural influence of the Bible remains very strong, Zionist interpretations of the Bible gaining great strength and credence among Christians in reaction to WW2. There is no other masterpiece of world literature that gives – or if suitably interpreted seems to give – an air of sacredness to a process of conquest that is still happening. Nothing else in families and schools that are traditionally Jewish or Christian has comparable authority. As you say, Atlanta, it’s all very hard to explain. What other influence can we perceive? A genuine question.
        Of course some people appeal to the Bible in the cause of White supremacy also. But this is regarded, by strong contrast with at least the milder forms of Christian Zionism, as rather worse than eccentric. Well, I live in the Deep South of England, not of America. But even there I can’t think that there are many who seriously share the view of some of the old New England colonists that White people are reclaiming the land from the devil’s clutches.

    • Mooser on September 4, 2016, 12:56 pm

      “How do liberal Zionists not see a contradiction in their call for preserving Israel’s Jewish character, and their objections to the calls of White people in the Alt Right for preserving the White majority in the US? “

      ROTFLMSJAO! Yeah, if it wasn’t for those “liberal Zionists” you “White people in the Alt Right” could preserve your “White majority” and all it’s glory. Me, I think the “liberal Zionists” are in cahoots with BLM! Or, more likely, the Black Panthers.

      But really, “Atlantacolnialist”, if you want to preserve the “White majority”, there’s a really simple method. If you had two anatomically correct properly hued dolls I could show you.

      Have you tried appealing to the “liberal Zionists”? Why not say “Look, guys, we both want the same thing, so why don’t we work together, instead of fighting each other? You stop activating about civil rights in the US, and the “White alt-right” will stop activating against Zionism” Seems fair, don’t it?

    • Mooser on September 5, 2016, 4:40 pm

      Hey, “Atlantaiconophile” you wanna know how to keep your “White majority” in the US? It’s simple dude!
      Just keep guns, alchohol, drugs, and high fat foods, out of the hands of “White” people! And maybe get them to exercise. Then we can get to the dolls.

  11. Atlantaiconoclast on September 3, 2016, 11:58 pm

    When is Mondoweiss going to discuss the current lawsuit that accuses our govt of violating the Symington Amendment by giving foreign aid to Israel?

  12. Kay24 on September 4, 2016, 8:07 am

    If the US genuinely wanted to stop this occupation and land theft, it could have easily done so YEARS ago. There is no point making excuses and pretending it wants to be an honest broker in this matter. We are a nation that aid, arms, and protects Israel from world censure and threats of sanctions, and shows unwavering support the moment it starts dropping bombs in Palestinian territories killing hundreds of CIVILIANS. All we have to do is threaten to stop the charity that they beg for, and that will surely hurt them. Obama is NOT going to make waves and damage his legacy in any way, especially during the last days of of his Presidency. He will, like those before him, and most probably after, toe that imaginary line and allow the zionists to continue this outrage, and get away with murder. Our policies supporting democracy and freedom apparently does not apply to those the zionists occupy and kill.

    Yes CKG, it is the impossible dream.


  13. Ossinev on September 4, 2016, 12:46 pm

    Slightly off script but thought it might be of interest to Mondoweissers as an illustration of the bizarre and absurd lengths JSIL firsters here in the UK will go to keep the myth of a”surge in anti – semitism in the UK” alive. Note that in the not so distant past accusations of anti – semitism in the UK were directed by Jewish/Zionist organisations almost exclusively at the pseudo – Nazi right wing groups such as the BNP and the National Front ( who now because of their Islamophobic rants and ravings are if anything Zionist bedfellows ). The tactics and strategy have changed dramatically since Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have “taken over” the Labour Party movement. Corbyn is seen by the JSIL Firsters including the delightful MS Smeeth as being anti – Israel and anti – Zionist and having him as the potential official leader of the opposition in the UK Parliament and openly criticising JSIL for its human rights abuses and breaches i of International Treaties in what is effectively a World Forum is making the Zionist lobbies wet their collective undergarments. So the word has gone out speak to the Zio – compliant paper editors and the article writers and get them to keep alive the myth of a surging anti – semitism and on the basis of two birds with one stone link it to Corbyn`s alleged”failure” to deal with this”growing menace” within the Labour Movement. Thus we have the following from Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth in yesterday`s Times:

    Yes you are reading it correctly that`s 25,000 hate messages in two months. I will leave you to do the maths. It is of course not specified that all or indeed any of these messages were anti – semitic along the lines of ” I hate you you Jewish etc ” but the implication is there. I am certain that the poor lady must have collapsed with exhaustion when she got to 24,999 in her count and probably burst into tears – she has got form for the latter:

    Great to see the quality and steeliness in the face of our UK MPs on show. When faced with hearing something you disagree with then do not stay and argue/fight your corner just storm out in tears(crocodile or otherwise). It makes for great Hasbara theatre.

    She must think as the saying goes that us UK gentiles came up the Thames in a bubble.

    Speaking of bubbles – in ZioBibliland the following are classic examples overt and ugly Ant- Semitism of the kind which is now “rampant” within the UK Labour Party:

    “Israel is guilty of war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza” = Anti – Semitism
    “Israel is guilty of human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories ” = Anti Semitism
    “Israel is in breach of International Law in its occupation of the West Bank and its blockade of Gaza ” = Anti – Semitism
    “Ms Smeeth as one of your constituents and a fellow Labour Party member I deplore your failure to criticise Israel l for its war crimes and human rights abuses against the Palestinians = Anti – Semitism.

    I expect that by now the ” hate ” messages may have surpassed 30,000 with intelligent individuals “hatefully” disagreeing with her on social media.She may well have had to employ a “hate message counter” technician to deal with the counting ( out of her Parliamentary expenses ).

    Oh and yes Ms Smeeth please feel free to make this missive “hate message ” no 30,001.

    BTW if the “25,000” sounds like Zionist spin it is probably because of her historry as a Zionist spin doctor:

    • annie on September 4, 2016, 1:03 pm

      25k messages doesn’t surprise me in a party membership of 400k. i’d blast her too if i was a member for the inflammation of perpetuating this crap. dragging the whole party and the country into the focus of anti semitism as if it’s the worst threatening thing in the UK political landscape.

  14. SonofDaffyDuck on September 6, 2016, 5:27 pm

    What a nice idea! And it is fun to dream! But obviously, Obama does not have the independence to back a resolution for a two state solution, nor probably the will to leave office with angry Zionists at the door when he walks out.
    And it is illusory believe that a settlement could be conceived of let alone hammered out involving the shards of Palestinian land remaining and some mythical state of mind in which Israel could politically give up any of the land it has grabbed.

    The Lobby is solid; the candidates are subservient; Schumer will be at Hillary’s right hand to be sure she does the right thing for the right-wing Israeli government.

    The Cleansing marches inexorably forward.

  15. Boomer on September 9, 2016, 9:47 am

    NYT reports that Yahu is flirting with Putin to forestall any November surprise by Obama at the UN. I wonder how the LZ’s will feel about this development? I assume hard-core Zionists, Israel Firsters, and such will be pleased. But maybe some of the LZ’s will have mixed feelings?

Leave a Reply