Trending Topics:

Provoked by BDS campaign, Trump administration says anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism

US Politics
and on 92 Comments

The IHRA issue has jumped the Atlantic. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism that entails saying Israel is a racist endeavor and that has roiled the British Labour Party is now the Education Department’s standard.

On that basis Kenneth Marcus, the longtime Israel advocate who now heads the office of civil rights at Trump’s Education Department, is reopening a case that the Obama administration dismissed, of alleged anti-semitism on the part of Palestinian solidarity activists at Rutgers in 2011.

The BDS campaign, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, is at the heart of the case, as in so many claims of anti-Semitism under the IHRA standard. Pro-BDS activists were alleged to have discriminated against Jewish students by charging a fee to attend an event on the Nakba after scores of pro-Israel students showed up to protest the event. The Zionist Organization of America then filed a complaint under Title VI saying that the pro-Israel students experienced a “hostile environment” at the school on the basis of their ethnicity as Jews. The organizers of the event said they requested a fee from everyone attending the event to cover venue and security costs stemming from the controversy over it.

The supposed smoking gun in the case was an email from an organizer saying that “150 Zionists” had shown up at the event. Kenneth Marcus says that when the activist saw Zionists, the activist was actually seeing Jews. He wrote a letter to the ZOA reopening the case and said:

“[T]he visual perception of the presence of ‘150 Zionists’ referenced in the email could have been rooted in a perception of Jewish ancestry or ethnic characteristics common to the group…In cases such as this, it is important to determine whether terms such as ‘Zionist’ are actually code for ‘Jewish.’”

Anti-Zionism is at the core of the new definition. If you deny the right of Jews for self-determination in historical Palestine or apply a double standard to Israel’s actions and those of other nations or demonize Israel by comparing its policies to Nazi policies, you meet the definition of anti-Semitism.

The New York Times article on the case was decent enough to state the ideological stakes of the case — putting “the weight of the federal government behind a definition of anti-Semitism that targets opponents of Zionism” — and to quote someone saying that this standard defines the Palestinian side as anti-semitic.  Reporter Erica Green writes:
In effect, Arab-American activists say, the government is declaring the Palestinian cause anti-Semitic.

Then in the Times comment section, we noted a self-described liberal who agreed with Marcus and some other pro-Israel writer who said that anti-semites like the BDS movement should have free speech. This is the mealymouthed liberal anti-Trump position (evident in the Cynthia Nixon controversy too).

Don’t defend BDS, the campaign for Palestinian equal rights, and for goodness  sake don’t even think that Marcus and his allies might be expressing racism against Palestinians by supporting a Jim Crow system built upon an ethnically-cleansed territory. There is always only anti-semitism.  No other form of bigotry could exist and so the cowardly sort of liberal will only defend free speech, and may take a few potshots at BDS along the way.

The case demonstrates the sheer arrogance of the Trump-Netanyahu axis.  They are going for broke. And the liberals who obsess about Putin’s supposed control seem unable to spot which groups really have influence on Trump.

It is time defenders of Palestinian human rights stopped playing defense and pointed to the racism of these standards. People have to be shown that trying to shut down the BDS campaign is racist, a denial of Palestinian right to free expression. That last step is crucial.
Even Kenneth Stern, a pro-Israel advocate formerly at the American Jewish Committee, made this point to the House Judiciary Committee in opposing this anti-Semitism standard last year. If you are going to brand as bigots those who deny a Jewish right to self-determination, what about those who speak up for Palestinians, he said.

Imagine a definition designed for Palestinians. If “Denying the Jewish people their right to selfdetermination, and denying Israel the right to exist” is antisemitism, then shouldn’t “Denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination, and denying Palestine the right to exist” be anti-Palestinianism? Would they then ask administrators to police and possibly punish campus events by pro-Israel groups who oppose the two state solution, or claim the Palestinian people are a myth?

Yes imagine a discrimination standard for anti-Palestinianism, one that would define hateful statements about Palestinians as civil rights violations.

The BDS movement has shown its importance because it has provoked Kenneth Marcus’s overreaction. This case has the potential to get people to start to realize the sheer ugliness of how false charges of antisemitism are used to support a racist cause.  But that’s not going to happen if people only play defense.

 

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Donald
About Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson is a regular commenter on this site, as "Donald."

Other posts by .


Posted In:

92 Responses

  1. JaapBo
    JaapBo
    September 13, 2018, 2:36 pm

    Perhaps a good idea to set up a definition of anti-Palestinian racism.
    But different from the IHRA-definition it should be based on what constitutes real racism and have examples that are unambiguasly racist. E.g.:

    Anti-Palestinian racism is hatred of or discrimination against Palestinians as Palestinians. Examples are:
    – denying the Palestinian right of self determinaties in historic Palestine, while at the same time supporting the Jewish right of self-determination in historic Palestine
    – denying the Palestinian refugees’ right of return to their or their ancestors’ original place of residence before they fled or were expelled in the conflict with Zionism
    – denying Palestinians citizens equal rights to other citizens of the same state
    – structurally discriminatie against Palestinian citizens of a state by e.g. a discriminatory land policy, discriminatory housing and development plans or permits, or discriminatory budget assignments
    – denying a (possible, future) Palestinian state equal rights to any other state
    – demonizing Palestinians by making hostile generalisations that are not based on facts, e.g. by denying that Palestinian resistance to Zionism is chiefly motivated by resistance to its disposession by Zionism

    • JWalters
      JWalters
      September 13, 2018, 7:11 pm

      I think that’s a very good idea. I’d also add a couple of clarifications to the anti-Semitism definitions (previously posted).

      – It will be illegal to accuse someone of anti-Semitism for criticizing SPECIFIC acts or policies of the state of Israel.

      – It will be illegal to accuse someone of anti-Semitism who points to evidence that a SPECIFIC person is putting Israel’s interests above America’s interests.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        September 14, 2018, 7:47 am

        Walters,

        Give up your idea of criminalizing any speech, anytime, already.

        That exactly what the Zionist b$trds are doing.

        The more they speak, the more rope to hang them with.

    • JWalters
      JWalters
      September 13, 2018, 7:19 pm

      Let’s include examples of anti-Palestinian bigotry previously posted by lyn117:

      – Denying that Palestinians are the indigenous people of Israel/Palestine (this includes a small minority of Palestinian Jews)
      – Denying that Palestinians have the right to return to their land of origin in Israel
      – Saying or implying that Palestinians in general are terrorists
      – Saying or implying that Palestinians don’t love their children
      – Denying historical facts regarding Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, such as the campaign of mass murder and terror along ethnic lines by which Israel was founded
      https://mondoweiss.net/2018/09/netanyahu-labour-rulebook/comment-page-1/#comment-929327

      • lyn117
        lyn117
        September 13, 2018, 9:52 pm

        I guess I have to add to my anti-Palestinian bigotry list
        – Saying or implying Palestinians are uncivilized or violent
        – Approving of or condoning Israel’s founding ethnic cleansing, e.g., by saying it was a necessary evil, or downplaying it, e.g. by saying it was accidental, unintentional, not premeditated or not condoned or approved of by Israel’s founding leaders.

      • Maghlawatan
        Maghlawatan
        September 14, 2018, 1:29 am

        – calling Palestinians Arab Israelis
        – saying « they have 22 other countries »
        – repeating any Israeli discourse on Gaza

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        September 14, 2018, 8:39 am

        – Denying the citizens of the mandated state of Palestine independence, the territorial integrity of their state and majority ruling.

      • Nathan
        Nathan
        September 14, 2018, 10:31 am

        Talkback – The “mandated state of Palestine” is your terminology. The term was “the British Mandate for Palestine”. Mandate is a noun, and it refers to the authority given to Great Britain and France by the League of Nations to administer the territories of the defunct Ottoman Empire. There was no “mandated state” (whatever that might mean). Perhaps what you want to argue is that there was already a “state of Palestine” in the 1920’s. Well, there wasn’t a state of Palestine during the 400 years of Ottoman rule, and there wasn’t a state of Palestine when the British conquered the country and received the mandate to rule it. There was “the British Mandate for Palestine”, and the mandate included the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” (the Balfour Declaration is the preamble of the mandate itself). Obviously, you oppose a “national home for the Jewish people”, which is just fine (albeit just a bit too late to influence the outcome of events) – however, it’s not fine to manipulate the terminology in order to make your case. There was no “mandated state of Palestine”, (there was no state at all). There was “the British Mandate for Palestine”, and you oppose its mandate (which is just fine as well, albeit just a bit too late to influence the outcome of events).

        It’s interesting that statehood exists or doesn’t exist in accordance to the ax that you might want to grind. For example, if someone would dare argue that Gaza is essentially a state (i.e. there is, in fact, a Palestinian state), the answer of the anti-Israel crowd would be that there is no such state. Claiming that there is a Palestinian state today removes an important grievance from the list of grievances, and that’s a “no-no” (there are no solutions to any issues as long as Israel exists). You, too, have an ax to grind. You want to prove that the founding of Israel in Palestine against the wishes of the majority Arab population was illegitimate, so it’s suddenly convenient to claim that there was already a state of Palestine (it was just “mandated”, whatever that might be), so no one had a right to found another state therein (an illegitimate blow to the territorial integrity of an “existing” state). We shoot the arrow, and then we draw the target – and it’s always “bull’s eye”.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        September 14, 2018, 2:23 pm

        Nathan: “The “mandated state of Palestine” is your terminology. The term was “the British Mandate for Palestine”.”

        Nope. What you are talking about is the official title of the legal instrument. And I was refering to the state that was put under this mandate.

        Nathan: “There was no “mandated state” (whatever that might mean). ”

        It simply means a state under mandate. Palestine was a state under mandate.

        Nathan: “… and there wasn’t a state of Palestine when the British conquered the country and received the mandate to rule it.”

        That’s wrong, The British never “conquered” Palestine. They occupied this part while it was a part of the Ottoman Empire and when the state of Palestine was detached from it Britain became its mandatory. Btw. all territories detachted from Turkey were states and were put under a “Class A” mandate.

        Nathan: “Obviously, you oppose a “national home for the Jewish people”, …”

        Not at all. It had been established until 1939 according to the White Book of 1939. Obviously you think that Palestine wasn’t a state and that “national home” meant state. That’s wrong in both cases.

        Here is the definition of a “national home” by Norman Bentwich, who was the first General attorney of the state of Palestine (and a Jewish Zionist):

        “A national home, as distinguished from a state, is a country where a people are acknowledged as having a recognized legal position and the opportunity of developing their cultural, social and intellectual ideals without receiving political rights.”
        (Norman Bentwich, Palestine, 1934, p. 101 cit. in Cattan: Palestine and International Law, 1973, p. 15)

        Nathan: “… so it’s suddenly convenient to claim that there was already a state of Palestine (it was just “mandated”, whatever that might be), so no one had a right to found another state therein (an illegitimate blow to the territorial integrity of an “existing” state).”

        Really? So if Palestine was a state pre 1948 you think that the founding of Israel is illegimate. Excellent! Here is more information of Palestine allready being a state:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_State_of_Palestine#Decisions_of_international_and_national_tribunals

        And especially for you from the chairman of the mandatory commission of the League of Nation in 1937 (paraphrased):
        “Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.”

        P.S. Thank you for reminding us, why the founding of Israel was illegitimate. Keep up the good work!

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        September 14, 2018, 2:30 pm

        Walters,

        I suppose you consider this a good reason for banning speech by law? Just like the Zionists and the Saudis?

        And who is always stronger at deciding what to ban?

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        September 15, 2018, 2:21 am

        @balk at fact

        Palestine was distinctly different from the other Class A mandates.

        The Mandate for Palestine clearly differentiates between political rights – referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity – and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities.
        Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine.

        At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs) because political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed in three other parallel Class “A” mandates – in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. For instance, Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine states explicitly that the Mandatory should:

        “… be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        September 19, 2018, 11:16 am

        Nathan: The “mandated state of Palestine” is your terminology.

        Hersh Lauterpacht (a legal advisor to the Jewish Agency for Palestine) spent decades writing about the statehood of Palestine under the heading “Mandated States” in the volumes of his “Annual Law Review” and “International Law Reports”.

        FYI, every time a party questioned Palestine’s statehood in any connection with a legal case before an international or national Court, dealing with the period prior to November of 1947, the decisions uniformly held that Palestine was a State – no “ifs, ands, buts, or maybes”.

        Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Germany was required to recognize the dispositions made concerning the territories of the former Ottoman Empire, “and to recognize the new States within their frontiers as there laid down.” The other Central powers and some of the treaty articles that required them to recognize the new states were:
        *Bulgaria Article 60 of the Treaty of Neuilly;
        *Hungary Article 74 (2) of The Treaty of Trianon
        *Austria Article 90 of The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye

        Turkey and the US ratified the Treaty of Lausanne. The US also ratified the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention. It did, and still does, recognize Palestinian nationality and statehood as a matter of inter-temporal law. In 1995 the State Department published a Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding Jerusalem. Bar-Haim said “The use of the term “Palestine” is historical fiction; it encourages the Palestine entity concept; its “revived usage enrages” individual Israelis”. Crawford replied “It is difficult to see how it “enrages” Israeli opinion. The practice is consistent with the fact that, ”in a de jure sense”, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. That it was not a simple matter, since there was a ”quota nationality”, in regard to which U.S. legislation and regulation continue to employ the term Palestine. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341.

        US immigration law, U.S. TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, § 1101. Definitions says “(a) As used in this chapter— (14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.

        Here are a few examples of the legal consequences of those treaties:
        *The decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Kletter v. Dulles (1950):

        The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.

        When the Congress speaks of a ‘foreign State,’ it means a country which is not the United States, or its possession or colony- an alien country- other than our own, bearing in mind that the average American, when he speaks of a ‘foreigner,’ means an alien, non- American. Uyeno v. Acheson, D.C., 96 F.Supp. 510.

        Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.

        *The former Attorney General of Palestine, a Jewish expert on international law named Norman Bentwich, published an article in the British Yearbook of International Law in 1946. Bentwich explained that the Courts of Palestine had just decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an ”allied successor state’‘ and that Article 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne could not be legally challenged in the Courts of Palestine. The article is available online, See Professor N. Bentwich, “State Succession and Act of State in the Palestine Courts”, XXIII British Year Book Of International Law, 1946, pages 330-333.
        http://www.archive.org/details/britishyearbooko031843mbp

        *Hersh Lauterpacht also reported on that same case. You might recall that Zionists insisted that Jewish settlers in Palestine be allowed close settlement on surplus “State lands” of Palestine in accordance with the explicit terms of Article 6 of the Mandate. The Courts of Palestine ruled that the Mandate was only legally enforceable in so far as it had been incorporated in domestic enabling legislation. The Palestine Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Amendment Ordinance, 1926, added Article 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne to the Schedule of the Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Ordinance, 1925. Article 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne stipulated that:

        The States in favour of which territory was or is detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars or by the present Treaty shall acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated therein.

        The Supreme Court of Palestine settled a dispute with the heirs of the Sultan when it ruled that Turkey’s ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne was a valid act of state that ceded lands and properties on the Ottoman civil lists to the successor states, including Palestine. It was not a matter that was subject to private claims or challenges in the Courts of Palestine. See Hersh Lauterpacht (editor), International Law Reports, Volume 14, Cambridge University Press, 1951, pages 36-40.

        *Norman Bentwich had already written another article which explained that the coming into force of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne on August 26, 1924 allowed the governments of the States of Palestine, Syria, and Iraq to issue Nationality Acts. According to Bentwich, the guiding principle adopted was that Ottoman subjects habitually resident in the detached territories became ipso facto nationals of the State to which the territory had been transferred. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/byrint7&div=10&id=&page=

        *The International Law Reports annual summarized a decision by the Mixed Courts of Egypt which had ruled that the former Ottoman territories placed under Mandate had the character of regular States, and that their inhabitants possessed the nationality of those States in accordance with Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne. The Court held that the Arab plaintiff had Palestinian nationality, and was a foreign subject in Egypt. — Reports: Gazette des Tribunaux – Mixtes, 1926, p. 119; 53 Clunet (1926), p.1069 cited in Case No 34 “Mandated States”, John Fischer Williams, Hersh Lauterpacht (editors), International Law Reports, Volume 3, Cambridge University Press, 1929, page 48 http://books.google.com/books?id=MFexbdGJeh8C&lpg=PA48&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false

        All of those cases and many more are cited in volume 1 of the US State Department’s (aka Whiteman’s) Digest of International Law, GPO, 1963. It contains an entire Chapter devoted to the various types of States, including the “Mandated States”.

        You should also be aware of the fact that Palestine was not a Jewish state, since Article 6 of the mandate instrument specifically prohibited Jewish settlement of any “State land or Waste land” required for public use.

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso
      September 14, 2018, 10:25 am

      Let’s cut to the chase: The entity known as “Israel” is a parasite that has been feasting on America for 70 years.

      To wit:
      https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mid
      “Congressional Research Service, U.S. Foreign aid to Israel, Jeremy M. Sharpe, Specialist in Middle East Affairs, April 10, 2018.”

      “Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $134.7 billion (current, or non inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance and missile defense funding. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance. At a signing ceremony at the State Department on September 14, 2016, representatives of the U.S. and Israeli governments signed a new 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on military aid covering FY2019 to FY2028. Under the terms of the MOU, the United States pledges to provide $38 billion in military aid ($33 billion in Foreign Military Financing grants plus $5 billion in missile defense appropriations) to Israel. This MOU replaces a previous $30 billion 10-year agreement, which runs through FY2018.”

      And what has America gained by financing and supporting “Israel,” including its 70 years of dispossessing, expelling, and brutally occupying the indigenous Palestinians, creating the world’s largest ghetto/internment camp in the Gaza Strip and maintaining its illegal occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights and Lebanon’s Shebba Farms/Kfarshuba hills since 1967? Nothing positive.

      There is, however, one consequence that is ignored by America’s bought and paid for politicians and hence, the American people: The justified enmity of the Arab and Muslim world, which led to the recently commemorated 9/11 attack.

      To wit:
      In its 2004 report, the U.S. Senate 9/11 Commission declared that “mastermind of the 9/11 attacks,” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s “animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”

      Also, in its analysis of terrorism, the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board of the U.S. Defense Department concluded that “Muslims do not hate our freedom,…they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority object to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights….”

      Also:
      The shocking briefing given to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen by senior military officers in 2010. The team was dispatched by Commander General David Petraeus to brief the Pentagon on intelligen­ce that Israeli intransige­nce in the peace process was jeopardizi­ng American troops in Iraq and Afghanista­n and that America was perceived as weak, ineffectua­l, and unable to stand up to Israel.

      Ha’aretz, January 13, 2012:
      “‘Israel is supposed to be working with us, not against us,’” Foreign Policy quoted an [American] intelligence officer as saying. ‘If they want to shed blood, it would help a lot if it was their blood and not ours. You know, they’re supposed to be a strategic asset. Well, guess what? There are a lot of people now, important people, who just don’t think that’s true.’”

      Ha’aretz, July 28, 2012
      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/former-u-s-officials-say-cia-considers-israel-to-be-mideast-s-biggest-spy-threat-1.454189
      “Former U.S. officials say CIA considers Israel to be Mideast’s biggest spy threat”
      EXCERPT:
      “…despite statements from U.S. politicians trumpeting the friendship, U.S. national security officials consider Israel to be, at times, a frustrating ally and a genuine counterintelligence threat.

      “In addition to what the former U.S. officials described to AP as intrusions in homes in the past decade, Israel has been implicated in U.S. criminal espionage cases and disciplinary proceedings against CIA officers and blamed in the presumed death of an important spy in Syria for the CIA during the administration of President George W. Bush.

      “The CIA considers Israel its No. 1 counterintelligence threat in the agency’s Near East Division, the group that oversees spying across the Middle East, according to current and former officials.”

    • American Perspective
      American Perspective
      September 14, 2018, 4:24 pm

      – denying the Palestinian right of self determinaties in historic Palestine, while at the same time supporting the Jewish right of self-determination in historic Palestine

      The Palestinian people – the Jews – did self-determine in the 1940s. You’re conflating Arab nationalism with Palestinians. Those are not the same thing. Opposing the Labour Party is not “anti-British”. Opposing the white nationalist wing of the Republican Party is not “anti-American”. And opposing Arab nationalism can never be “anti-Palestinian”.

      – denying the Palestinian refugees’ right of return to their or their ancestors’ original place of residence before they fled or were expelled in the conflict with Zionism

      There are no Palestinian refugees. I think you mean Palestine refugees. What is an “ancestors’ original place of residence”. What if the residence no longer exists. What if the local authorities have sequestioned the property. What if it is longer than the Mejel’s statute of limitations.

      Having a disagreement about real estate property law cannot possibly be anti-Palestinian.

      – denying Palestinians citizens equal rights to other citizens of the same state

      Citizens of every state should advocate for whatever policies they like. If a particular citizen doesn’t feel she has equal rights (say an American who feels disenfranchised by a 10 Commandments monument in a public park, or by abortion funding) they should have every right to lawfully advocate for a change of law. An especially important value in places like Palestine, Lebanon, the UK and Syria where advocacy rights around questions of Palestine are massively curtailed.

      I think we can all agree with this proposal.

      – structurally discriminatie against Palestinian citizens of a state by e.g. a discriminatory land policy, discriminatory housing and development plans or permits, or discriminatory budget assignments

      I’m not sure what a “Palestinian citizens of a state” is. Citizens of foreign countries always face discrimination because the a country’s law apply only to itself. Citizens of Palestine should certainly not face discrimination in Palestine, and if they do they should vote for legislators who will change the law to their liking.

      – denying a (possible, future) Palestinian state equal rights to any other state

      The State of Palestine was created and recognized by almost the entire world in 1988. It is the most important country on earth by far; and has far more military, economic and military power than, say, the United States (just look at the recent vote by the State of Palestine condemning the United States). I don’t think you have to worry about the State of Palestine not getting a fair shake.

      – demonizing Palestinians by making hostile generalisations that are not based on facts, e.g. by denying that Palestinian resistance to Zionism is chiefly motivated by resistance to its disposession by Zionism

      Well, reasonable people can disagree on what motivates Islamic violence. We certainly cannot stop people debating the Koran and the sociology of Arab nationalist culture.

      A good rule of thumb is that it is not racist to treat minorities the way Jews are treated in the State of Palestine. You can’t go wrong by playing the “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”.

      • lyn117
        lyn117
        September 15, 2018, 12:36 am

        @American perspective
        “The Palestinian people – the Jews – did self-determine in the 1940s” The Jews are not the Palestinian people. The people considered Palestinian today, which excludes most Jews, are. You will have to explain the rest of your analogies, if opposing the white supremacist republicans isn’t considered anti-American, why should anyone think opposing Jewish supremacist Jews (Zionists) is considered anti-Jewish?

        “There are no Palestinian refugees.” I think we need to add to the definition, denying the existence of Palestinian refugees is anti-Palestinian bigotry (as well as counter-factual), at least until such time as those refugees are allowed their right of return.

        “Citizens of foreign countries always face discrimination because the a country’s law apply only to itself. ” You will need to explain the relevance to anything. Palestinian citizens of Israel face structural discrimination.

        “Having a disagreement about real estate property law cannot possibly be anti-Palestinian.” When the state forces Palestinians from their homes and confiscates their land to give to Jews, and you support that policy, your side of the disagreement is anti-Palestinian.

        Well, I suppose I shouldn’t bother responding to your mish-mash of obscure points & false analogies.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        September 15, 2018, 4:26 am

        Kahane’s perspective: “The Palestinian people – the Jews – did self-determine in the 1940s.”

        The Jews were not the Palestinian people. The Jewish citizens of Palestine were a tiny minority of the Palestinian people.

        Kahane’s perspective: “There are no Palestinian refugees.”

        If the weren’t Palestinians (aka citizens of Palestine) they wouldn’t be “refugees”.

        Kahane’s perspective: “What is an “ancestors’ original place of residence”. ”

        That’s the place where an ancestor actually habitually lived which can be proven by nationality documents. In this case the Palestinian ID-Card of the pre 1948 state of Palestine.

        Kahane’s perspective: “I’m not sure what a “Palestinian citizens of a state” is.”

        Every Nonjewish citizens who lives in the territory that was under mandate until 1948.

        Kahane’s perspective: “Well, reasonable people can disagree on what motivates Islamic violence. We certainly cannot stop people debating the Koran and the sociology of Arab nationalist culture. ”

        Yes, yes. Reasonable people can disagree on what motivates Jewish violence. We certainly cannot stop people debating the Talmud and the sociology of Jewish nationalist culture.

        Kahane’s pespective: “A good rule of thumb is that it is not racist to treat minorities the way Jews are treated in the State of Palestine.”

        I see. So another good rule of thumb would be to claim that it is not racist to treat Jews the same way they treat Nonjews since the late 1930s. Something tells me that your approach sooner or later leads to whitewashing Nazism. Is that your real agenda?

      • eljay
        eljay
        September 15, 2018, 8:10 am

        || American Perspective: … The Palestinian people – the Jews – did self-determine in the 1940s. You’re conflating Arab nationalism with Palestinians. … There are no Palestinian refugees. I think you mean Palestine refugees. … ||

        1. Since there are no “Palestinian refugees” only “Palestine refugees”, there are no “Palestinian people” only “Palestine people”.

        The non-Jewish and Jewish inhabitants of (and people up to n-generations removed from) geographic Palestine were and are “Palestine people”.

        The inhabitants of countries all over the world (and people more than n-generations removed from geographic Palestine) were not and still are not “Palestine people”. Their choice to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish didn’t and still doesn’t change that fact.

        2. If you anti-Semitically group all Jewish people into an undifferentiated mass and define…
        – the theft, ethnic cleansing, military occupation and colonization of a territory;
        – the establishment in it of a religion-supremacist state; and
        – a decades-long and on-going campaign of (war) crimes,
        …committed by some Jews as “self-determination” then, yes, “the Jews” did “self-determine” in the 1940s.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      September 18, 2018, 8:33 am

      Jackass: “balk at fact”

      Jackdaw: “Palestine was distinctly different from the other Class A mandates.”

      Indeed, the Mandate for Palestine was a Zionist pervesion of the mandate system. Palestinians could not freely choose their Mandatory and the Balfour declaration (a document that has no legal validity at all) was incorporated allthoug a Class A mandate’s usual goal was to help the people to create self governing institutions and achieve independence. This took only three years in the parts of the former Ottoman Empire that were under French mandate. Go figure.

      Jackdaw: “The Mandate for Palestine clearly differentiates between political rights – referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity – and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities.”

      Tell you Hasbara source that nothing in the mandate indicates that Jews in Palestine have “political rights” or that Nonjews haven’t. To the contrary. The first General Attorney of Paletine Norman Bentwich (a Jewish Zionist) wrote about the “national home”:

      “A national home, as distinguished from a state, is a country where a people are acknowledged as having a recognized legal position and the opportunity of developing their cultural, social and intellectual ideals without receiving political rights.”
      (Norman Bentwich, Palestine, 1934, p. 101 cit. in Cattan: Palestine and International Law, 1973, p. 15)

      Churchill was very open to Weizmann that the mandate was NOT about creating a Jewish state and that he could either accept it or GB would drop thie incorporation of the Balfour Declaration.

      Jackdaw: “At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs) because political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed in three other parallel Class “A” mandates – in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.”

      There was no need to grant political rights to “non-Jewish entities”, because the state belonged to the people of Palestine, whether they were Jewish or not and Palestine was allready a state in statu nescendi, a state in the making. That’s the reason why these states were also called “minor” or “infant” state as long as they were under the guardianship of the mandatory.

      You got it all wrong again, Jackdaw. Palestine was a dependant state under mandate on its way to independence which was delayed to establish a Jewish national home which was achieved by 1939. It’s indepence was exactly what the sourrounding Arab states demanded in 1947. And they were absolutely right as the creation of the state of Israel within this state was absoultely illegitimate. Not even Jews have a right to create a state within a state through war and expulsion in the post Nazi era.

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      September 18, 2018, 1:58 pm

      LOL. How are Palestinians a protected class? They’re not a race, a religion or an ethnicity.

      • amigo
        amigo
        September 18, 2018, 3:01 pm

        By your logic hopknee , Zionists are not a protected class.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 18, 2018, 3:34 pm

        “LOL. How are Palestinians a protected class? They’re not a race, a religion or an ethnicity.”

        “LOL” Yeah, I mean, it’s not like Palestinians are Jewish or something like that. Strictly un-protected, so fire at will.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        September 18, 2018, 4:53 pm

        hophmi: “LOL. How are Palestinians a protected class? They’re not a race, a religion or an ethnicity.”

        Contrary to the Jews they are what actually legally matters when it comes to national rights: A constitutive people.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        September 19, 2018, 11:44 am

        hophmi: LOL. How are Palestinians a protected class? They’re not a race, a religion or an ethnicity.

        FYI, US immigration law has recognized Palestinian nationality, ever since the the Palestine Mandate Convention was ratified in 1925. See for example, U.S. Code TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, § 1101. Definitions, which says “(a) As used in this chapter— (14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.

        In addition, any person of Arabian ethnic ancestry may be protected from racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, ever since the Supreme Court decision in Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/481/604/#tab-opinion-1957112

        See for example, “Lawsuits Alleging Religious and National Origin Discrimination involving the Muslim, Sikh, Arab, Middle Eastern and South Asian Communities”
        https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/selected/religion_nationalorigin.cfm

        National Tire & Battery (CDO) filed 6/26/15, resolved 10/19/15 ($22,000) – Defendant, an operator of auto service centers, subjected Charging Party, a mechanic, to harassment because of his religion (Islam), and national origin (Arab and Palestinian).

        Swift Aviation Group (PXDO) filed 9/4/12, resolved July 24, 2013 ($50,000) – Defendant, an aeronautical services company, located at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport subjected Charging Party to harassment (“I don’t know why we don’t just kill all them towelheads” and derogatory jokes about terrorists and Arabs) because of his national origin (Turkish/Palestinian) and religion (Islam) which resulted in his constructive discharge after defendant failed to stop the harassment.

        Monocle Restaurant (CTDO) filed 4/14/10, resolved 5/16/11 ($35,000) – Charging Parties, two waiters, were harassed because of their religion (Islam) and national origins (Palestinian and Moroccan).

        Project Group of Illinois (CHDO) filed 3/29/07, resolved 10/9/08 ($25,000) – Charging Party, a Palestinian Muslim, was subjected to derogatory remarks about her head covering and was referred to as a terrorist.

        Sequa Corporation d/b/a Chromalloy Castings (MMDO) filed 9/30/02, resolved 3/31/04 ($52,000) – Charging Party is Palestinian. He was discharged days after 9/11.

  2. Maghlawatan
    Maghlawatan
    September 13, 2018, 2:51 pm

    « The Zionist Organization of America then filed a complaint under Title VI saying that the pro-Israel students experienced a “hostile environment” at the school on the basis of their ethnicity as Jews. « 

    Zionism is political. Zionists are assholes because they support Israel, not because they are Jews.

    Zionist money is all over the UK Labour Party antisemitism nonsense and the latest Trump admin horseshit. Zionist money can buy any western politician but it can’t wash Israel’s image clean. Israel can brainwash its own people but it cannot change the way ordinary people in the West view Israel . By its actions is Israel’s image constructed. The death of the 2SS was a stupid Israeli manœuvre. So was the war in Gaza in 2014.

    BDS is obviously doing well to provoke such a Zionist reaction.

    • Jon66
      Jon66
      September 13, 2018, 8:33 pm

      Mag,
      A couple weeks ago you mused about the possible benefit of boycotting Jewish businesses. Now you wish to distinguish between Zionist and Jewish.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 14, 2018, 12:13 pm

        “A couple weeks ago you mused about the possible benefit of boycotting Jewish businesses. Now you wish to distinguish between Zionist and Jewish.”

        That is a problem that Zionists better learn to deal with. Would you like to have it solved by anti-Zionists?

        Does it ever occur to a Zionist that Zionism and what happens to it is the responsibility of Zionists?

  3. JaapBo
    JaapBo
    September 13, 2018, 2:53 pm

    But such a definition should have maximum support, and maximum rigorousness as to describing real racism and not limiting free speech and free discussion.
    I’m thinking of the Palestinian BDS organisation as leading, supported by international pro-Palestinian groups like JVP and similar groups in other countries, and rigorouss input from academic and legal experts

    • JaapBo
      JaapBo
      September 14, 2018, 2:21 am

      A generally recognized (e.g. by a UN-body) definition of anti-Palestinian racism would be very valuable:
      – it would expose Israel as a racist state
      – it would set rules for a two-state solution (example of “denying a (possible, future) Palestinian state equal rights to any other state”)
      – it would boost the three BDS-goals (each of which are a call to end discrimination of Palestinians) and make BDS a clearly anti-racist campaign

      And even if there is no UN-body approving a definition, a proposal for such a definition would still generate a lot of discussion that would help the Palestinians against Israeli racism.
      Of course zionist would attack it as anti-Semitic, but that should be countered by pointing at the facts

  4. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    September 13, 2018, 2:56 pm

    It never stops, does it? And the powerful never give up power without a fight, and that fight is always on their terms and on their (tilted) playing field.

    So it goes.

  5. amigo
    amigo
    September 13, 2018, 4:45 pm

    “The Zionist Organization of America then filed a complaint under Title VI saying that the pro-Israel students experienced a “hostile environment” at the school on the basis of their ethnicity as Jews. ”

    Poor diddums.Made to feel uncomfortable in their support for war crimes and colonialist oppression and Apartheid.

    But hey we are talking about Jews here so we must not single them out.

    So let,s single them out and give them a pass because they are Jewish.

    Wouldn,t that be antisemitic.Allowing Jews to commit crimes because they are Jews.

    Maybe Kenneth Marcus can enlighten me or perhaps one of the usual Jewish Zionist apologists that are the victims of the hostile environment at MW can clear this conundrum for us.

  6. yogurt
    yogurt
    September 13, 2018, 8:31 pm

    Once cowardly, mainstream, PEP liberals can get over their fear of Zionists and point to the inherent Anti-Palestinian racism in the new definition of Anti-Semitism, BDS may be seen more objectively. But it seems that mainstream liberals aren’t there yet. Despite how obvious the Anti-Palestinian racism is in this new definition. Thanks for pointing out the cowardice of PEP logic (or lack thereof).

  7. Qualtrough
    Qualtrough
    September 14, 2018, 12:10 am

    If being pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel is anti-semitic then I am happy to wear the tag. What was once a useful and specific term (a label for the actions of those who dislikes Jews qua Jews) is now used as a cudgel against those who don’t agree with the actions of Israelis and/or their government. More and more people are awakening to that fact, and the charge now more often than not elicits a shrug rather than approbation or shock. Those using the anti-semite tag like this have finally jumped the shark.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      September 14, 2018, 8:19 am

      Qualtrough: If being pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel is anti-semitic then I am happy to wear the tag.
      —————————-

      And the Zionists will be overjoyed to see you willingly wear it.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 14, 2018, 2:55 pm
      • gamal
        gamal
        September 14, 2018, 4:52 pm

        “Anti-Trumpism is antisemitism!”

        well that’s politics for you, you know in London when Jew met Cockney met Indian and Arab and Black people and Irish something wonderful happened, wonderful, don’t sit by satan side (thats where you’re wrong, Keith Hudson delivers it here is Earl Chinna tapping the root), ah sure Anti-American isn’t a big deal they hate themselves you know, don’t sit by satan side (thats where you’re wrong)

        https://youtu.be/84ZlUEBFemo

  8. Misterioso
    Misterioso
    September 14, 2018, 9:10 am

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/a-cuny-student-was-investigated-for-criticizing-israel.html

    Daily Intelligencer, Sept. 11/18

    A CUNY Student Was Investigated for Criticizing Israel

    By Jesse Singal

    EXCERPTS:

    “On June 1, an announcement was posted to the City University of New York’s Earth and Environmental Sciences listserv advertising Fulbright grants to study in Israel. The next day, Rafael Mutis, a sixth-year Ph.D. student in that department, responded, ‘Thanks for passing this on, but this is some sick zionist propaganda. Is this a Trump initiative? Maybe there are post docs in Palestine? Free Free Palestine!’

    “The post provoked exactly the sort of responses one would expect on a listserv full of graduate students with strong opinions on a hot-button subject. Some responses argued Mutis’s email was unwarranted, and that he was overreaching in his use of ‘zionist,’ which sparked a discussion over how far the term should be extended, whether it was fair to use it in that manner, given left-wing Zionist groups that advocate for Palestinian rights, and so on. Much of the listserv thread simply reads like students arguing in the same way they do everywhere else. Parts of it are a bit of a slog.

    “But naturally, because this is 2018, some of the posts also claimed that Mutis’s use of the term was not only overly broad or inaccurate or offensive, but ‘triggering’ to Jewish people because of the Z-word’s long association, when used negatively or conspiratorially, with genuine anti-Semites like Henry Ford. The concept of microaggressions came up. (Mutis didn’t criticize Jewish people qua Jewish people in the original post, nor in his follow-up responses, and in the course of defending himself, he mentioned that he has Jewish friends whose views on the Israeli-Palestinian mirror his own.)”

    “According to a letter sent to CUNY by Palestine Legal, the organization representing Mutis (which also provided Intelligencer with all the emails, listserv posts, and other documentation referenced in this story), on June 19 Mutis was asked, via email, to come in for a meeting with Matthew Schoengood, vice-president for student affairs at the Graduate Center. This prompted a back-and-forth over email in which Mutis asked why he was being asked to come in and, after being told it was about the listserv, asked if he had broken any rules. It wasn’t until June 27 that CUNY provided some clarity and acknowledged that yes, Mutis was being investigated. Well, sort of: ‘I am investigating a complaint and it is important that you meet with me as required by CUNY’s Student Conduct Code,’ wrote Schoengood. ‘There are no pending charges against you, but failure to meet with me may result in such.’ (According to Palestine Legal, this was a false claim — the university has no policy stating students can get in trouble simply for refusing to meet with an administrator in response to a complaint.)

    “On July 10, Mutis finally went in for a meeting with CUNY administrators, accompanied by his attorney, Radhika Sainath of Palestine Legal. Sainath’s account of that meeting, contained in an email she wrote to Stacie Tiongson, one of the CUNY administrators present, is surreal and worth reading:

    “‘At the start of the meeting, you mentioned the complaint filed against Mutis and asked Mutis to state his response. I explained that the complaint contained no allegations and asked CUNY to inform Mutis of the allegations against him so that he could respond. You stated that CUNY was not alleging any wrongdoing. You again asked for a response from Mutis. I stated that without any factual allegations, there was nothing to respond to. You then stated that the complainant told you that that Mutis’ initial response to the Fulbright posting was ‘triggering’ and ‘made her feel unsafe.’ You did not say what language the complainant was alleging discriminated against her race, color, religion, national origin or creed. You did not state the complainant’s race, color, religion, national origin or creed.’

    “‘I asked what CUNY rule or policy Mutis’ email was alleged to violate. You could not cite any rule or policy. I asked if Mutis was being investigated for policies governing listserves. Schoengood said that Mutis was not. I asked what penalties were on the table. You said that no penalties were on the table.”‘

    “The stance of CUNY administrators toward Mutis, then, can be accurately summed up as: We’re not investigating you, but during this meeting we demanded you attend, do you have a response to the charge, which we haven’t laid out specifically and for which we aren’t weighing punishment, that you harmed a fellow student, in ways we can’t specifically describe, by writing and publishing a brief listserv post? Given this lunacy, it’s worth asking what would have happened if Mutis had attended the meeting without an attorney willing to push back on his behalf. What would he have said that could have caused him further trouble? What would he have agreed to to make this threatening situation go away?
    “In the end, after a nearly three-month investigation that stretched through the summer, Mutis got an email from CUNY clearing him of the — scare quotes seem appropriate here — ‘charges’ against him:”

    • rhkroell
      rhkroell
      September 18, 2018, 1:48 am

      “Anti-Trumpism is antisemitism!” —Mooser

      Max Weber, according to Montserrat Guibernau, defines the state as “a human community possessing the sole ‘right’ to use violence within a given territory.” Moreover, “ethnicity [a group identity which is subjectively perceived, Weber suggests] facilitates group formation . . . particularly in the political sphere.” “He stresses that it is primarily the political community, no matter how artificially organized, that inspires the belief in common ethnicity.”

      So it clearly follows that antisemitism can be defined as both anti-Zionism and/or anti-Trumpism by those who choose to do so. Furthermore, as “Weber’s emphasis upon violence and territoriality in defining the state has clear roots in [Heinrich von] Treitschke’s Die Politik,” Trumpistas are justified in believing, with Treitschke, that “the state exerts its power through war . . . . and [t]he appeal to arms will be valid until the end of history and therein lies the sacredness of war” — (THE NATION-STATE AND NATIONALISM IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996: 7, 31-32).

  9. Misterioso
    Misterioso
    September 14, 2018, 10:37 am

    https://electronicintifada.net/content/how-israels-bogus-definition-anti-semitism-shuts-down-free-speech/25471

    “How Israel’s bogus definition of anti-Semitism shuts down free speech.”
    By Steven Garside – The Electronic Intifada 12 September 2018
    EXCERPT:

    “The fierce campaign to cajole, bully and shame the UK Labour Party into adopting a controversial definition of anti-Semitism produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) – along with its 11 working examples – has been waged all summer long by pro-Israel lobby groups inside and outside the party.

    “It has finally come to a head with Labour’s official acceptance of the document at a meeting of its ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) on 4 September.

    “One of the most insidious tactics employed by Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) and the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) – the two organized vocal Zionist campaign groups inside the Labour Party – has been to claim it is an innocuous and uncontroversial document.

    “It is, in the words of John Mann, a Labour parliamentarian and arch critic of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, a ‘very humdrum, mundane definition of anti-Semitism that left parties across the world have been happy to accept along with everyone else.’”

  10. Maghlawatan
    Maghlawatan
    September 14, 2018, 11:30 am

    Max Hastings is an eminent UK journalist who used to back Israel to the hilt.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2703531/MAX-HASTINGS-Ive-loved-Israel-brutality-breaks-heart.html

    « Some of the dead are Hamas fighters. But many others are women, children, the helpless old. Israel is exacting vengeance at its usual tariff for Hamas rocketing, and the murder of three Israeli students by terrorists. For each Israeli killed, the lives of many times that number of Palestinians are forfeit.
    Israel says: they started it; we have a right to retribution. But much of the world says: the Jewish people have been historic standard-bearers for civilisation. Does Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign in Gaza represent that — or instead barbarism?

    Israel’s tragedy is that the only democracy in the Middle East has fallen prey to a succession of Right-wing governments, which derive much of their electoral strength from Russian emigres and extremist religious parties.

    Ahron Bregman, the Israeli whose history of the Occupation I mentioned above, now lives and works in London rather than in his homeland. He ends his book by saying that all successful imperialist powers have sought to persuade subject peoples to work with them, allowing them to gain some advantage despite being conquered.

     
    A historian friend, himself a Jew and an uncommonly astute observer of the world, said to me a while back: ‘Consciously or unconsciously, Israel has decided that it prefers a state of permanent war to making the concessions to the Palestinians that would be indispensable to any chance of peace.’

    Israel has never felt a need to offer this, says the author. Instead, it treats the Palestinians merely as tiresome blots on a landscape that many Israelis believe is rightfully Jewish anyway. For those who loved what we thought Israel used to be, it is heartbreaking to see what it has become today.
    That the current crisis is giving rise to some ugly displays of anti-semitism in parts of Europe is utterly contemptible.
    But it is also contemptible that some apologists hurl charges of anti-semitism at all Israel’s critics — many of whom are admirers of so much that this great nation has achieved.
    « 
    Trump can insist that anti Zionism is hatred of all Jews. He can say that climate change is a hoax too.

    Killing women and children is not Jewish

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      September 14, 2018, 12:17 pm

      ‘Consciously or unconsciously, Israel has decided that it prefers a state of permanent war”

      Now, there’s clear thinking and good acting from a nation of 6 million or so. And a nation tied together by religious sentiment, too.

      • Maghlawatan
        Maghlawatan
        September 14, 2018, 2:31 pm

        Well Mooser, if you take the messianic view, 1967 was a sign from G-d. This means that the Shoah was part of the plan that resulted in 1967. So g-d is truly awful. But back to the plot. If g-d won 1967 g-d will win all wars. This is a no brainer. Until Israel loses a war. Then it will get very interesting .

  11. Sheldonrichman
    Sheldonrichman
    September 14, 2018, 11:32 am

    Kenneth Marcus is the Jeff Foxworthy of the American Israelist movement. When he says, “If you do X, you may be an anti-Semite,” he means: you’re definitely an anti-Semite.

  12. jrg
    jrg
    September 14, 2018, 2:54 pm

    I’ve discussed this with my brother, and he had a good idea: The ZOA should be challenged to come up with a way of supporting the Palestinian cause that is NOT anti-Semitic.

  13. gamal
    gamal
    September 14, 2018, 5:25 pm

    Dear Donald,

    I would just like to take this opportunity to thank you, you have no idea how much having you as a focus has helped me, I always up to something mostly accomplishing nothing. You are a tough guy, obviously I want to continue, so many writers struggle to attain your honesty, I find it really inspiring. also obviously I admire your indefatigability (how many scot arab jokes are there?), the fucking weed na control the whiskey at all.

    all the best

    g

  14. Citizen
    Citizen
    September 14, 2018, 8:41 pm

    Zionist sh*t list of worst federal candidates for 2018: https://ajccandidates.wpengine.com/the-worst-candidates-of-2018/

    • Boomer
      Boomer
      September 15, 2018, 7:37 am

      Thanks for the link. The site is instructive. I knew such a way of looking at the world exists, but had not seen it laid out with such detail. In Texas, for example, I can see all the reasons why Ted Cruz is “good for the Jews” while his Democratic candidate deserves a “thumbs down.”

  15. Boomer
    Boomer
    September 15, 2018, 7:30 am

    On another, but related front, Juan Cole discusses Manafort

    “Manafort colluded with an unnamed Israeli official to weaponize “anti-Semitism” for Russian aims in Ukraine, painting Tymoshenko as an anti-Semite. He then put pressure on the Jewish figures in the Obama administration to pressure Obama to oppose Tymoshenko, in favor of the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych.

    “The casual way in which the Likud government of Binyamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, throws around charges of anti-Semitism for narrow, everyday political gain has almost entirely undermined the force of the charge. When I see a campaign against Jeremy Corbyn waged by the British Israel lobbies, attempting to smear him as bigotted against Jews because he disagrees with Israeli colonization of the Palestinians, I am inclined to discount it.”

    https://www.juancole.com/2018/09/manaforts-constitutional-crisis.html

  16. Qualtrough
    Qualtrough
    September 16, 2018, 3:32 am

    Sibiriak – “And the Zionists will be overjoyed to see you willingly wear it.”

    And I should care what Zionists think why?

  17. CigarGod
    CigarGod
    September 16, 2018, 10:58 am

    So, its Sunday morning and NPR has a NYT reporter on…
    All one-sided,claiming only Jews were charged admission, etc…except they cite it as Brandeis instead of Rutgers.

    Feel free to fact check me.
    I was distracted.

  18. Hostage
    Hostage
    September 19, 2018, 10:10 am

    Phil and Donald: “Yes imagine a discrimination standard for anti-Palestinianism, one that would define hateful statements about Palestinians as civil rights violations.”

    FYI, the United States government has legally recognized Palestinian national origin in our immigration and naturalization laws ever since we ratified the Palestine Mandate Convention. That means Palestinian national origin has always been a “protected characteristic under our civil rights laws, from their inception. So it is violation to make hateful statements about Palestinians. See for example:
    “Lawsuits Alleging Religious and National Origin Discrimination involving the Muslim, Sikh, Arab, Middle Eastern and South Asian Communities” https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/selected/religion_nationalorigin.cfm

    *National Tire & Battery (CDO) filed 6/26/15, resolved 10/19/15 ($22,000) – Defendant, an operator of auto service centers, subjected Charging Party, a mechanic, to harassment because of his religion (Islam), and national origin (Arab and Palestinian).

    *Swift Aviation Group (PXDO) filed 9/4/12, resolved July 24, 2013 ($50,000) – Defendant, an aeronautical services company, located at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport subjected Charging Party to harassment (“I don’t know why we don’t just kill all them towelheads” and derogatory jokes about terrorists and Arabs) because of his national origin (Turkish/Palestinian) and religion (Islam) which resulted in his constructive discharge after defendant failed to stop the harassment.

    *Monocle Restaurant (CTDO) filed 4/14/10, resolved 5/16/11 ($35,000) – Charging Parties, two waiters, were harassed because of their religion (Islam) and national origins (Palestinian and Moroccan).

    *Project Group of Illinois (CHDO) filed 3/29/07, resolved 10/9/08 ($25,000) – Charging Party, a Palestinian Muslim, was subjected to derogatory remarks about her head covering and was referred to as a terrorist.

    *Sequa Corporation d/b/a Chromalloy Castings (MMDO) filed 9/30/02, resolved 3/31/04 ($52,000) – Charging Party is Palestinian. He was discharged days after 9/11.

  19. Hostage
    Hostage
    September 19, 2018, 10:47 am

    Phil and Donald: “Kenneth Marcus, the longtime Israel advocate who now heads the office of civil rights at Trump’s Education Department, is reopening a case that the Obama administration dismissed, of alleged anti-semitism on the part of Palestinian solidarity activists at Rutgers in 2011.”

    But Zionism isn’t an inherently “ethnic” characteristic, since there have always been anti-Zionist Jews and anti-Zionist Jewish religious streams. Marcus and the State have a legal duty to accommodate them too.

    For example, Marcus has noted that “Congress elected not to prohibit religious discrimination in Title VI, and anti-Semitism is, among other things, a form of religious discrimination.” …”In late 2004, OCR finally determined that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits anti-Semitic harassment at federally funded public and private universities, except to the extent that the harassment is exclusively based on tenets of the student’s religious faith. In other words, OCR policy now treats anti-Semitic harassment as prohibited racial or ethnic harassment except when it is clearly limited to religious belief rather than ancestral heritage.

    So Christians, Muslims, and even Secular Humanists are entitled to claims of equality and non-discrimination, while condemning Zionism, on purely “religious” grounds. Kenneth L. Marcus, (then) Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights noted that the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued a public “Dear Colleague” letter informing recipient institutions of its new enforcement approach to take action when institutions fostered anti-Semitic or Islamophobic atmosphere on school campuses. This guidance letter, issued to over 20,000 colleges, universities, public school districts, and state education departments, announced OCR’s decision to “exercise its jurisdiction to enforce the Title VI prohibition against national origin discrimination, regardless of whether the groups targeted for discrimination also exhibit religious characteristics” and thus “aggressively investigate alleged race or ethnic harassment against Arab Muslim, Sikh and Jewish students.” See Kenneth L. Marcus, Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 15 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 837 (2007) http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol15/iss3/4

  20. Hostage
    Hostage
    September 19, 2018, 4:54 pm

    Phil and Donald: The case demonstrates the sheer arrogance of the Trump-Netanyahu axis. They are going for broke. And the liberals who obsess about Putin’s supposed control seem unable to spot which groups really have influence on Trump.

    That notion has been overtaken by the subsequent revelations in the Mueller investigation. See: Speed Read: ‘Obama Jews’ and Other Shocking Highlights From New Manafort Docs https://www.thedailybeast.com/manafort-docs-obama-jews-and-other-shocking-highlights-from-the-ex-trump-aides-downfall

    The Russians had Fusion GPS compile blackmail material on both Presidential candidates and both the Republican and Democrat party campaign chairmen – together with Barack Obama’s former White House counsel – were acting as unregistered agents of the Russian-backed Ukraine propaganda campaign. Manafort also enlisted (then) Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to make this statement:

    Message from the Israeli Foreign Ministry

    Israel is concerned about the recently signed agreement between the Batkivshchyna Party and the extremist Freedom Party, whose antisemitic attacks repeatedly aroused resentment both in Ukraine and in Israel.

    So, in the past, the head of the “Svoboda” movement glorified “the struggle against the Muscovites and Jews.” The expression of such views resembles the dark pages of the history of the last century, which led humanity to the tragedy of the Second World War.

    Israel condemns anti-Semitic manifestations of any kind and expresses the hope that common sense prevails. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfarus/foreignrelations/bilateral%20relations/israelfsu/ukraine/pages/israel_ukraine_extremism.aspx

    The Dailybeast and Guardian reported ‘”Manafort, “with secret advance knowledge of that Israeli statement,” bragged as he shopped it around the U.S., “I have someone pushing it on the NY Post. Bada bing bada boom.”

    Publicly, Manafort’s message was that “the Jewish community will take this out on Obama on election day if he does nothing.” But privately, through a lobbyist envoy to the Obama administration, he conveyed that Ukraine had “worked to prevent the Administration’s presidential opponent from including damaging language in the Israeli statement, so as not to harm the Administration.” Message: You and all your Jews can trust the valiant Viktor Yanukovich.’

    • Keith
      Keith
      September 19, 2018, 9:15 pm

      HOSTAGE- “The Russians had Fusion GPS compile blackmail material on both Presidential candidates and both the Republican and Democrat party campaign chairmen….”

      Fusion GPS? FUSION GPS?!? Are you referring to the same Fusion GPS which conservatives hired during the Republican primary to dig up dirt on Trump? And once Trump won the primary, the same Fusion GPS that the Clinton campaign hired to find dirt on Trump? The same Fusion GPS that hired Christopher Steele to produced the dodgy Steele dossier alleging potential Trump/Russia collusion? Fusion GPS was working FOR Russia? Are you serious? I don’t care about Trump, but this anti-Russian hysteria is a contrived pretext for geostrategic actions. And using innuendo to suggest a connection between what Manafort did on behalf of the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2012 somehow indicates Trump/Putin collusion is ludicrous. Two quotes and links for you.

      “In September 2015, Fusion GPS was hired by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative political website, to do opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. In spring 2016 when Trump had emerged as the probable Republican candidate, the Free Beacon stopped funding investigation into Trump.[27] From April 2016 through October 2016, the law firm Perkins Coie, on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, retained Fusion GPS to continue opposition research on Trump.[28][29][30] In June 2016, Fusion GPS retained Christopher Steele, a private British corporate intelligence investigator and former MI-6 agent, to research any Russian connections to Trump. Steele produced a 35-page series of memos from June to December 2016, which became the document known as the Donald Trump–Russia dossier.[28][31] Fusion GPS provided Marc Elias, the lead election lawyer for Perkins Coie, with the resulting dossier and other research documents.[29][30]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_GPS

      “Bob Woodward’s book Fear has been a sensation in many respects. But one aspect has barely been mentioned. After two years of exhaustive research for his book, Woodward says that he has found no evidence of collusion between Putin’s government and Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016. Zilch, nada, zero. And Woodward strained very hard looking for it.” (John Walsh) https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/09/woodward-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion-i-searched-hard-for-two-years/

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        September 21, 2018, 12:07 am

        “The Russians had Fusion GPS compile blackmail material on both Presidential candidates and both the Republican and Democrat party campaign chairmen ”

        Hostage?

        Hostage. You’re slipping, dude!

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        September 22, 2018, 9:46 am

        Keith: “Bob Woodward’s book Fear has been a sensation in many respects. But one aspect has barely been mentioned. After two years of exhaustive research for his book, Woodward says that he has found no evidence of collusion between Putin’s government and Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016. Zilch, nada, zero. And Woodward strained very hard looking for it.” (John Walsh)

        I’ve read Woodward’s “Fear”. Unlike you, he made a pretty convincing case for the proposition that: (1) the Russians bailed out Trump with dirty money when he was billions of dollars in debt; (2) the Russians did interfere in the 2016 elections in favor of Trump; and (3) the Russian Mafia and/or Russian Oligarchs have been pouring millions of dollars into Republican and Democratic campaign coffers and messing around in our domestic politics for decades. It seems pretty clear that Woodward’s normal inquisitiveness, powers of observation and analysis simply evaporated when he was dealing with the subject of the Steele dossier or the meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower. He’s straining so hard to find evidence of collusion that “he can’t see the forest for the trees” that are standing in his way.

        For example, Woodward says that the initial Trump briefing on the National Intelligence Estimate regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election was excellent or top notch work, but that Comey spoiled everything by bringing up a summary of the Steele Dossier at the last minute. Comey explained that the information was “out there” and would inevitably be brought to the attention of the media (Buzzfeed published Steele’s copy 4 days later).

        Woodward fixated on a salacious part and overlooked the much more relevant first person eyewitness accounts from an informant inside the Trump camp regarding (1) collusion and conspiracy between the members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government; (2) personal knowledge of Russian intelligence agents who had infiltrated the DNC; (3) knowledge of other Russian agents working in the USA, who were part of the election meddling scheme. That individual, “Source E”, was described in the 26 July 2016 and 10 August 2016 Steele memos as an “ethnic Russian associate of Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump”. https://goo.gl/gzEVZV

        Source E stated that Trump, Paul Manafort, and Carter Page had been notified in advance about the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails. He also stated that Carter Page had served as Manafort’s intermediary with the Russians and that Page had spoken to him personally about his role in planning and executing the strategy to use the emails to convert disgruntled Sanders supporters into Trump voters . See the text of the dossier https://themoscowproject.org/dossier/

        Woodward says he went on Fox News after the Buzzfeed article appeared and said the dossier was “garbage” and that the intelligence community should apologize for even mentioning any of its contents to President Trump. About a hundred pages later in the book, Woodward actually quotes another comment from Source E (from the same Steele memo) explaining that most of the intelligence Trump passed along to Putin was information regarding the investments and activities of Russian Oligarchs and their families living in the USA and that Putin had a keen interest in them. So, we know that Woodward at least read that particular memo.

        Oddly enough, Woodward failed to notice that Steele was utilizing a pre-existing network of reliable informants. In other words, Source E was already working undercover (for someone) before Steele was ever hired by Fusion GPS.

        Every major news outlet in the country has long since reported that Felix Sater led a double life for years as an FBI and US Intelligence informant. According to court documents, that included the entire period of time that he was associated with the Trump Organization. See for example, “Trump business associate led double life as FBI informant – and more, he says” http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-sater-trump-20170223-story.html

        So it simply blew my mind, when Woodward subsequently described Felix Sater in a passage from Fear as: (1) a longtime ethnic Russian associate of Donald Trump; (2) a man of mystery who would go undercover for the DIA, CIA, or FBI – and then changed the subject.

        Woodward’s entire analysis of the Trump Tower meeting was “It was a huge story, suggesting—but not proving—some kind of subterfuge and clandestine cooperation with Russians.”

        He based that opinion upon this incompetent advice from Trump’s lawyer John Dowd: ““Mr. President, it’s horseshit,” Dowd told him. And so what? Getting dirt on people was commonplace in campaigns and the nation’s capital. It even had a name—“opposition research” or “investigative reporting.” That’s what half of Washington seemed to be paid for. Is there something wrong with that? No. Dowd knew that opposition research teams and investigative reporters would take dirt from anyone, even foreign governments. All the media posturing was disgusting. They were treating it like the crime of the century. The New York Times and The Washington Post thought they were the special counsel and the law of the land. The stories were a big nothing burger, Dowd concluded.”

        So Woodward got exhausted before he even researched a second opinion. Needless to say, Dowd is no longer around and he didn’t exactly “cover himself in glory” while he was there. Armies of legal experts, including legions of former US Attorney’s have appeared on television ever since, and they beg to differ with Mr. Dowd about the number of felony statutes that were violated, during and after, the Trump Tower meeting.

      • Keith
        Keith
        September 22, 2018, 5:43 pm

        HOSTAGE- “…the Russian Mafia and/or Russian Oligarchs have been pouring millions of dollars into Republican and Democratic campaign coffers and messing around in our domestic politics for decades.”

        Indeed, the anti-Putin Russian oligarchs created by US/Yeltsin have been pouring money into the US political system to buy influence. For example, Mikhail Khodorkovsky was able to get the US Senate to adopt a resolution denouncing his treatment by Putin. Then there is the Magnitsky Act sanctioning Russians on behalf of dodgy Yeltsin era financier Bill Browder, passed with the help of Washington “fixer” Jonathan Winer. I link to an informative article by Diana Johnstone.

        “This worked so well that from his position in the Communist youth organization, Khodorkovsky used his connections to get control of Russia’s petroleum company Yukos and become the richest oligarch in Russia, worth some $15 billion, of which he still controls a chunk despite his years in jail (2003-2013).

        His arrest made him a hero of democracy in the United States, where he had many friends, especially those business partners who were helping him sell pieces of Yukos to Chevron and Exxon. Khodorkovsky, a charming and generous young man, easily convinced his American partners that he was Russia’s number one champion of democracy and the rule of law, especially of those laws which allow domestic capital to flee to foreign banks, and foreign capital to take control of Russian resources.

        Vladimir Putin didn’t see it that way. Without restoring socialism, he dispossessed Khodorkovsky of Yukos and essentially transformed the oil and gas industry from the “open society” model tolerated by Yeltsin to a national capitalist industry. Khodorkovsky and his partner Platon Lebedev were accused of having stolen all the oil that Yukos had produced in the years 1998 to 2003, tried, convicted and sentenced to 14 years of prison each. This shift ruined U.S. plans, already underway, to “balkanize” Russia between its many provinces, thereby allowing Western capital to pursue its capture of the Russian economy.

        The dispossession of Khodorkovsky was certainly a major milestone in the conflict between President Putin and Washington. On November 18, 2005, the Senate unanimously adopted Resolution 322 introduced by Senator Joe Biden denouncing the treatment of the Khodorkovsky and Lebedev as politically motivated.

        Who Influences Whom?

        There is an alternative view of the history of Russian influence in the United States to the one now getting constant attention. It is obvious that a Russian who can get the Senate to adopt a resolution in his favor has a certain influence. But when the “deep state” and the corporate media today growl about Russian influence, they aren’t talking about Khodorkovsky. They are talking about alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign….” (Diana Johnstone) https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/27/the-real-russian-interference-in-us-politics/

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        September 23, 2018, 1:41 pm

        Hostage: “(3) the Russian Mafia and/or Russian Oligarchs have been pouring millions of dollars into Republican and Democratic campaign coffers and messing around in our domestic politics for decades.”

        Are we talking about Unger’s “Trump’s Fifty-Nine Russia Connections”? I was just reading this article from Times of Israel:

        “About half of those 59 named “Russia Connections” are Jewish, and about a dozen of the 59 are Israeli citizens and/or have deep connections to Israel. (Several of those he names, such as Lev Leviev, Alexander Mashkevich and Mikhail Chernoy, are very wealthy and prominent businessmen with direct access to the highest levels of Israel’s elected leadership.)”
        https://www.timesofisrael.com/bestselling-us-author-russian-asset-trump-doesnt-truly-care-for-israel-jews/

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        September 24, 2018, 11:32 am

        And here’s another interesting article:
        ” The Happy-Go-Lucky Jewish Group That Connects Trump and Putin

        Where Trump’s real estate world meets a top religious ally of the Kremlin.”
        https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/the-happy-go-lucky-jewish-group-that-connects-trump-and-putin-215007

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        September 25, 2018, 2:46 pm

        Jackdaw: Bullshit.
        Whether you ferreted these Jews from the Jewish press, or ferreted them out from another source, isn’t the issue.

        You made an effort to single out Jews.
        You sicken me.

        That’s odd, you routinely defend obvious examples of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity without suffering any apparent symptoms of digestive distress. But hey, I’m encouraged by any signs of life in your otherwise dead soul. BTW, the raison d’etre of Paul Singer’s Birthright Israel is to ferret out people and single them out as “Jews”.

        I simply listed people who self-identify as Jews who are caught-up in a criminal investigation because they wanted to use their money and connections to those in power in order to extract revenge or impose their agenda on others. Sometimes these people don’t disclose that information, e.g. when Kushner failed to disclose to background investigators that he directed the family foundation to funnel money to illegal Jewish-only settlements in Palestine.

        You ridiculed the idea that Russian’s had used Fusion GPS at the top of this thread. But Tablet Magazine has a whole Fusion GPS archive . It has been publishing articles for months which singled out “Russians”. They asked if the Russians had catfished everyone at Fusion in order to target Trump? I found it interesting that they discuss Wilson’s testimony to the Senate committee, but not his testimony to the House committee which revealed that some of the “Russian” sources cited in the dossier were actually Russian-Jews working for Israel’s Mossad. In case you hadn’t noticed, everyone from Noam Chomsky to Bob Woodward has been discussing all of the Russian Jewish mafia figures connected to Donald Trump.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      September 21, 2018, 3:58 pm

      Keith: The same Fusion GPS that hired Christopher Steele to produced the dodgy Steele dossier alleging potential Trump/Russia collusion? … Fusion GPS was working FOR Russia? Are you serious?

      I’m no Mooser. I do have occasional outbursts of dry humor. But other than that, I’m almost always serious.

      FYI, ever since Senator Diane Feinstein unilaterally released the Judiciary Committee testimony of Fusion GPS co-founder Glen Simpson last January, it’s been a matter of public record that he had hired Ed Baumgartner, the co-founder of (yet another) London, UK business intelligence company, “Edward Austin”. Baumgartner, who is fluent in Russian, specialized in matters related to Russia-Ukraine and worked on both of the now-infamous Fusion GPS Trump/Clinton Foundation dossiers. He was initially hired by Fusion to serve as “an interface” with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who speaks very little English. She, and the US legal firm representing Prevezon, had hired Fusion GPS to assist them in the matter of a pending “Magnitsky Act” asset forfeiture case in the Southern District of New York. Prevezon is owned by Denis Katsyv, a Russian-Israeli businessman based in Moscow. See for example: Meet the Russia specialist who worked on 2 of Fusion GPS’ most controversial projects https://www.businessinsider.com/ed-baumgartner-fusion-gps-christopher-steele-russia-projects-2018-1

      FYI, I read thousands of raw intelligence reports during my career in the military. So this sort of thing “is not my first rodeo”. The only thing that stikes me as particularly “dodgy” about the so-called “Steele dossier” is (1) the fact that anyone is still hiring unlicensed private investigators billing themselves as “Business Intelligence” firms in this day and age (think about the various “Murdoch family News International”, Hewlett Packard, and Anti-Defamation League spying scandals); (2) What were the real underlying motivations of so many high ranking Russian officials – serving in the Foreign Ministry, Intelligence Service, the State Duma, and the Presidential Administration – to “stovepipe” their stories to the opposing Presidential Candidates and “spill the beans” about so many top secret details of the Russian government’s efforts to groom and recruit Donald Trump and meddle in the US election on his behalf? FYI, Any time a high ranking Russian government official reveals something of enormous intelligence value to an outside investigator, there is always the very real possibility that outsider is being used. It’s very likely the Russians had ulterior motives, which are unrelated to the original intent or desires of the Republicans, Democrats, or western press organizations who funded the investigation.

      • Keith
        Keith
        September 21, 2018, 6:07 pm

        HOSTAGE- “FYI, I read thousands of raw intelligence reports during my career in the military. So this sort of thing “is not my first rodeo”.

        And who could be more objective and unbiased than a former career militarist? The Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump and that is what Steele provided, relying on hearsay and innuendo. This is McCarthyism on steroids. The notion that Russia could put a Manchurian Candidate in the White House on the cheap is preposterous, an insult to the intelligence. It takes big bucks to get elected President, how much did the Russians spend on Trump?

        If you have to point a finger at someone, forget Putin and look at Robert Mercer, the right-wing billionaire hedge fund manager who rescued the Trump campaign when it appeared to be failing badly. This is what real capitalism looks like. It is the corporations and the fat-cats like Adelson and Mercer who call the shots, not Putin. In fact, Putin has been the target of CIA/Soros hostility since at least 2014 when he was singled out for stopping the rape of Russia by the US under Yeltsin. I provide a link to a “Real News” documentary on the Trump/Mercer connection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQUkaEVe7II

      • Keith
        Keith
        September 21, 2018, 7:27 pm

        HOSTAGE- ” The only thing that stikes me as particularly “dodgy” about the so-called “Steele dossier” is (1) the fact that anyone is still hiring unlicensed private investigators billing themselves as “Business Intelligence” firms in this day and age….”

        The Steele dossier is “dodgy” because it is unverifiable hearsay and innuendo. In other words, obvious propaganda designed to demonize Russia and, in particular, Putin for geostrategic reasons. The empire is on a warmongering rampage and is engaged in vicious propaganda against all official enemies, Russia, China and Iran heading the list. The Democrats have morphed into the party of neoliberal, warmongering Zionist neocons. This whole business is less about Trump than about demonizing Putin. Some quotes and links.

        “I am, however, a former intelligence officer and I have long since concluded that what Steele served up is garbage.” (Ray McGovern) https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/07/progressive-journalists-jump-the-shark-on-russiagate/

        “The PDF file of the 30-page typewritten report alleges that high Kremlin officials colluded with Trump, offered him multi-billion dollar bribes, and accumulated compromising evidence of Trump’s sexual escapades in Russia. That the dossier comes from former British intelligence officers appears, at first glance, to give it weight especially with Orbis’ claim of a “global network.” The U.S. intelligence community purportedly has examined the allegations but have not confirmed any of them. We can wait till hell freezes over. The material is not verifiable.

        President-elect Trump has dismissed the dossier’s contents as false as has the Kremlin. Trump is right: The Orbis dossier is fake news.” (Paul Roderick Gregory) https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/01/13/the-trump-dossier-is-false-news-and-heres-why/#bdd570568674

        “Another arrow in the Russophobia quiver was a private intelligence “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent working for Orbis Business Intelligence, a private firm hired by the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump. Steele’s first report, delivered in June 2016, made numerous serious accusations against Trump, most notably that Trump had been caught in a sexual escapade in Moscow, that his political advance had been supported by the Kremlin for at least five years, under Putin’s direction, in order to sow discord within the U.S. political establishment and disrupt the Western alliance. This document was based on alleged conversations by Steele with distant (Russian) officials: that is, strictly on hearsay evidence, whose assertions, where verifiable, are sometimes erroneous.26 But it said just what the Democrats, the mainstream media, and the CIA wanted to hear, and intelligence officials accordingly declared the author “credible,” and the media lapped it up. The Times hedged somewhat on its own cooperation in this tawdry campaign by calling the report “unverified,” but nevertheless reported its claims.” (Edward S. Herman) https://monthlyreview.org/2017/07/01/fake-news-on-russia-and-other-official-enemies/

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        September 21, 2018, 9:47 pm

        Trump doesn’t look Manchurian. More like an Oompa-Loompa candidate.

        But if he really was put there by the Kremlin, Putin should send him back to Manchuria and ask for a refund. Trump hasn’t pulled US forces from Syria, hasn’t dumped NATO, hasn’t lifted sanctions or improved relations with Russia. He hasn’t done any of the things we would expect a good Russian agent to do.

        Of course, this might be part of some fiendish, unimaginably cunning, Russian plan, but, on the face of it, it looks as though Trump is following Washington’s orders rather than Moscow’s.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        September 22, 2018, 1:17 am

        Keith: And who could be more objective and unbiased than a former career militarist?

        Nice try, but the typical professional “military” community is comprised of a sizable percentage of non-militarist-types, e.g. health care providers, lawyers, chaplains, civil engineers, technologists, and public administrators that look after law enforcement or morale, welfare, and recreation. After several tours of duty on Major Command Inspector General staffs, you may have noticed, I tend to favor facts, documentary evidence, and legal proof.

        So, I don’t automatically trust anyone in government or anyone in the Trump or Clinton camps. I already explained in my comments on Don’s Russiagate “Ghoststory” article that I think there is more than a grain of truth in the allegations about Russian election interference and Trump campaign collusion. I attribute most of the initial “hysteria” in the media to a conscious effort to change the story and distract attention away from the embarrassing revelations contained in the hacked DNC emails. After all, they outlined some serious wrongdoing by the Clinton campaign and DNC leadership in their efforts to finance and covertly rig the Clinton nomination.

        FYI, during most of my military career, I carried an ACLU membership card in my wallet, right next to my Air Force ID card. I’ve long since lost count of the times that I’ve chipped-in to help underwrite the costs of lawsuits against the President, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and etc. Anyone familiar with my comments here at Mondoweiss, at Opinio Juris, or the European Journal of International Law should realize by now, that I’ve made extensive use of court records, the US Code, official government documents (many obtained via FOIA lawsuits) and official declassified archives to either reveal government wrongdoing or debunk and discredit false official statements (made by both Republican and Democrat administrations) on a variety of subjects.

        Keith: The Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump and that is what Steele provided, relying on hearsay and innuendo. This is McCarthyism on steroids. … If you have to point a finger at someone, forget Putin and look at Robert Mercer … This is what real capitalism looks like. … not Putin. In fact, Putin has been the target of CIA/Soros hostility since at least 2014 when he was singled out for stopping the rape of Russia by the US under Yeltsin.

        Putin, his family, and his inner circle appear to be some of the most successful capitalists in the world. They literally climbed over a pile of corpses while “raping” the Russian economy back in the 1990s. The guy has a personal fortune that’s conservatively estimated @ 70 billion dollars. He has 20 palaces, a fleet of 58 airplanes,and 4 yachts. See for example: “No one knows Putin’s exact net worth, but many speculate he’s the wealthiest person on the planet — his $1 billion palace and $500 million yacht explain why” https://goo.gl/f78wv8

        The “Panama Papers” revealed $2 billion dollars worth of illicit Putin-related transactions that were conducted through a single off-shore law firm. See Revealed: the $2bn offshore trail that leads to Vladimir Putin https://goo.gl/ezqBPj Deutsche Bank was fined $630 million for a $10 billion dollar Russian mirror trading/money laundering scheme. Igor Putin, the President’s cousin, sat on the boards of two of the Russian banks which employed the laundering scheme, R.Z.B. and Promsberbank. https://goo.gl/ZGypaQ

        The Russian connections of Robert Mercer’s Cambridge Analytica, and its role in the Trump and Brexit campaigns, have been the subject of investigations in the both the UK and the USA. Mercer’s and Bannon’s activities in support anti-immigrant, anti-EU, and/or anti-NATO political movements are in perfect alignment with Putin’s goals.

        FYI, there are more than a few observers who have concluded that the reason so many financial experts can’t explain the perpetual 70% annual return on investment from Mercer’s Millennium hedge fund is because it’s (yet another) front for a successful Putin money laundering operation. See for example: Robert Mercer — Money Launderer for Vladimir Putin https://goo.gl/KRYhDY

        I’ll cut this off here and address some of your other comments in separate posts.

      • Keith
        Keith
        September 22, 2018, 11:45 am

        HOSTAGE- “… you may have noticed, I tend to favor facts, documentary evidence, and legal proof.”

        That is three things which the Steele document lacks yet you find it credible? And now you are humping the Putin is a billionaire pilpul? Easy enough to freeze his accounts, if they exist. Jeez, and I thought that it was Putin who put a stop to the Yeltsin/US rape of Russia. The Steele dossier is sufficiently crude and amateurish to be ludicrous, an insult to the intelligence. And you are part of the anti-Putin chorus. Copying and pasting lengthy legal discussions does not provide the copy and paster with any particular gravitas.

        And speaking of international law, I find it curious that you made a career in a world-wide terrorist organization known as the US Air Force, part of a vicious, brutal empire which violates international law on an ongoing basis. And yes, we know that the Air Force has teachers and chaplains as support staff, however, you made a career out of being an imperial stormtrooper, even if you were staff and didn’t get your hands dirty. And you are proud of it, too! Good Lord, Hostage, you are trying to make the US military sound like the Boy Scouts. And were you a member of the ACLU when the US Air Force was viciously bombing Vietnam, an unprovoked assault on a peasant society eventually resulting in about 4 million deaths in SE Asia where the US Air Force dropped more bombs than were dropped in World War II? I fail to see any signs of either recognition or contrition for the part you played in the ongoing crimes of empire. What I do see is support for the flimsy pretext being used to justify additional crimes.

        As a courtesy to my fellow Mondoweissers, I am reposting a link to an Abby Martin interview with Mark Ames on the Yeltsin years so folks can get a feel for the type of leader the US prefers for Russia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG31tm-LEtA

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        September 22, 2018, 12:45 pm

        Keith: The Steele dossier is “dodgy” because it is unverifiable hearsay and innuendo. In other words, obvious propaganda designed to demonize Russia and, in particular, Putin for geostrategic reasons.

        I’ve already noted that the 26 July 2016 and 10 August 2016 memos contain first person eyewitness accounts about the participation of Trump, Manafort, and Page, in the conspiracy with the Russian government. Those statements were made by an ethnic Russian Associate of Donald Trump who appears to have been working for a very longtime as an undercover FBI and US Intelligence informant. So, it’s hard to see how that could possibly be “unverifiable” or characterized as mere propaganda/innuendo.

        Re: Mr. McGovern’s comments that the dossier is garbage. He doesn’t quote or analyze a single objectionable line from the Steele dossier. He spends half of the article appealing to ad homenim fallacies and knocking down strawmen. Then he changes gears and starts shilling for one of Joe DiGenoa’s unrelated crackpot conspiracy theories. If you are looking for the use of innuendo and unverified propaganda, then this McGovern/DiGenoa production is a pretty good example.

        Re: Trump is right: The Orbis dossier is fake news.” (Paul Roderick Gregory)

        This guy seems to be missing five of the 35 pages, i.e. his copy has 30 pages.

        The shopworn fake news epithet is legally incorrect. When the plaintiffs in the Buzzfeed defamation lawsuit tried to make the very same claim in federal court, the Judge ruled against them. She held that the contents of the dossier were very real news and thus entitled to the “fair report privilege”. See “Judge in libel suit rules BuzzFeed may have protection for report on Trump dossier” https://goo.gl/B2osno

        Re: Edward S. Herman. He’s only citing one of the 17 memos, Steele’s first report delivered in June 2016. He seems to think that the whole thing is fake news, even if only one of the items in one of the 17 memos worth of raw intelligence is erroneous or considered heresay. He cites the remarks about Cohen’s alleged trip to Prague as erroneous. That’s hardly indispensable to the outcome of the Mueller investigation, one way or the other. The dossier alone has never been used in Court to justify a FISA warrant, and in the one case where it was used as an additional supporting document, its preparation by a biased political adversary was clearly noted.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 22, 2018, 1:02 pm

        “Keith”, please keep in mind that changing your nym to “Ke_ith” will avail you nothing, now that the glitch is gone.

      • Keith
        Keith
        September 22, 2018, 3:20 pm

        HOSTAGE- “FYI, there are more than a few observers who have concluded that the reason so many financial experts can’t explain the perpetual 70% annual return on investment from Mercer’s Millennium hedge fund is because it’s (yet another) front for a successful Putin money laundering operation.”

        You have obviously joined in the anti-Putin bandwagon and are throwing as much BS against the wall to see if any of it sticks. Trump is a Putin puppet. Now Robert Mercer is a Putin puppet. Cambridge Analytica a Putin front. Apparently, the Real News who did the Mercer documentary missed all of this. Working for Putin? Strange that the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) can’t put a stop to this. Putin the omniscient who saw Trump winning the Presidency when others laughed. Putin the magician who can move vast fortunes through the US global financial system with no problem. Bob Woodward unable to evaluate his own material as well as our very own Hostage who “tend(s) to favor facts, documentary evidence, and legal proof.” or so he says. You left out unjustified self-promotion.

        HOSTAGE- “Putin, his family, and his inner circle appear to be some of the most successful capitalists in the world. They literally climbed over a pile of corpses while “raping” the Russian economy back in the 1990s. The guy has a personal fortune that’s conservatively estimated @ 70 billion dollars.”

        Yeltsin was in charge when Jeffrey Sachs and the US raped Russia while creating the Russian oligarchs. Didn’t you even bother to look at the video of Abby Martin and Mark Ames? What the US did to post Soviet Russia is well known, your attempt to blame Putin for the situation he inherited (and improved upon) is scurrilous. And your link? The hit piece begins “No one knows Putin’s exact net worth, but many speculate he’s the wealthiest person on the planet” Speculate? So much for facts, documentary evidence and legal proof! Another priceless quote: “Hedge fund manager Bill Browder, a noted critic of Putin, claimed it was more like $200 billion.” Bill Browder? The financier who participated in the rape of Russia is pointing the finger at Putin? All of this is crap, part of a massive campaign to demonize Putin and Russia for geostrategic reasons. And, apparently, you are a willing part of this disinformation campaign. And the day I take your analysis over Ray McGovern and Edward Herman is the day hell freezes over.

        An additional observation. You have immersed yourself in this Russiagate hysteria far beyond what can be explained by a normal interest. You appear to have compiled a large amount quotes and assertions from dubious sources which are consistent with the Democrat/Soros/CIA meme of massive Russian interference in the global power structure. Interference which is ludicrous considering that Russia’s economy is about half that of France. The notion that Putin stole the empire out from under the corporations and oligarchs is ludicrous. That you support this insanity indicates to me that you support the pretext for future imperial actions in support of imperial hegemony. Your heart remains in the military, your ACLU membership notwithstanding.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 22, 2018, 5:04 pm

        Well, there it is, “Hostage”. The tragic story of how American financial machinations ruined Russia’s transition to (Russian) empire-wide social democracy and peaceful prosperity after the fall of Communism.
        See how it all fits together?

      • Keith
        Keith
        September 22, 2018, 5:07 pm

        MOOSER- ““Keith”, please keep in mind that changing your nym to “Ke_ith” will avail you nothing, now that the glitch is gone.”

        Apparently, you are unaware that we can no longer search the archives. Also, we cannot load additional comments beyond the one page of comments. I greatly lament the loss of the search function. I’ll leave it at that.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 22, 2018, 5:08 pm

        “You have immersed yourself in this Russiagate hysteria far beyond what can be explained by a normal interest.” “Dr. Keith”

        Maybe he’s got some kind of a mental disease, and should be taken to a nice quiet sanitarium, eh comrade?

      • guyn
        guyn
        September 22, 2018, 6:43 pm

        @Keith

        I’m with you about Russia, but what about that?

        ” his $1 billion palace and $500 million yacht explain why”

        Some said it is governmant property but I never saw a clarification on that.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        September 23, 2018, 12:11 am

        Since I am not, and never have been, a US citizen, I haven’t been following the involuted details of this fuss. It all looks like the normal workings of the corrupt and crazy American political process.*

        But since all this Russian interference seems to have had no actual effect on US policy, either in the ME or elsewhere, could you take the dispute to some other forum, please?

        (*So different from the clean, open, and honourable politics we have here, isn’t it, Mr. Turnbull?)

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        September 23, 2018, 12:27 am

        The loss of the search function means that the archives are, effectively, gone. This is a great pity. They were full of sound advice on grammar, plenty of arcane information and worthwhile arguments on the I/P problem, and some very good jokes.

        All lost to us, now, unless the geek contingency can actually come up with something.

      • annie
        annie
        September 23, 2018, 7:36 am

        i know, it’s really sad.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 23, 2018, 12:49 pm

        “All lost to us, now”

        Not entirely, “RoHa”. Knowing the exorbitant cost of tuition at top-flite universities these days, I copy and transfer to indestructible titanium thumb drives your every utterance.

      • Keith
        Keith
        September 23, 2018, 4:19 pm

        GUYN- “Some said it is governmant property but I never saw a clarification on that.”

        The whole article is a propaganda hit piece. We have had two years of anti-Putin/Russia propaganda, Putin being demonized. There are now a whole slew of articles on Putin’s alleged wealth, obviously orchestrated. The sources for this charade include liar and fraudster Bill Browder who enriched himself mightily during the corrupt Yeltsin era. Browder is fiercely anti-Putin after being put out of business. He was pivotal in the passing of the Magnitsky Act where he misrepresented his crooked accountant as his valiant lawyer. Using him says volumes about the integrity of this article. The source for the “secret” mansion was Boris Nemtsov, another corrupt Yeltsin era fat-cat. These guys calling Putin corrupt is like a giant pot calling a relatively small kettle black. Notice the visual presentation of the article. Five pictures of Putin grinning like he just ate the canary, one drinking champagne, and eight of planes, a yacht, and the inside of a “secret” mansion. This is pure propaganda, visually conflating Putin with opulent wealth when he wasn’t even there.

        So, is there corruption under Putin? Is there capitalism under Putin? Are there oligarchs under Putin? Does a bear shit in the woods? There is less corruption under Putin than under Yeltsin, but in oligarchic capitalism some level of corruption is inevitable. Just look at the financial thievery going on now under imperial neoliberalism. It should be remembered that prior to Yeltsin, there were no Russian oligarchs. I highly recommend the 27 minute interview of Mark Ames by Abby Martin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG31tm-LEtA

        I leave the last word on Russian interference to Noam Chomsky. “So, take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine elections. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? An issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean, in most of the world, that’s almost a joke. First of all, if you’re interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Israeli intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies—what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015. Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress trying to—calling on them to reverse U.S. policy, without even informing the president? And that’s just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence. So if you happen to be interested in influence of—foreign influence on elections, there are places to look. But even that is a joke.” (Noam Chomsky) https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/20/noam_chomsky_in_most_of_the_world__trump-russia_collusion_story_is_sen_as_a_joke_media_ingnores_serious_issues.html

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        September 23, 2018, 10:08 pm

        Very sensible of you, Mooser. My comments are, of course, the very epitome of supernal wisdom, sound reasoning, and brilliant, pellucid, prose.

        But the products of the lesser minds are not without value, even when improperly punctuated, and it is a shame that we do not have access to them.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2018, 4:45 pm

        , ” it is a shame that we do not have access to them.”

        The comment archives remind me of the cases of liquor my Dad had stashed in the attic. “Dad”, I said, “Why are you saving all this? Prohibition is over.”
        He turned to me, with a haunted look, said “They may bring it back!”
        And the comment archives might come back, too.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        September 24, 2018, 6:09 pm

        Roha: Since I am not, and never have been, a US citizen, I haven’t been following the involuted details of this fuss. It all looks like the normal workings of the corrupt and crazy American political process.*

        But since all this Russian interference seems to have had no actual effect on US policy, either in the ME or elsewhere, could you take the dispute to some other forum, please?

        I prefer to think of it as a Jewish saga about power, the love of money, and revenge that certainly has changed things in the ME. Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. He has given the Palestinian Delegation in the USA the boot. He shutdown US financial support for the UNRWA, and abrogated the Iran nuclear weapons agreement. He was singing for his supper when he did all of those things and has since complained that the Jewish community and his Jewish donors are ungrateful.

        FYI, in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee Glen Simpson of Fusion GPS explained that the Mossad was one of the so-called “Russian” sources of information used in his dossiers. So it isn’t just Putin who was leaking the news about Trump kompromat. “Never Trumper” Paul Singer is a “Birthright Israel” funder. His Washington Free Beacon funded the initial Fusion GPS anti-Trump research done by a Jewish French/Belgian fellow named Ed Baumgartner. After the election Singer donated $1 million to the Trump Inaugural Committee slush fund.

        The Principals who either arranged or were represented in the Trump Tower meeting were Jewish, not just Russians: Veselnitskaya represented Denis Katsyv/Prevezon a Russian Israeli. Emin Agalarov, Rob Goldstone, and Jared Kushner are respectively Russian, British, and American Jews according to The Jewish Daily Forward.

        The Magnitsky Act was named after a Russian Jewish accountant . The Russian Treasury Fraud imbroglio behind the legislation involves opposing groups of Jewish billionaires like Katsyv, Bill Browder, the late Edmond Safra, Beny Stienmetz, and the Ziff brothers. The principal sponsor of the legislation was Jewish Senator Ben Cardin. Even Noam Chomsky is tweeting out links to documentaries about Trump’s Russian-Jewish mafia business partners.
        https://goo.gl/B1Rvdk

        There’s always someone in the Jewish community keeping track of these things for us. For example, Haaretz noted that 5 of the 10 Russian oligarchs who funneled millions to the GOP and Trump’s Inaugural Committee were Jewish (and not included in my list above). See “Know Your Oligarch: A Guide to the Jewish Billionaires in the Trump-Russia Probe” https://goo.gl/8pbVmb

        Phil and Don Johnson have decided to write several articles here that either mention or discuss “Russiagate”. I was commenting that business records seized in the search of Paul Manafort’s storage locker had become exhibits to his plea deal and underscored that the Russians have funded and employed dirty tricks campaigns and black ops.

        They revealed that Manafort, the Podesta Group, and former Obama White House counsel were part of a Russian-funded dirty tricks operation to help rig the Ukrainian Presidential election in 2010. The group helped train prosecutors and author a report containing false charges that was used to imprison Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. https://goo.gl/8wWhih

        The correspondence shows that there was no difference between right-wing GOP operatives and the 77 long-term Clinton/Democratic Party “liberal” operatives employed in the revolving door public relations firm founded by John and Tony Podesta. At least not when it came running a dirty tricks campaign in support of a would- be dictator in the Ukraine. See the “Exhibits” in U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia) https://www.justice.gov/sco

        I’ve written over 10,000 comments at MW. Most of them were about improper US government and corporate interference in the Middle East and other parts of Asia to prevent other peoples from exercising their rights to statehood, independence, or non-intervention. To a lesser extent I’ve also discussed the same behavior in Latin America, the Caribbean, the Pacific, and Europe. Don complains about people who are concerned about Russiagate, but not things like the blockade of Yemen, etc. I’m not that guy. I’ve been writing about the illegality of all those things for many years now.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        September 24, 2018, 9:42 pm

        Wise man, your father.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        September 24, 2018, 10:02 pm

        Keith you keep maintaining that Putin wasn’t part of the corrupt Yeltsin era government. But in fact he was a key figure in charge of the questionable transactions that took place.

        Even children in grade school know how to use Wikipedia. In many instances the Russian federal government devolved decisions on privatization of retail sector, service sector, and local commodities to municipal governments. Putin was in charge of soliciting foreign investment and registering and regulating foreign businesses in Leningrad (St. Petersburg):

        “In May 1990, Putin was appointed as an advisor on international affairs to the Mayor of Leningrad Anatoly Sobchak. On 28 June 1991, he became head of the Committee for External Relations of the Mayor’s Office, with responsibility for promoting international relations and foreign investments[56] and registering business ventures. Within a year, Putin was investigated by the city legislative council led by Marina Salye. It was concluded that he had understated prices and permitted the export of metals valued at $93 million in exchange for foreign food aid that never arrived.[57][58] Despite the investigators’ recommendation that Putin be fired, Putin remained head of the Committee for External Relations until 1996.[59][60] https://goo.gl/wWg6KL

        Putin certainly was one of those persons who got filthy rich in less than a year’s time, while others were presumably left to go hungry.

        Wikipedia goes on to explain that Putin was then put in charge of selling off all of the former Soviet Union’s foreign assets:
        “In June 1996 Sobchak lost his bid for reelection in Saint Petersburg, so Putin moved to Moscow and was appointed as Deputy Chief of the Presidential Property Management Department headed by Pavel Borodin. He occupied this position until March 1997. During his tenure, Putin was responsible for the foreign property of the state and organized the transfer of the former assets of the Soviet Union and Communist Party to the Russian Federation.[44] On 26 March 1997, President Boris Yeltsin appointed Putin deputy chief of Presidential Staff, which he remained until May 1998, and chief of the Main Control Directorate of the Presidential Property Management Department (until June 1998).

        If President Yeltsin sold-off Russian assets to western capitalists for pennies on the dollar (as you’ve claim) then Putin obviously became his chief bag man for doing that in less than a year. https://goo.gl/zngvoz

        The next year Putin was appointed head of the State Intelligence and Security Service (FSB). A year after that, he was appointed Prime Minister of Russia:

        “On 9 August 1999, Putin was appointed one of three First Deputy Prime Ministers, and later on that day, was appointed acting Prime Minister of the Government of the Russian Federation by President Yeltsin.[69] Yeltsin also announced that he wanted to see Putin as his successor. Later on that same day, Putin agreed to run for the presidency.[70]
        https://goo.gl/dsY5f5

        FYI, the Bolsheviks took over all of the Imperial palaces of the Czar and nobility. But even Pravda admits that Stalin had about dozen more palaces constructed for himself and his relatives. Likewise Khruschev had his own palace constructed. See “Soviet Leaders Preferred Vacationing in Palaces” All of them are managed today by the Presidential Property Management Department and are used by current or former Presidents. https://goo.gl/8dcHDJ

        It’s hardly a secret that Putin granted the Italian Architect who designed his new billion dollar palace Russian citizenship. The fellow published a coffee table book on the 43 palaces he’s built for Putin and other Russian billionaires. See: Meet The ‘Poor Italian Architect’ Who Designed ‘Putin’s Palace’ https://goo.gl/S3tCzd

        See also: Inside ousted Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych’s palace – video | World news | The Guardian. This guy couldn’t have built that with his regular salary in two lifetimes.
        https://goo.gl/GVbA9k

        FYI, the “Panama Papers” are actually business records dealing with thousands of illicit offshore financial transactions conducted by a law firm on behalf of hundreds of wealthy people living around the globe. These documents would ordinarily be entitled to attorney client privilege, but for the crime-fraud exception. They’re admissible in many Courts under the business record heresay exception like the one that applied in the Manafort and Cohen cases.

        FYI, the former Russian Official who said that Putin’s personal fortune is valued at $70 billion is the same fellow who provided evidence on the subject in the successful Yukos shareholders vs. Russia case in the International Court of Arbitration. He is NOT Bill Browder. The shareholders are in the process of going from country to country seeking enforcement. See for example “The US$50 billion Yukos award overturned – Enforcement becomes a game of Russian roulette” https://goo.gl/RospGL

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        September 25, 2018, 11:17 am

        @Hostage

        “I prefer to think of it as a Jewish saga about power, the love of money, and revenge ”

        The effort that you made to ferret out these Jews, is, to say the least,
        disturbing.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        September 25, 2018, 12:29 pm

        Jackdaw: The effort that you made to ferret out these Jews, is, to say the least,
        disturbing.

        I didn’t have to ferret anything out. I clearly stated that the Jewish press specializes in keeping up on all of this for the rest of us. There have been stories about the notoriety and accomplishments of all of these Machers on the front page of the JTA, The Forward, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, or Arutz Sheva. If you want to be THAT guy. I’ll be happy to make you look uninformed.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 25, 2018, 12:38 pm

        “Wise man, your father.”

        Thank you, “RoHa”. He gave me one piece of advice which I have found invaluable, but I’ve forgotten what it was.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 25, 2018, 12:41 pm

        “Hostage” if you will permit me to paraphrase Golda Meir:

        ‘After Hillary’s e-mails, Trump can do anything!’

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        September 25, 2018, 12:50 pm

        @Hostage

        “I didn’t have to ferret anything out. I clearly stated that the Jewish press specializes in keeping up on all of this for the rest of us.”

        Bullshit.
        Whether you ferreted these Jews from the Jewish press, or ferreted them out from another source, isn’t the issue.

        You made an effort to single out Jews.
        You sicken me.

      • eljay
        eljay
        September 25, 2018, 12:59 pm

        || Jackdaw: … You made an effort to single out Jews.
        You sicken me. ||

        You Zionists “single out” Jews all the time. I shudder to think just how much you disgust yourself.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        September 25, 2018, 1:30 pm

        Jackdaw: “Bullshit.”

        Why do you single out the excrements of an adult male of the species Bos taurus?
        You sicken me!

      • gamal
        gamal
        September 25, 2018, 1:50 pm

        “Jackdaw: “Bullshit.” ”

        Since Hostage made a fool of him I think he is trying to demonstrate that he can make a bigger fool of himself all on his own, one-upmanship is a subtle craft.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 25, 2018, 2:39 pm

        “Whether you ferreted these Jews from the Jewish press”

        A self-hating, persecution-internalizing antisemitic Jewish and Israeli press which singles out Jews. Who can a Jew trust these days?

        Got any suggestions “Jackdaw”?

  21. Mooser
    Mooser
    September 22, 2018, 12:37 pm

    “That is three things which the Steele document lacks yet you find it credible?”

    You don’t think maybe events have overtaken, and gone way past, the Steele dossier?

Leave a Reply