Trending Topics:

Pay no attention to Tlaib and Omar, says Pelosi– but she does

on 51 Comments

Last month Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, assured a pro-Israel Jewish audience that the arrival of Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar (and maybe also Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) as critics of Israel would not affect the U.S. relationship with Israel.

Remove all doubt in your mind. It’s just a question of not paying attention to a few people who may want to go their own way, but as far as our Congress is concerned we try very hard to unify, to have bipartisanship in all of this… If you hear of one person or another– it’s not about anything other than perhaps their individual vote.

But Pelosi also acknowledged the pressure from the left, when she called for a two state solution, and there were jeers from the right wing crowd.

The principles we would hope to see there are a two state solution– [jeers]. I know there’s controversy but the extreme left on this is asking for a one-state solution– so understand we have to strike the balance….

That was surely an allusion to the progressive Democratic base that supports democracy over occupation; and to Omar and Tlaib’s support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) targeting Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.

Pelosi’s political calculation demolishes that standby of the Israel lobby: that Israel will only respond to hugs, not pressure. In fact, only pressure will change the political calculus of this stalemated conflict.

Pelosi appeared on the same Florida stage that Trump’s biggest donors, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, also appeared on, and she assured Haim Saban, a megadonor to the Democratic Party, who had asked about the new House and the progressive Democratic base, that the Capitol could crumble to the ground and still the Democrats would be for Israel.

I’m very pleased…according to one study that I have seen, that 70 percent of Jewish people in our country voted Democratic in this election. That’s very important point in terms of our connection. I have said to people when they ask me, If this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain would be our commitment to our aid, I don’t even call it our aid, our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are.

The event was the Israeli American Council conference (which I’m catching up to a month later). Pelosi went down a list of supporters of Israel, many of them Jewish, in positions of House leadership in the new Congress:

I want you to take great pride in the fact that Debbie Wasserman Schultz who was here in a bipartisan situation is a what we call a cardinal, a Jewish cardinal in the Appropriations Committee. The cardinals are the chairs of the committees. She has a very important position  on Appropriations, which is where this bill of funding for Israel takes place.

Two people who were going to be here. Lois Frankel is on the Foreign Affairs committee. Alcee Hastings on rules, but he’s our top person, our chairman of the Helsinki [Commission]. That’s important in terms of antisemitism as well as pro Israel initiatives.

Ted Deutch from this area is the chair of the middle east subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The list goes on. Nita Lowey is the chair of the Appropriations Committee, the first woman, and a big supporter of Israel as you know, strong Israel US relationship. Eliot Engel is the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Adam Schiff is the chair of the Intelligence Committee. So we have people very well placed who share our values in terms of the heart, Israel in heart and Israeliness in spirit. Shared values. Remove all doubt in your mind. It’s just a question of not paying attention to a few people who may want to go their own way but as far as our Congress is concerned we try very hard to unify, to have bipartisanship in all of this.

She offered her standard line on Israel being the greatest thing that happened in the 20th century.

I believe that the establishment of the state of Israel was the greatest political accomplishment of the Twentieth Century… Here was this beacon of hope, of values….

She shamed the Palestinians:

We have to I think in Congress make it really clear to Palestinians that we expect them to be responsible negotiators and we haven’t seen a lot of that thus far. And we have to say in our friends in the Arab world, you can weigh in on this in a way that makes them responsible negotiators. Because we really want again to see Israel prevails as a Jewish, democratic state. But we have to see that there is security.

She said it had to be communicated to young Americans that support for Israel is not an “issue”:

This is a glorious undertaking that we are in… Let us make this a joyous reach to young people, that they will be part of sharing values that are fundamental to our country, fundamental to us in our relationship with Israel… Let’s make this something that takes them to a place where they will be leaders and they will be proud.

It’s part of who we are as Americans…. This is not an issue, this is a value, this is an ethic, this is part of who we are…

 

 

 

 

Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

51 Responses

  1. annie on January 26, 2019, 1:30 pm

    hey phil, did you notice the part where haim saban ask pelosi if her husband would be their shabbos goy?

    she didn’t answer! i cracked up.

    • Mooser on January 26, 2019, 1:43 pm

      ” haim saban ask pelosi if her husband would be their shabbos goy?”

      What the hell was that supposed to mean? What on earth did Saban think he was doing?

  2. eljay on January 26, 2019, 1:46 pm

    … She shamed the Palestinians …

    We have to I think at Police Headquarters make it really clear to the women chained in the basement that we expect them to be responsible negotiators and we haven’t seen a lot of that thus far. And we have to say to our friends in the feminist community, you can weigh in on this in a way that makes them responsible negotiators. Because we really want to see Joe prevail as a rapist and neighbourly person.

    • US Citizen on January 26, 2019, 7:54 pm

      What kind of real democracy results in 2% of the population determining US foreign policy in the Middle East to rubber-stamp israel’s rogue whims, no matter the expense to the US treasure, blood and reputation?

      This is exactly why these aging, ancient relics, Pelosi, Schumer, Biden et.al. are owned by AIPAC/ JINSA/ WINEP/ ADL/ PNAC/ AEI, not to mention wall street, corporations, etc. They are not progressive and had better stop being tone – deaf. The political currents have shifted.

      Pelosi and Schumer and the israel first crowd better buckle up. The reality is that it’s time for progressive politicians to put Palestinian rights on the agenda, stop being bullied by AIPAC/ JINSA/ WINEP/ ADL/ PNAC/ AEI, Haim Saban, Adelson, etc. and get with the program, or else they are going to lose the support of the constituents they need to get elected- if not today, then tomorrow.

      In this day and age when billions are thrown around in conversation let’s put it to vote and see how many Americans want to continue supporting the world’s biggest welfare client, israel, to the tune of 11 million plus a day when our own is going without?

      • MHughes976 on January 27, 2019, 9:11 am

        The kind of democracy that does this must be the kind where public opinion inclines that way or at least inclines very little in the other direction. There is much inertia in public opinion and it it has still not recovered from the postwar impulse to think that the world owes a debt, to an extent very hard to measure or limit, of restitution to people who are Jewish in the aftermath of wrongs done to so many of them. Doing wrong to Jews was seen as a defining characteristic of the former enemy, so doing the right thing by them – and accepting their judgment of what the right thing is – was seen as the only way to make sure of that enemy’s definitive defeat. This sentiment was reinforced by Israel’s successes and air of modernity and by the supremely confident tone that it’s apologists have managed to strike. Those of us who think differently are still misfits in face of the prevailing morality. Democracy is quite good, I think, at keeping misfits in their place.

      • pabelmont on January 27, 2019, 3:08 pm

        USA’s political system — called democracy, maybe derisively — does NOT (usually) deliver control over anything to 2% of the population. What it does do is deliver control to 0.001% of the population, namely the CEOs of the biggest corporations and the billionaires (such as Adelson, Saban, etc.) Yes, most Jews vote for Democrats but that doesn’t mean that they all agree with mainline-USA’s pro-Israel position, although most of the over-50s possibly do.

    • MHughes976 on January 27, 2019, 5:31 pm

      She insulted and demeaned but did not shame them.

    • Misterioso on January 28, 2019, 11:15 am

      Another timely analysis by Professor Lawrence Davidson:

      Mr. Pompeo’s Foreign Policy Fantasy—An Analysis (27 January 2019) by Professor Lawrence Davidson

      Part I— “Truth”

      U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo started out the new year—the date was January 10—preaching “the truth” about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and for reasons we will get to below, he chose to do so at the American University in Cairo, Egypt (AUC). He implied that he was particularly capable of discerning the truth because he is “an evangelical Christian” who keeps a “Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and His Word, and The Truth.” This confession indicates that Mr. Pompeo is wearing ideological glasses through which he cannot possibly see the world, much less the Middle East, in an objective fashion. We can assume that the decidedly unthinking and amoral president he serves has no problem with this prophet in the State Department because Pompeo is one of the few cabinet ministers whom President Trump has not fired.

      So what are Mr. Pompeo’s version of foreign policy truth? In terms of his Cairo pronouncements, they are twofold. First, as is to be expected of a man of Mr. Pompeo’s temperament (he declared: “I am a military man” who learned his “basic code of integrity” at West Point), he has identified the true enemy of the civilized world. And, again not unexpectedly given his Christian zealotry, the enemy is of Muslim origins. It is the “tenacious and vicious” cabal of “radical Islamism, a debauched strain of the faith that seeks to upend every other form of worship or governance.”

      This initial “truth” is noteworthy for what it does not take into consideration, such as traditional U.S. alliances with brutal and corrupt military or monarchical dictatorships. Any move to reduce support for such regimes in the Middle East is, in Mr. Pompeo’s view, a “misjudgment” that must have “dire results.” As long as these dictatorships oppose what Mr. Pompeo opposes, their brutality and corrupt nature can be judged acceptable. For example, Pompeo praised his host, the military dictator of Egypt, Abdel Fattah Saeed Hussein Khalil El-Sisi, who is an archetypical example of this murderous breed of ruler. He praised El-Sisi exactly because he has joined the U.S. in the suppression of “Islamists.” The Egyptian dictator, in Pompeo’s words, is “a man of courage.”

      Mr. Pompeo’s second “truth” is the self-evident fact of American exceptionalism. He told his listeners that “America is a force for good in the Middle East.” Pompeo does not articulate the reference, but his claim taps into the Christian image of the U.S. as “a shining city on the hill”—a God-blessed light unto the nations. This was one of Ronald Reagan’s favorite themes.

      As proof of American’s alleged beneficence, Pompeo makes a series of dubious claims about the behavior of the United States government. Here are a few of them. The comments within brackets are those of this author:

      “For those who fret about the use of American power, remember this: (1) America has always been, and always will be, a liberating force.” [Since World War II we have been liberating dictators from their own rebelling people] (2) “We assembled a coalition to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein.” [The subsequent two Gulf Wars plus the U.S. imposed sanctions regime killed at least half-a-million Iraqis]; (3) “And when the mission is over, when the job is complete, America leaves.” [Unless the “liberated” countries’ government wants Washington to establish bases which, it seems, they almost always do. The U.S. now has some 800 military bases in 70 countries around the world.] (4) The U.S. and its allies helped destroy most of ISIS, and in the process “saved thousands of lives.” [There is no official number for the civilians killed in the so-called war on terror, of which the campaign against ISIS is but a part. However, there is no doubt that, to date, it is at least in the high hundreds of thousands.] (5) “Life is returning to normal for millions of Iraqis and Syrians.”
      [Unless you have a really perverse definition of “normal,” this is a total fantasy.]

      Part II—Rescuing Foreign Policy

      According to Mr. Pompeo, achievements 4 and 5 are due to the “fact” that President Donald Trump rescued U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Rescued? Rescued from what? From the foreign policy of Barack Obama, of course. “America, your long-time friend, was absent too much. Why? Because our leaders gravely misread our history, and your historical moment. These fundamental misunderstandings, were set forth in this city in 2009.” That claim was in direct reference to President Obama’s speech calling for a “new relationship with the Muslim world” delivered on 4 June 2009, also at AUC. That is why Pompeo chose this venue for his speech, which is in essence, an indictment of Obama’s foreign policy.

      In brief, in 2009 President Obama, who also claimed in his Cairo talk to be speaking the truth, had referenced the negative impact of Western imperial and colonial history toward the Middle East, and then took a pro-democracy stance that, if carried into policy, would have weakened support for traditional dictatorships in places like Egypt. Obama saw a connection between the brutality of such dictatorships and the spread of religious fanaticism—a connection that was stronger than “radical Islamist” ideology alone. Obama also implied that President George W. Bush’s post 9/11 policy, which led not only to the unnecessary invasion of Iraq, but also to a policy of official torture, resulted in the United States “acting contrary to our ideals.” In addition, Obama was ready to negotiate with those seen as enemies by Pompeo, as symbolized by his willingness to make a deal with Iran.

      Pompeo, the Christian zealot who sees the U.S. as incapable of doing ill, cannot objectively consider or perhaps even understand Obama’s positions. He dismisses them as a “misreading” of history. Obama’s brief and, in truth, largely ineffective, wavering from traditional Middle East foreign policy had, in Pompeo’s view, introduced “the age of self-inflicted American shame.” If Mr. Pompeo is short on historical understanding, he is long on hyperbole.

      Part III—Retreat And Chaos

      One of Pompeo’s more disquieting propositions is that “when America retreats, chaos often follows.” Alas, at least in the Middle East, the exact opposite is true—chaos comes from invasion. This can be demonstrated by the consequences of the actions of President George W. Bush. It was Bush’s invasion of Iraq, the results of which were predictable, that opened the region to chaos, including the growth of ISIS. The Iraq invasion also opened the flood gates of an ongoing refugee crisis (which the Syrian civil war—arguably prolonged by U.S. involvement—made even worse). Subsequent intervention in Libya, under President Obama’s watch, only intensified the turmoil. However, none of these actions, or the misery they inflicted, seems have bothered the Christian sensibilities of Mr. Pompeo.

      Part IV—Conclusion

      Examining the history of events can give us guides, albeit imperfect ones, for present policies and behaviors. A necessary precondition to making the most of this examination is the ability to do so as objectively as possible. Otherwise, to use Pompeo’s phrasing, we end up “making bad mistakes.” Part of the process is to be able to recognize the actual causes of events and to know when to discard traditional practices that no longer take you where you want to go.

      Yet here is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisting, on the one hand, on maintaining outworn policies that support dictators. These policies have not produced the stability he thinks they have, but have rather helped bring about the very chaos he attributes to President Obama. On the other hand, his Christian fundamentalism has blinded him to any objective understanding of Middle East history and America’s role in that region. That is why he ends up stating contradictions. For instance, toward the end of his talk he tells us (1) “the Trump administration will also continue to press for a real and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians” and (2) “we’ve adhered to our word. President Trump campaigned on the promise to recognize Jerusalem—the seat of Israel’s government—as the nation’s capital. In May, we moved our embassy there.” Those two statements are in direct contradiction to each other. However, Pompeo misses this fact entirely. This is a product of ideology compounded by ignorance.

      This being the case, Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump make for strange bedfellows. Of course, both are ignorant. But, the nearest thing Trump has to an ideology is his egotism and that infamous “gut” of his that ostensibly tells him what is right and wrong. He certainly is not a believing Christian nor even an American chauvinist, but rather he is a personal chauvinist who thinks of himself as a personification of the U.S.

      If Pompeo and Trump share anything (besides ignorance), it seems to be a firm dislike for everything connected to Barack Obama. We know that Trump may well be obsessed with Obama, perhaps for racist reasons. As one Democratic Party adviser has noted, “His [Trump’s] only guiding principle seems to be to undo what Obama did. His driving motivation seems to be his animosity towards Obama.” Mike Pompeo seems in lockstep with his boss in this regard. After all, Pompeo went out of the way to indict Obama, blaming him for the death of thousands, and doing so at the same spot of what could have been Obama’s most promising Middle East initiative. Pompeo’s actions in this regard were personal and spiteful.

      So here we have it. What motivates Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: (1) Christian zealotry (2) American exceptionalism and (3) a personal dislike of the first Black president of the United States. In terms of the position he holds in the government, this is a losing combination for the rest of us. Personally, I would not trust this man to guide the ongoing relationships between me and my neighbors, so you can imagine my horror at having to put up with him as Secretary of State.


      Lawrence Davidson
      [email protected]

      Blog: http://www.tothepointanalyses.com

  3. bintbiba on January 26, 2019, 1:58 pm

    Balance, my foot !! :(

    These people are beyond corrupt, insane , with their genteel oily language and
    ” this is not an issue , this is a value, this is an ethic, this is part of who we are… ” bs!!

    I feel so sorry and sad for America and the good , misled American people , who when they really wake from this ugly slumber of ignorance and misinformation as to how utterly corrupt are their leaders and spokespeople … that will be when the REAL madness of living, woken nightmares occurs !

    • JWalters on January 26, 2019, 7:57 pm

      Yes. I hope someone’s preparing for it, because it’s coming.

  4. Citizen on January 26, 2019, 3:07 pm

    Gee maybe “hypnotized” is the precise descriptive word after all? Pelosi ilk would happily follow Israel into America’s nuclear destruction, carrying a Zionist flag.

    • JWalters on January 26, 2019, 7:59 pm

      That possibility has to be considered. The main alternative is crass bribery. Or was she also frightened and brainwashed as a child?

  5. Ossinev on January 26, 2019, 3:31 pm

    “I’m very pleased…according to one study that I have seen, that 70 percent of Jewish people in our country voted Democratic in this election”

    So 70% of less than the just under 2% of Americans adult Jews voted Democratic. And that is a “vital” potential game changer. I don`t think so. Probably more to do with the much more vital % of Jewish funders and funding coming the Democrats way. Whoops!! A/S “trope” alert – I`ll get my coat.

    • Citizen on January 26, 2019, 8:07 pm

      Yeah the vote is a drop in the bucket, but they also have CNN & MSNBC & Saban & Soros etc

  6. Kathleen on January 26, 2019, 5:49 pm

    Look I give it to Pelosi for being instrumental in bringing the ACA to the goal post. However she lost many of us when we had worked thousands of hours to fill the House and Senate with Dems in 2006 because we wanted to watch the Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith war criminals held accountable for the unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq based on cherry picked, created false WMD intelligence. Something from the Intelligence committee, hearings, etc. Something. Instead the immoral coward Pelosi “took impeachment off the table” She was unmoved by the demands to witness the Bush administration held accountable in some way shape or form. We are not talking about a President who lied under oath about an extra marital affair. We were demanding accountability of some kind for an administration who was responsible for the deaths, injuries of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq. Millions displaced. Pelosi “took impeachment off the table” I have no respect for her at all. “Immoral” is too nice of a word for Pelosi’s abdication of her power at that time. She aided and abetted war criminals.

    • JWalters on January 26, 2019, 8:05 pm

      Consistent with her behavior in this case.

    • Citizen on January 26, 2019, 8:09 pm

      Yes, she did & lost no sleep in her process

    • echinococcus on January 27, 2019, 1:06 am

      Kathleen,
      Please. You’re again using Palestine for Democratic “party” propaganda under the excuse of disapproving Pelosi. She fully represents that Empire and War Party and its owners, while simple members, even if individually pro-Palestinian like your good self, have no say. And won’t.
      §
      Pelosi *is* the Democratic Party. No matter if you believe that the murderous owners of such “party” can be changed or not, it is a matter between you and that abomination. Is this discussion group here the right place to be bragging of all the work you did for the Zionist Party?

  7. JohnSmith on January 26, 2019, 6:07 pm

    Right, Senator Pelosi, it’s the “extreme left” that is for the one-state solution, the one-state solution that you’ve made the only solution with your relentless support for and funding of the one-state solution.

    Those “leftists” are so “wacky” and “extremist” in supporting the only possible outcome that your policies produce. Wacky, wacky leftists! So “extreme”!

  8. Kay24 on January 26, 2019, 7:24 pm

    The Speaker of the House prostrates herself in front of yet another zionist entity in the US. to show her loyalty and devotion to a nation that kills unarmed civilians on a daily basis. Nothing new here folks, we seem to have politician after politician, put shekels, dollars, and votes, over human rights, an ongoing occupation, and land grabs. When it comes to dear Israel we can be selectively blind, deaf, and act dumb. Nothing changes in the world’s greatest “democracy”.
    Congress does not care if the Palestinian territories will be unliveable by 2020, let the indigenous people perish, as long as our tax dollars will help their occupier steal lands, kill protesters, and finally take over the entire region. We need Israeli lobbies to help us win elections, don’t we?

    • tidings on January 28, 2019, 9:35 am

      Doth the lady not protest too much?

      If I were Freud, I would diagnose her excessive language and her righteous identification with the Jewish people/Israel as indicative of just the opposite: personal ambivalence masquerading as unconditional love and admiration.

      Come on Nancy, nobody loves the Jewish people that much, not even the Jews.

  9. JWalters on January 26, 2019, 7:43 pm

    And now ladies and gentlemen, for your evening’s entertainment, those fabulous singing sisters, the Zion Sisters, Miriam, Bari, and Nancy!

  10. brent on January 27, 2019, 3:08 am

    Pelosi detailed the path to changing the equation. She says security, ethics and values are the premises on which the Democratic Party stands. By denying Israel the security argument and by Palestinian citizens campaigning for equality, the politics will rapidly evolve.

  11. Peter in SF on January 27, 2019, 3:09 am

    I heard a couple of words differently from one of the quotes above, starting at 21:45, but then notice how Speaker Pelosi continues:


    Because we really want to see again Israel to prevail as a Jewish democratic state. But we have to make sure that there is security, because that is the first responsibility of any government. It’s the oath we take as members of Congress, and any of you who are part of any official organization, to protect and defend. And we have to make sure that the security of Israel is essential to a solution.

    Protect” and “defend” are both transitive verbs, but notice how their objects are missing here?

    From George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796:


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

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

    • JWalters on January 27, 2019, 6:31 pm

      George: Nancy, you know this passionate attachment to Israel is bad policy.

      Nancy: Times have changed George. Alliances are much more important today.

      George: At the cost of your own country’s values? Of equal rights for all individuals, regardless of race or religion?

      Nancy: But this is a special case, George. These people have been persecuted.

      George: Nancy, you know they are the persecutors in this case.

      Nancy: Well, if you want to be in the game these days, George, this is how it’s played.

      George: Wow!

      • Keith on January 27, 2019, 6:53 pm

        JWALTERS- “George: At the cost of your own country’s values? Of equal rights for all individuals, regardless of race or religion?”

        Is this some sort of parody? Are you poking fun at the founding hypocrites? Lofty rhetoric belied by base deeds?

      • JWalters on January 27, 2019, 8:42 pm

        Keith, I agree George Washington’s views on race at that time were different from the Constitution’s stated views today. But his views were definitely evolving toward those of Lincoln, and if he were to visit Nancy today I feel comfortable that he would be up to date.

      • Keith on January 27, 2019, 10:19 pm

        JWALTERS- “…and if he were to visit Nancy today I feel comfortable that he would be up to date.”

        By up to date, do you mean that he would be an imperialist like most of our elite? That he would be a militarist who supports regime destabilizations and a national security state? Neo-liberalism and ongoing racism? Et cetera? My comment was a sarcastic attempt to make the obvious point that, lofty rhetoric aside, our founders and our nation has always acted in an aggressive, racist, power-seeking manner. I agree that George Washington’s actual opinions and actions would fit in very well with our current times, except that he would be appalled that the landed gentry had been usurped by the corporations. In fact, Israel seems to be emulating the empire quite closely. Uncle Sam is hardly an example of moral righteousness. America’s myth-history is as far removed from reality as is Israel’s. And I don’t employ double standards and criticize Israel while whitewashing the empire, particularly now with the empire on a rampage that is an existential threat to the survival of the species. Israel has effectively been merged into the empire, the two joined at the hip.

      • JWalters on January 29, 2019, 5:47 pm

        Keith, I completely agree in not whitewashing history. Or the reverse. I give George Washington credit for refusing to accept a kingship, and for refusing a third term as president. He set an immportant example of NOT seeking power. Within the world as he understood it, his dedication to duty stood out to others, and was partly why he was chosen for such central roles. Washington was already evolving in the direction of Lincoln on race, and would have continued in that direction, it seems to me.

    • hophmi on January 28, 2019, 11:43 am

      Why do you oppose the American alliance with Great Britain?

  12. Sibiriak on January 27, 2019, 7:21 pm

    JWalters: Nancy: But this is a special case…
    ——————————————-

    Exceptionalism. A supreme American value.

  13. uh...clem on January 28, 2019, 12:22 am

    Nancy Pelosi is a fraud through and through. I assume she has taken the oath to uphold the Constitution but does that mean also supporting the PURPOSES of the Constitution as stated in the Preamble: 1) Establish Justice; 2) Insure Domestic Tranquility; 3)Provide for the Common Defense; 4) Promote the General Welfare, etc., etc. ??? On those aims I’d give her an F on her report card.

  14. Vera Gottlieb on January 28, 2019, 11:32 am

    A one-state solution will never, ever work. There just is too much hatred on both sides.

    • genesto on January 28, 2019, 5:34 pm

      Wrong! Look, at South Africa as an example. There was just as much animosity and hatred on both sides, right up until apartheid collapsed. If it can happen there, it can happen in Israel/Palestine – and it may come just as quickly!

  15. hophmi on January 28, 2019, 11:42 am

    “Pelosi’s political calculation demolishes that standby of the Israel lobby: that Israel will only respond to hugs, not pressure. In fact, only pressure will change the political calculus of this stalemated conflict.”

    Since the BDS movement started:

    The Palestinians have no state and few allies left in their own region. As I’ve always said, the BDS movement is about making Westerners feel like they’re doing something, not about actually helping Palestinians.

    • Talkback on January 28, 2019, 1:15 pm

      hophmi: “The Palestinians have no state …”

      Maybe it wasn’t big news in your synagogue, but Palestine is an UN non-member observer STATE since 2012 and has as such access to all UN organisation that other states have, too. A state under occupation is still a state.

      • Jon66 on January 28, 2019, 4:13 pm

        Talk,
        Who are the citizens of the State of Palestine?

      • Talkback on January 28, 2019, 7:53 pm

        What a stupid question. “Who” are the citizens of the state of Israel?

      • Jon66 on January 28, 2019, 10:02 pm

        Talk,
        Are all Palestinians resident in the state of Palestine citizens? Are only some? I don’t see why it’s a stupid question.

      • Talkback on January 29, 2019, 10:18 am

        Jon66: “Are all Palestinians resident in the state of Palestine citizens?”

        What are you up to, Jon66?

      • Jon66 on January 29, 2019, 6:41 pm

        Talk,
        I agree that Palestine was recognized by many other countries. I just don’t understand it’s political makeup. Are the Palestinians who live in it citizens of the state?

      • Talkback on January 30, 2019, 10:03 am

        Yes, under the laws of the Palestinian Authority, but they won’t be officially treated as such, because – like in Gaza – the population register is controlled by the occupier.

        When they travel they can show the Palestinian Authority passport which anyone can get if he was born in Palestine.

    • genesto on January 28, 2019, 5:36 pm

      Israel will only respond to force. You might say, it will only respond to (t)hugs, since it only ‘respects’ the use of force against it, and has no respect, no regard at all, for negotiations.

      • amigo on January 28, 2019, 9:15 pm

        “What a stupid question. “Who” are the citizens of the state of Israel?” Talkback

        Doc 66 will first have to define where the borders of Israel are to answer that question.

  16. amigo on January 28, 2019, 5:28 pm

    “Who are the citizens of the State of Palestine?”jon 666

    Well, let,s hope they are not your patients.

  17. amigo on January 28, 2019, 8:54 pm

    “That’s not much of an answer.” jon666

    Ask a stupid question –Doc.

    Try this!!

    The Citizens of Palestine are those people who are illegally occupied by the so called state of Israel who transferred 700,000 illegal squatters onto lands stolen from said Citizens of Palestine.

    Now , your turn to give me a stupid answer.

  18. Dan From Away on January 29, 2019, 11:17 pm

    I suppose we should be thankful to Speaker PEP-losi for pulling back the curtain on political Zionism’s rituals and practices in Congress. Two of her comments jumped off the page at me:

    “Debbie Wasserman Schultz … is a what we call a cardinal, a Jewish cardinal in the Appropriations Committee.”

    and:

    “So we have people very well placed who share our values in terms of the heart, Israel in heart and Israeliness in spirit. Shared values.”

    Imagine if either of these quotes had originated with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez or any of the new and true progressives!

    They would have been attacked for using antisemitic smears drawn straight from the infamous “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. But since these lines were articulated by none other than Speaker PEP-Losi in the context of a Zionist conference, flanked by Zionist princes, no such interpretation was allowed. Instead, the sword of the antisemitism smear was tactically sheathed.

    As for the first phrase:

    “Debbie Wasserman Schultz … is a what we call a cardinal, a Jewish cardinal in the Appropriations Committee.”

    This matter-of-fact revelation ironically legitimates into the discourse a resentment heretofore repressed by Americans and scoffed at by Zionists: that the interests, energies, resources and focus of political Zionism undermine a central pillar of American Constitutional principles: the separation of church and state.

    I can imagine professional Zionists all over Capitol Hill gnashing their teeth over their decision to allow this obedient and powerfully-placed para-Zionist to speak on these matters and, even more damagingly, to allow them to be publicly disseminated.

    Is it antisemitic to ask Speaker PEP-Losi if there are other Zionist cardinals on other Committee? Which ones? How were they ordained? What were their specific qualifications? Are there any Muslim, Hindu or even Catholic cardinals at the head of any Committees? Are there ring-kissing ceremonies? Do tell.

    Speaker PEP-losi should be reminded of her Constitutional duties as well as its actual texts, specifically:

    Article VI, Clause 3: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

    Speaker PEP-losi’s inside-baseball revelations are subversive of political Zionism and confirm that Americans are, and were, right to be uncomfortable with Zionism’s proximity to the halls of power in the United States. This is especially true if one considers the now-common Zionist claim that Zionism and Judaism are now conflated. Optics matter.

    The first order of business must be for progressives to seize on this intelligence leak and mobilize it in the effort to defeat S. 1. Perhaps Senators Gillibrand or Sanders can put a hold on S. 1.? The second order of business is to demand hearings into the process of Committee assignments and investigate whether or not a religious test is being applied in open violation of the Constitution.

    As for the second phrase:

    “So we have people very well placed who share our values in terms of the heart, Israel in heart and Israeliness in spirit. Shared values.”

    Another stunningly antisemitic slur drawn straight out of the Protocols. In any other context this claim – that Jewish actors are secretive and self-serving – would be seized upon by professional Zionists as prima facie evidence of antisemitism and used to assassinate the character of the person making it. It is important to remember that the “we” Speaker PEP-losi is referring to is the Old Guard Democratic Machine currently in power in the House that, according to Speaker PEP-losi have “Israeliness in spirit”.

    Many Americans (myself included) voted for Democratic candidates in the recent election as a way of confounding Trump and the Republicans: in their naivete they failed (again) to comprehend that once in office (again) all the Old Guard power networks would come roaring back and use their electoral victory to Zionism’s advantage while ostensibly serving the interests of the people.

    Old Guard Democrats can and must be brought to heel. There can be no return to the status quo ante.

    Nancy is PEP: Progressive Except Palestine. I am PIP: Progressive Including Palestine.

    • echinococcus on January 30, 2019, 8:14 am

      ” Many Americans (myself included) voted for Democratic candidates in the recent election… in their naivete they failed (again) to comprehend that once in office (again)…”
      Well, pull out a dictionary (or,as we are in the Year of Grace 2019 already, google up). Look up “naivete”, with or without tilde and accent. Nowhere is it used as a word for digging deeper in the same hole year after year, day after day. No, the word is not ‘naivete’ but something that would sound too insulting to pass censorship. Go on blaming some Old Guard, New Guard, particular clique, etc… just not your own voting good self.

  19. Dan From Away on January 30, 2019, 12:42 pm

    Gee Echi you seem to know me so well!

    And yes, let’s do bicker and snipe at each other rather than focus our energies on the critical issues at hand. Watch Fox much do you? Let’s focus on random, meaningless drivel, you know, like you wrote, rather than try to contribute meaningful-even-if-imperfect commentary. I will close by saying in response to your drivel: “Go on blaming some Old Guard, New Guard, particular clique, etc… just not your own voting good self. ” Hmmm… not so good at the careful reading skills are you? Look here: “Many Americans (myself included) voted for Democratic candidates”. See where it says “(myself included)? That’s the part where I did exactly what you said I did not do. Facts (still) matter. Farewell.

    • echinococcus on January 30, 2019, 4:11 pm

      So Yes, you confirm the fact that I pointed to. Yourself included. You voted, and you voted for the imperialist, Zionist Single Party, no matter which wing, and that’s where you are wrong thinking you are contributing to any solution.
      How does the single party administering US Imperialism help “focus our energies on the critical issues at hand”?
      All the rest is, to use your word, distracting drivel.

Leave a Reply