Trending Topics:

Democrats are now officially split on Israel, and we can thank Ilhan Omar and BDS

FeaturesUS Politics
on 107 Comments

In the last election cycle, it was demoralizing to watch Hillary Clinton promise Benjamin Netanyahu she’d take the Israel relationship to the “next level” if she became president and her party platform committee shoot down one resolution after another about Jerusalem and the occupation and settlements, sponsored by Bernie Sanders’ forces.

Those days are now over. Thanks in large part to the bravery of Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minneapolis and the organizing of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, progressive Democrats who hate the occupation and even imagine equal rights for Palestinians at last have a place inside the Democratic Party, and the party leadership feels the need to reckon with that force. This week it had to alter a resolution initially aimed at smacking down Omar for her remarks critical of Israel and the lobby so as to broaden its concerns.

Palestine Legal calls it a victory:

Thanks to thousands of activists mobilizing in support of Rep. Ilhan Omar, House Democrats were forced to rewrite a resolution meant to condemn her for statements she made challenging the Israel Lobby, falsely represented as antisemitic.

Politico agrees that “It was a clear-cut victory for Omar and her allies on the left.”

younger Democrats rallied behind Omar and objected to her being singled out, and the party’s leadership, desperate to defuse the situation, finally settled on a catch-all version of the resolution condemning all forms of hate speech

The new era is heralded angrily by Donald Trump and Tom Friedman. Today Trump made an appeal to Israel-supporting Jews to come into the Republican Party and away from the anti-Semites.

The Democrats have become an anti-Israel party, they’ve become an anti-Jewish party, and I thought that vote was a disgrace. And so does everybody else if you get an honest answer… The Democrats have become an anti-Israel party, they’ve become an anti-Jewish party, and that’s too bad.

While Tom Friedman wrote in the Times that Ilhan Omar is endangering the bipartisan consensus on Israel, and she’s a bigot.

Everything I have heard from her leads me to conclude that she dislikes Aipac because she dislikes Israel, because she does not really believe the Jewish people have a right to an independent state in their ancestral homeland.

Friedman went over Omar’s statements on BDS, which he views as “code for wanting to get rid of Israel.” While he is, he says, “devoted to Israel as a Jewish democracy,” in our “ancestral homeland.” And P.S. the ethnic cleansing needed to keep it that way is fine.

It is good to have the lines so clarified. Omar– who says she supports a two-state solution– is now a hero of the progressive left, including many Jews. She has stood tall throughout the controversy, refusing to apologize, made Nancy Pelosi seem like a heavy, and the Congress look like a proof of her own diagnosis in its rush to condemn her.

In 2012 Barack Obama could crush this movement when it rose on the floor of the Democratic convention to say Jerusalem is not Israel’s capital. Today no Democrat who ignores the movement is safe. Ilhan Omar promptly got backing from progressive candidates in the Democratic presidential primaries, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris. While Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker all criticized her.

Tim Alberta at Politico writes that Omar progressives are the Tea Party of the Democrats, and the party is “long overdue for an ideological reckoning.”

Democrats are dangerously close to entering into their own fratricidal conflict….

And Omar isn’t shying away from it. “I am certainly not looking to be comfortable, and I don’t want everyone necessarily to feel comfortable around me,” she told me, a mischievous smile tugging at her lips. “I think really the most exciting things happen when people are extremely uncomfortable.”

Can you even imagine Pelosi saying what she said to a rightwing Israel lobby group last year: “If this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain would be our commitment to [Israel].”

The biggest loser in this disruption is the Israel lobby. Even Tom Friedman comes out against AIPAC, in his need to condemn Omar; and the organization’s image has suffered from its alliance with Trump. The renegade Jewish group IfNotNow is calling on all Democratic presidential candidates not to attend the policy conference in Washington later this month because AIPAC supports settlements.

As for the Israel lobby of the Democratic Congress, J Street has more power than it’s ever had but it is inheriting a mess. J Street had lined up with the Democratic leadership on the earlier version of the resolution aimed at Ilhan Omar, and joined right in the finger-pointing: “Harmful language that echoes long-standing stereotypes and anti-Semitic tropes concern us deeply.”

Last night on PBS Jeremy Ben-Ami aimed his main criticism at those who “weaponize” anti-Semitism charges so as to seek to eradicate criticism of Israel. He seemed to echo the non-Zionist young Jews of IfNotNow, who write:

three days ago, it seemed inevitable that Speaker Pelosi and Democratic Leadership were going to allow conservative members of their caucus publicly weaponize antisemitism to intimidate a member of their own caucus because of opposition to Israeli policy.

We are in a new era where criticism of unjust Israeli policies is not simply equated with antisemitism. That is a victory.

The “overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress support the U.S.-Israel relationship,” a conservative Democratic lobby group claims, and that seems true. As much as Batya Ungar-Sargon’s claim that 92 percent of Jews are Zionists. But the devil is in the details, and as Allison Deger noted, the Gallup poll this week makes clear that sympathy for Israel is sliding in the Democratic Party, with Democratic liberals sympathizing nearly as much with Palestinians as with Israelis.

 

Feb. 2019 Gallup survey of World Affairs showing American liberal Democrats plummeting in their sympathy for Israelis over Palestinians.

The percentage of Democrats siding more with Israel fell less sharply, from 49% to 43%; however, today’s figure approaches the lowest level of Democratic partiality toward Israel since 2005.

In terms of recent changes, however, most of the decline in net sympathy for Israel has occurred among liberal Democrats, from +17 in 2013-2016 to +3 in 2017-2019. What this means is that nearly as many liberal Democrats now sympathize more with the Palestinians (38%) as with the Israelis (41%), with the rest favoring neither side or unsure.

There has been one headline after another since the 2018 elections saying that Israel has never been so divisive in modern political history. This week brought proof that the Democrats are officially divided; and the question of American support and why is sure to be in the center ring of the 2020 primary process– a “litmus test” for young Jews.

I thought we were going to get this debate 13 years ago when The Israel Lobby was published. But the writers of that book were smeared and you had to read the book in brown covers in D.C., and it has taken that long for the discussion to get into the Capitol, thanks in great measure to the BDS campaign.

Next thing you know, we might even discuss Palestinian human rights!

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

107 Responses

  1. Keith
    Keith
    March 8, 2019, 5:52 pm

    PHIL- “Those days are now over.”

    Dream on. The major effect of both the Jeremy Corbyn and Ilhan Omar situations is to take the not serious problem of anti-Semitism and elevate it to the status of a mythical serious problem which diverts attention from more serious issues like our militarized empire running amok. Why is it that I had to stumble on an article in Haaretz to learn that “Lethal attacks on U.S. Jews in their homeland have been very rare, with Saturday’s mass shooting in Pittsburgh more than doubling the total number of fatalities”? https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-from-lynchings-to-mass-shootings-the-history-of-deadly-attacks-on-jews-in-america-1.6601089

    Why is this type of data not widely known amid all of these charges of anti-Semitism? Is not the actual safety of American Jews more relevant than what occurred during the Nazi Holocaust? And is not the relative wealth and power of American Jewry more indicative of philo-Semitism than anti-Semitism? Yet, all we hear about are charges of rampant anti-Semitism with no factual basis whatever except for some trumped up data from the ADL where criticism of Israel counts as Jew hatred. What BS. Apparently successful BS, I might add.

    • Boomer
      Boomer
      March 8, 2019, 7:45 pm

      As to why the people don’t know, well what have the people been told?

      As for actual attitudes, this is a couple of years old, but still reliable, I think:

      http://www.pewforum.org/2017/02/15/americans-express-increasingly-warm-feelings-toward-religious-groups/

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      March 9, 2019, 9:41 am

      “The major effect of both the Jeremy Corbyn and Ilhan Omar situations is to take the not serious problem of anti-Semitism and elevate it to the status of a mythical serious problem which diverts attention from more serious issues like our militarized empire running amok. ”

      Exactly right!
      And it’s not only the Zionists and Zio-sympathizers who are working eagerly to make this BS successful, but all Democrats and all the so-called liberals and Imperial progressives under their protean labels. Identity politics is the central policy to extend Imperialist domination over the minds in our era.

  2. JWalters
    JWalters
    March 8, 2019, 6:43 pm

    “she does not really believe the Jewish people have a right to an independent state in their ancestral homeland.” – Tom Friedman

    Tom’s “right” obviously includes the unmentioned right to terrorize, mass murder, and rob the innocent indigenous people of Palestine, because that is an inherent factual part of his self-proclaimed “right”.

    Personally, I absolutely deny that Tom and his Zionists have any such right whatsoever. On what is his right based? I can tell you. It’s based on an ancient Jewish book. This man is insane. Or merely shameless.

    • Boomer
      Boomer
      March 8, 2019, 7:40 pm

      Sadly, true. I think he has gotten worse with age. Whether less sane or more shameless, I don’t know. Of course, they aren’t mutually exclusive.

      • JWalters
        JWalters
        March 9, 2019, 12:17 am

        True. A person could hypothetically be both.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      March 8, 2019, 8:53 pm

      The United Nations in its partition resolution and in its acceptance of Israel’s request for admission accepted Israel’s right (the Jewish people’s right) to an independent state in their ancestral homeland. Shameless or insane, for whatever reason, that right was accepted by the UN. The UN also expected Israel to allow the refugees of the 1947-49 war to be welcomed back to their homes if they agreed to live in peace, so if you feel that Friedman denies that right (which is probable) there is indeed a contradiction between Friedman’s right and what the UN expects, but on the other hand the acceptance of an independent state was definitely accepted by the UN. Maybe you desire for the UN to overturn that acceptance and you feel that acceptance was wrong (especially because of Israel’s refusal to allow the refugees to return). But to term the entire idea as either insane or shameless is either to reject the UN, or to ask the UN to go back 72 years and undo its original proposals or 70 years and undo its acceptance of Israel’s admission.

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 8, 2019, 9:50 pm

        || wondering jew: The United Nations … accepted Israel’s right (the Jewish people’s right) to an independent state in their ancestral homeland. … ||

        (Geographic) Palestine was not the “ancestral homeland” of people all over the world – citizens of homelands all over the world – who chose to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish. These foreigners had no right:
        – to establish in geographic Palestine and at the expense of the region’s indigenous and predominantly non-Jewish population a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”; or
        – to do unto non-Jews acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.

        Adjectives harsher than insane and shameless are required to properly describe the ideology of Zionism and the decades-long and on-going campaign of (war) crimes deliberately and unapologetically advocated, committed and defended by Zionists.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 8, 2019, 11:42 pm

        eljay- when the UN accepted israel it accepted the idea of a jewish state in palestine and the assertions of that statehood were argued in front of the un basing their case upon the existence of a jewish polity in palestine reaching back some 3000 years. the exiling of the palestinians obviously was never accepted, but the jewish state was. the exiling of a large population certainly puts the jewish claim in a different and negative light and that reality is enough for humanists to reject the jewish claim since it was executed with such disregard for the humans involved. yet, to dismiss the idea of a jewish homeland as phony must be viewed within the context of the 20th century when much of the “voting” world both after world war I and after world war II asserted a jewish connection to palestine. to ignore that history satisfies some people who are really only tangentially concerned for the harmed palestinians but true motivation lies in their animus to jews and their claims.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 8, 2019, 11:59 pm

        “The United Nations in its partition resolution and in its acceptance of Israel’s request for admission accepted Israel’s right (the Jewish people’s right) to an independent state in their ancestral homeland. ”

        I do not know the exact wording of the resolution and the request for admission, but it seem perfectly possible to accept partition as a possible, pragmatic, solution to the strife between the communities, and to accept Israel as an independent state, without supporting any idea that “The Jewish People” have a “right” to an independent state in “their ancestral homeland. ”

        Saying “community Z (the Zionists in Palestine) is to have a state here” does not imply that community Z has a right to a state.

        And recognizing a state set-up by community Z does not imply accepting that the whole “Jewish people” has a right to that state.

        And none of it implies accepting the ancestral homeland tosh.

      • JWalters
        JWalters
        March 9, 2019, 12:15 am

        wondering jew,

        “that right was accepted by the UN.”

        Not quite right. The acceptance process was part way done, but halted. The General Assembly had voted to “recommend” a partition, but the Security Council, which would make the final decision, never made that decision. It was so blatantly unjust Truman felt it would likely blow up into a war. So they were leaning toward making Palestine a UN protectorate (like it had been a British protectorate after WWI). At this point the large, well-equipped Zionist army invaded an unarmed Palestine, slaughtering some villages to scare the rest into fleeing for their lives, their homes and lands to be stolen. e.g. http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

        In reality, Israel flouted the UN then, and has continued to flout the UN ever since. Israel likes to portray its theft of the Palestinians’ lands as merely their modestly accepting a UN proposal to split the land fairly, while those unreasonable Arabs refused to compromise. That’s all a cover story, every speck.

      • zaid
        zaid
        March 9, 2019, 2:43 am

        The acceptance od Israrl to the UN was conditioned to allowing the Palestinian refugees to return to their ancestral homeland in Palestine.

        Israel violated that so its admition to the UN is void

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 9, 2019, 9:05 am

        || wondering jew: eljay- when the UN accepted israel it accepted the idea of a jewish state in palestine … ||

        I agree that the U.N. made two mistakes instead of one, the latter considerably greater and more immoral than the first.

        || … yet, to dismiss the idea of a jewish homeland as phony must be viewed within the context of the 20th century when much of the “voting” world both after world war I and after world war II asserted a jewish connection to palestine. to ignore that history satisfies some people who are really only tangentially concerned for the harmed palestinians but true motivation lies in their animus to jews and their claims. ||

        The idea wasn’t phony – it was very real. To ignore the fact that both the idea and the reality were and remain unjust and immoral satisfies every person like you who pretends not to be a supremacist but whose true motivation lies in his fervent Jewish supremacism (Zionism) and his hateful and immoral claims.

      • Brewer
        Brewer
        March 9, 2019, 2:09 pm

        “The United Nations in its partition resolution and in its acceptance of Israel’s request for admission accepted Israel’s right (the Jewish people’s right) to an independent state”
        Ahem.
        Not so.
        The U.N.G.A. (the sponsor of the Partition resolution) did not and does not possess that privilege.
        If the Zionists had not taken unilateral action, the Partition resolution would have faded into obscurity as its status was and ever will be that of a proposal subject to the agreement of both sides. As such, no such “acceptance” can be implied.
        It may be argued that U.N.G.A. resolutions carry considerable political weight but in this particular case, even this is questionable given the vote – 33 countries for, 13 countries against and 10 abstentions. These numbers do not look nearly so impressive when one considers the pressure brought to bear which included:
        ” United States (Vote: For): President Truman later noted, “The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats—disturbed and annoyed me.”[76]
        India (Vote: Against): Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, the Indian ambassador to the UN, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless “she voted right”.[77] Pandit occasionally hinted that something might change in favour of the Zionists. But another Indian delegate, Kavallam Pannikar, said that India would vote for the Arab side, because of their large Moslem minority, although they knew that the Jews had a case.[78]
        Liberia (Vote: For): Liberia’s Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries.[79] Harvey S. Firestone, Jr., President of Firestone Natural Rubber Company, with major holdings in the country, also pressured the Liberian government[65][73]
        Philippines (Vote: For): In the days before the vote, Philippines representative General Carlos P. Romulo stated “We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government holds that the United Nations ought not to accept such responsibility.” After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines’ vote changed.[73]
        Haiti (Vote: For): The promise of a five million dollar loan may or may not have secured Haiti’s vote for partition.[80]
        France (Vote: For): Shortly before the vote, France’s delegate to the United Nations was visited by Bernard Baruch, a long-term Jewish supporter of the Democratic Party who, during the recent world war, had been an economic adviser to President Roosevelt, and had latterly been appointed by President Truman as United States ambassador to the newly created UN Atomic Energy Commission. He was, privately, a supporter of the Irgun and its front organization, the American League for a Free Palestine. Baruch implied that a French failure to support the resolution might block planned American aid to France, which was badly needed for reconstruction, French currency reserves being exhausted and its balance of payments heavily in deficit. Previously, to avoid antagonising its Arab colonies, France had not publicly supported the resolution. After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France’s neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.[63]
        Venezuela (Vote: For): Carlos Eduardo Stolk, Chairman of the Delegation of Venezuela, voted in favor of Resolution 181 .[81]
        Cuba (Vote: Against): The Cuban delegation stated they would vote against partition “in spite of pressure being brought to bear against us” because they could not be party to coercing the majority in Palestine.[82]
        Siam (Absent): The credentials of the Siamese delegations were cancelled after Siam voted against partition in committee on 25 November.[64][83]

        There is also some evidence that Sam Zemurray (United Fruit Company) put pressure on several “banana republics” to change their votes.[84] ”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Reports_of_pressure_for_and_against_the_Plan

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        March 10, 2019, 6:49 am

        Actually the partition plan was put on ice in April 1948, because its proponents (led by the US) finally acknoledged that it couldn’t be implemented without violence.

        That’s the reason for Security Council 46 (17 April 48) which said:

        1. Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine, and especially upon the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency, to take immediately, without prejudice to their rights, claims, or positions, and as a contribution to the well-being and permanent interests of Palestine, the following measures: […]

        (d) Refrain, pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;

        By that time they were working to put Palestine under a UN trusteeship and trying to call for a truce. The Jewish Agency rejected the truce and went full scale war and violated this resolution by declaring statehood which even violated the UN partition resolution, because the declaration came before the withdrawal of British troops which ended 30 June 1948).

        […] U.S. officials there faced the Jewish Agency’s rejection of a truce as well as a trusteeship arrangement to replace what the State Department and the White House conceded to be the failure of the partition plan.

        In evaluating the situation, Robert McClintock, a special assistant to Dean Rusk, then director of the Office of UN Affairs, deliberated over the implications of these developments. It may well be, he speculated, that Washington would soon be confronted with a situation created by Jewish military forces, including the Haganah, the Stern Gang and Irgun, in which it would have to determine whether a

        Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council.15

        Washington would face what McClintock called an “anomalous situation,” in which

        the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership.

        http://mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/us-policy-israel/palestine-1948?print

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        March 11, 2019, 6:29 pm

        that the un decided to ignore international law do to the us bullying states to support is not indictitive of the morality of deny the palestinians their country for the whims of a religion.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      March 8, 2019, 11:12 pm

      Tom Friedman does not really believe the Palestinian citizens of 1948 (Arabs and Jewish citizens) and their descendants have a right to an independent state in their ancestral homeland.

      Normally the people of a country who seek independence allready are or ispo facto will become its citizens. They transform from being a people to being a nation. And everybody habitually resident in this state becomes its national. Nobody has to be expelled, because there is no minority that needs to become a majority.

      Abnormally only one group of the citizens are nationals. Abnormally this group has to expell most members of the other to become a majority and has to keep them expelled to maintain dominance and fake being a democracy. Abnormally almost all land of the other group has to be confiscated to be reserved only for the dominant group.

      Such an abnormal and criminal Apartheid state has no right to exist.

    • Marnie
      Marnie
      March 9, 2019, 6:07 am

      @JWalters –

      You are so right.

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso
      March 9, 2019, 9:41 am

      @JWalters, et al

      Let’s be absolutely clear: The claim by Tom Friedman and his fellow Zionist Jews that the lands between the River and the Sea (i.e., historic Palestine) comprise their “ancestral homeland” has long since been utterly debunked.

      Front. Genet., 21 June 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087 )

      EXCERPTS: “The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish”
      “Recent genetic samples from bones found in Palestine dating to the Epipaleolithic (20000-10500 BCE) showed remarkable resemblance to modern day Palestinians.”

      “The non-Levantine origin of AJs [Ashkenazi Jews] is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic (Lazaridis et al., 2016), some of the most likely Judaean progenitors (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002; Frendo, 2004). In a principle component analysis (PCA), the ancient Levantines clustered predominantly with modern-day Palestinians and Bedouins and marginally overlapped with Arabian Jews, whereas AJs clustered away from Levantine individuals and adjacent to Neolithic Anatolians and Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans.”

      Jewish missionaries converted many pagan peoples to their faith in the Middle East, including Palestine, as well as Africa, Asia and Europe, especially during the two centuries preceding Christianity. Also, the Zionist claim that descendants of those Jews expelled from Palestine by the Romans have lived apart throughout the world for nearly two millennia and not intermingled with people outside of their religion is absurd. To quote Polish born David Ben-Gurion (real name, David Gruen): “‘race’ does not unite Jewry since the ancient people dissipated after so much dispersion.” (Philippe de Saint Robert, Le Jeu de la France en Mediteranee ,1970, p.182)

  3. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    March 8, 2019, 6:56 pm

    I agreed with most of Thomas Friedman’s piece in the NY Times. I realize this site hates Friedman. Then see if you can relate to Michelle Goldberg’s piece in the Times. She is not comfortable with Omar’s rhetoric either. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/opinion/ilhan-omar-antisemitism-democrats.html

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      March 8, 2019, 11:13 pm

      Michelle Goldberg is lying, too. Omar never spoke about Jews as such.

    • Brewer
      Brewer
      March 9, 2019, 6:32 pm

      ” I realize this site hates Friedman”
      I had never seen the word “hate” used so frequently before I got involved in on-line debating the Palestine issue – almost all from the Zionist faction.
      It is such kindergarten stuff.
      Every Friedman dissenter here argues the content of his writing WJ. I doubt there is a single soul on this board who “hates” Friedman beyond a healthy, appropriate dislike of liars in general.
      Grow up and address the arguments, there are adults present.

  4. Boomer
    Boomer
    March 8, 2019, 7:37 pm

    I know that Phil is a glass half full kind of guy, while I generally see the other half on this issue, but he makes me a believer this time. At least enough to be glad that I read this. Of course, progress remains too slow to help most Palestinians anytime soon, but maybe there is progress on the way.

    In addition to the substantive points in Phil’s post, it brought back some less significant memories. He refers to reading “The Lobby” in a brown cover in DC 13 years ago. It was the same with “The Passionate Attachment” a decade earlier. And he reminded me of Clinton’s desire to “take it to the next level” with Netanyahu, which inevitably brought to mind an unfortunate image of a matronly version of Monica Lewinsky entertaining the PM in the Oval Office.

  5. Mooser
    Mooser
    March 8, 2019, 7:48 pm

    “As much as Batya Ungar-Sargon’s claim that 92 percent of Jews are Zionists.”

    And the other 8% aren’t Jews anymore. But they’re included anyway, just to be fair.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      March 8, 2019, 11:49 pm

      Here’s where I saw that number before: https://www.timesofisrael.com/most-american-jews-say-you-can-support-israel-and-criticize-its-government/
      “That’s a majority of 59% who say they are comfortable supporting Israel and also criticizing its government. (Also, 92% of voters say they are supportive of Israel, belying the noise generated by fringe anti-Israel groups who say they are more representative of where Jewish Americans are heading.)”

      • Misterioso
        Misterioso
        March 9, 2019, 10:40 am

        @wondering jew

        Reality:

        In fact, Israel’s image in America and around the world has been consistently dropping and will continue to do so. NO SURPRISE!!

        http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=10395
        “Survey: Israel worst brand name in the world”
        November 22, 2006

        “As if Israel’s position in the world in not bad enough, a new survey published in the US Wednesday says that Israel is suffering from the worst public image among all countries of the world.

        “The study, called the National Brands Index, conducted by government advisor Simon Anholt and powered by global market intelligence solutions provider GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.), shows that Israel is at the bottom of the list by a considerable margin in the public’s perception of its image.

        “The Index surveyed 25,903 online consumers across 35 countries about their perceptions of those countries across six areas of national competence: Investment and Immigration, Exports, Culture and Heritage, People, Governance and Tourism. The NBI is the first analytical ranking of the world’s nation brands.

        “‘Israel’s brand is by a considerable margin the most negative we have ever measured in the NBI, and comes at the bottom of the ranking on almost every question,’ states report author Simon Anholt.

        “Anholt believes that the politics of a nation can affect every single aspect of a person’s perception about a country. In the light of the recent announcement that the Israeli Foreign Ministry has taken upon itself to re-brand Israel, Anholt comments that to succeed in permanently changing the country’s image, the country has to be prepared to change its behavior. He reiterates his strong belief that a reputation cannot be constructed: it has to be earned.

        “‘If Israel’s intention is to promote itself as a desirable place to live and invest in, the challenge appears to be a steep one,'” Anholt concluded.

        “The survey also indicated that Israel came last in each area by a long margin, including the fact that of the 36 countries ranked, there is nowhere that respondents would like to visit less than Israel. Worse yet, the survey indicates that Israel’s people were also voted the most unwelcoming in the world.

        “And there was one more unpleasant surprise: Whoever thought that the United States is Israel’s best friend and Israel is loved in the US, the index indicated that Americans ranked Israel just slightly above China in terms of its conduct in the areas of international peace and security.

        “The 35 countries polled for the study were: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, and the USA.”
        ______________________________________________________________________________

        http://www¬.jta.org/n¬ews/articl¬e/2011/03/¬07/3086310¬/israel-ne¬gatively-v¬iewed-surv¬ey-finds

        March 7, 2011

        JERUSALEM (JTA) — “Israel is one of the most negatively viewed countries in the world” – BBC global survey.

        “Israel was the fourth most negatively viewed country, ranking just ahead of Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, according to the poll released Monday.”

        “…many more Americans, 41 percent, chose to rate Israel negatively in 2011, an increase of 10 points since 2010.

        “Negative perceptions [increased¬]…in the United Kingdom at 66 percent, up 16 points; Canada at 52 percent, up 14 points; Indonesia at 68 percent, up 12 points; Australia at 58 percent, up 11 points; Portugal at 52 percent, up 6 points; and Spain at 66 percent, up 6 points.

        “A Pew survey in November 2005 found that 39 percent of Americans saw the special relationship as a ‘major source of global discontent,’ and 78 percent of the news media, 72 percent of military leaders and 69 percent of foreign affairs specialists believed that backing Israel seriously damages America’s image around the world.

        “A 2003 survey by the University of Maryland reported that over 60 percent of Americans would be willing to withhold aid to Israel if it resisted pressure to settle the conflict with the Palestinians, and 73 percent said the United States should not favor either side. In fact, a survey conducted by the Anti-Defamation League in 2005 found that 78 percent of Americans believed that Washington should favor neither Israel nor the Palestinians. A 2010 survey by the Brookings Institution found similar results: although 25 percent of Americans thought the United States should “lean toward Israel” in its efforts to resolve the conflict, a healthy 67 percent believed the United States should ‘lean toward neither side.’
        _______________________________________________________________________________

        http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-losing-democrats-cant-claim-bipartisan-us-support-top-pollster-warns/?utm

        Times of Israel July 5, 2015
        “Israel losing Democrats, ‘can’t claim bipartisan US support,’ top pollster warns

        Excerpt:
        “Asked whether Israel is a racist country, 47% of Democrats said yes, as opposed to 13% of Republicans. New survey by Frank Luntz shows almost half of Democratic ‘opinion elites’ think Israel is racist, barely half believe it wants peace, and three quarters feel it has too much influence on US policy.”

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        March 9, 2019, 11:39 am

        “A majority of 59%….92% say…

        Always percentages, never, ever actual numbers. That’s the new Zionist numerology.

      • klm90046
        klm90046
        March 11, 2019, 12:57 am

        @wondering jew: The vast majority of Americans supported the genocide of Native Americans, at a certain time. The vast majority also supported slavery. The vast majority also supported Jim Crow laws. The vast majority also…..don’t get me started.

    • lonely rico
      lonely rico
      March 9, 2019, 3:17 pm

      > Misterioso

      Israel’s image in America and around the world has been consistently dropping and will continue to do so.

      Condemnation by “betz55” in comment to Intercept article (Mar 3) on Breaking the Silence.

      israel (sic) has painted themselves into a corner, surrounded by states that loathe them. Their hubris, arrogance and sense of entitlement based on the ridiculous credo of “chosen people”, has left them discredited, unmasked, de-legitimized, scorned, reduced to a worthless diplomatic dwarf, maniacally messianic fanatics, laughed at and alienated from the rest of the international community. That will be their legacy.
      The only people destroying israel are the zionazis. The very ones claiming that others are out to destroy it, wherever its borders are. Classic pathological narcissism and projection. The eventual destruction of israel is in good hands. Outside help is not necessary.

      https://theintercept.com/2019/03/03/breaking-the-silence-israel-idf/

      Link also to interesting video on BTS –

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        March 13, 2019, 2:28 pm

        Thank you. One to be shared for sure.

        Wonderful to hear about the history of Breaking the Silence

  6. US Citizen
    US Citizen
    March 8, 2019, 9:35 pm

    Do we hold Islamophobia and Antisemitism to the same standards? On January 18th the POTUS tweeted that “prayer rugs” were found near the United States’ southern border in order to incite fear about dangerous Muslims immigrating into the United States. All untrue.

    Where was the backlash to these unfounded claims? Yet when a Muslim woman, who has been a victim to Islamophobia herself, tweets about concerns of United States’ controversial policy and foreign relations in Israel, she is immediately attacked as being anti-Semitic.

    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? Shameful.

    Isn’t it pathetic a tiny country the size of Bakersfield Cal that’s 6,000 miles away controls the foreign policy of most powerful nation in the world? Shameful.

    Videotapes recording illegal jewish settler squats throwing garbage and spitting on Hebron Palestinians does more to stereotype israel to the world than the claims of any anti-Semites.

    Don’t look now but Haaretz is also firmly on Omar’s side and that speaks volumes.

    https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-keep-it-up-ilhan-omar-1.6999623?fbclid=IwAR22snHQC4h6s52KqE2j2B8wPJv0p8bRHqHTWEn3tsTtURdZNCJ39SFZvIc

    • US Citizen
      US Citizen
      March 8, 2019, 11:00 pm

      Sorry, here is the Haaretz link without the pay wall.

      https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-keep-it-up-ilhan-omar-1.6999623

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        March 10, 2019, 6:15 am

        wj: ” … Ilhan Omar could have been a little more careful in her use of words.”

        Why?

        wj: “Some of us are sensitive to Jew hating rhetoric.”

        Yeah, so “sensitive” that a lot ot times the neurons even fire without a real external cause. But not “sensitive” enough to withold a ridiculous accusation which could be itself just hate speech.

    • Kay24
      Kay24
      March 9, 2019, 12:18 am

      To your point. Here is Gideon Levy in his own words (makes a lot of sense) taking Ilhan Omar’s side:

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        March 9, 2019, 10:15 am

        Thanks

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 9, 2019, 9:27 pm

        Gideon Levy is comfortable opposing Aipac and opposing Netanyahu and ignoring the possibility that Ilhan Omar could have been a little more careful in her use of words. It is to be expected that those who back Netanyahu and Aipac will be the most upset at her words and those who reject not only Aipac but the existence of Zionism will be the most comfortable with her words. Those who accept Israel’s existence or even celebrate Israel’s existence, but object to Netanyahu and the occupation and thus reject Aipac (as well) are the ones who are in an uncomfortable spot. Levy backs BDS, despite his philosophical support for Israel’s existence and sees the only way to end the occupation as vociferous opposition, up to and including advocacy of a single state. Those of us who oppose the occupation, but do not advocate a single state are in a bit of a dicier situation. Some of us are sensitive to Jew hating rhetoric. This sensitivity drives those who hate Israel nuts. Michelle Goldberg had a good balance in her column balancing objections to Ilhan Omar’s rhetoric with objections to Israel’s policies. I object to in no particular order: Trump’s rhetoric, Omar’s rhetoric, Aipac’s defense of Netanyahu’s policies of occupation and I also object to the possibility of a single state and its probability of chaos. There is not a good choice for me regarding Israel’s future, because Israel is not about to make a U turn regarding the West Bank and so for the foreseeable future my ideal of a two state solution will become further and further from practicality and I will be further and further from those who support Israel in its current tendencies. But I am uncomfortable with Omar’s rhetoric AND with the occupation. This combination is intolerable to the commenters here. Their ears know that Omar’s heart is pure somehow and that my interpretation of Omar’s statements are smears and lies. I doubt that their ears are somehow more talented than mine, but I realize that the change regarding US policy will not be easy and will involve rhetoric such as Omar’s.

        And how will that change in American policy take place? Obviously it will not happen while Trump is in office, it will only happen if a Sanders or the left of the democratic party is in office and when that change occurs the progressive left will continue to have no problems with negative statements and attitudes about the Jews. Maybe Levy’s experience near the levers of power in Israel have immunized him to the fear that goes along with uncontrolled reactions to the antiJewish statements about the Jews, but I was not raised near the levers of power. So I will allow myself full human reactions to the statements that my ears hear as problematic unconsoled by your Talmudic interpretation of Ilhan Omar’s innocence, fully aware that the overall goal is the U turn in Israeli policy, but still human enough to allow myself to hear negativity as negativity and not to pretend it is innocent.

      • Keith
        Keith
        March 9, 2019, 11:59 pm

        WONDERING JEW- “…Ilhan Omar could have been a little more careful in her use of words.”

        Indeed, any Gentile that doesn’t realize that one of the consequences of Jewish-Zionist power is that the Goyim should never mention Jewish-Zionist power is an uppity anti-Semite. Hell, 300 years ago she would have probably been against monarchy!

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        March 10, 2019, 7:15 am

        From the transcript:

        What is happening now is that some kind of fresh air, some kind of new voices are emerging from Capitol Hill, raising legitimate questions about Israel, about America’s foreign policy toward Israel and about the Israeli lobby in the States. Those are very legitimate questions, and it is more than needed to raise them. But the Israeli propaganda and the Jewish propaganda in recent years made it as a systematic method, whenever anybody dares to raise questions or to criticize Israel, he is immediately and automatically labeled as anti-Semite, and then he has to shut his mouth, because after this, what can he say?

        This vicious circle should be broken. And I really hope that great, great politicians, like Mrs. Omar and others, will be courageous enough to stand in front those accusations and to say, “Yes, it is legitimate to criticize Israel. Yes, it is legitimate to raise questions. And this does not mean that we are anti-Semites. We are not ready to play this game anymore, in which they shut our mouths with those accusations, which, in most of the cases, are hollow. […]

        But in any case, Mrs. Omar will be also portrayed in Israel, as in any other place in the Jewish communities, as an anti-Semite, as a dangerous woman, as an enemy of peace, an enemy of Israel, an enemy of the Jewish people. And, you know, the propaganda, this kind of propaganda, is very, very efficient.

        And we just have—I just got so many emails after my last piece, and someone asked me, “How can a Jew support such a woman?” So I answered him: “Very easily. Very, very easily.” Because she seems to be courageous, and she seems to say the truth.

        And it’s about time to say the truth, and, yes, Amy, to ask: Do we support automatically and blindly the occupation? Is it legitimate to criticize the occupation? Maybe it is legitimate to handle Israel as South Africa was handled. Maybe BDS is something that we should consider. Those questions are even not legitimate to raise in the United States. And maybe now this vicious circle will be broken, and people will have the courage, the guts and the power to ask questions. Yes, everything is questioned. Even God is questionable.

        So, the relations with Israel is not questionable? I saw the other day a congressman say that nobody should question the relations between the United States and Israel. Excuse me? Nobody should question the relations between Israel and the United States? Here, from Tel Aviv, I claim that those relationships are corrupted and are bad for peace and bad for Israel for the long run, because the United States let Israel go crazy, continue the occupation, do whatever it wants, and gets this automatic and blind support.

        https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/8/its_time_to_tell_the_truth

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 10, 2019, 9:31 am

        || wondering jew: … Ilhan Omar could have been a little more careful in her use of words. … ||

        She was quite careful in her use of words but it’s quite clear that no amount of care will prevent you Zionists from smearing someone with destructive accusations of anti-Semitism in order to continue defending your hateful and immoral ideology and its colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” project.

        || … But I am uncomfortable with Omar’s rhetoric AND with the occupation. … ||

        But you are not the least bit uncomfortable with Jewish / “Jewish State” supremacism.

        || … my interpretation of Omar’s statements are smears and lies. … ||

        Your interpretation of her comments is Zionist.

      • annie
        annie
        March 10, 2019, 10:18 am

        speaking of being “a little more careful in her use of words” has anyone watched the greyzone projects compilation of bill maher’s words? it’s such a devastating compilation (thanks to dan cohen). it’s not just anti muslim (specifically anti muslim men) he directly targets the religion over and over, for years. and yet he’s able to keep his job, and people laugh at his jokes at the expense of muslims.

        so i thought of how normalized islamophobia has become for his brand of humor to be publicly accepted and celebrated. and i thought about what it would be like to live in a society where a public figure routinely attacked jews, judaism and specifically jewish men — with humor. held open debates about judaism being a religion of hate. and i thought omar was very careful with her words, you can hear the struggle in her voice https://deepstateblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/OMAR-anti-semitism-022719-audio-extractor.net_.mp3

        anyway, back to maher. youtube has offered a warning on the video compilation but there’s no warning on his regular youtube videos when he’s spewing his bigotry.

      • annie
        annie
        March 10, 2019, 11:56 am

        the point, why are israel’s critics continually expected to be *careful* with their words when the grossly bigoted words of israel’s supporters are routinely on full display throughout the msm? and once she’s more careful those careful words won’t be enough. even her silence won’t suffice. the only thing that will satisfy omar’s critics is crushing her just like they want to crush corbyn.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        March 10, 2019, 12:06 pm

        I just wish people would stick to the agreement. Fair play towards all, and (as the pacific polo-player once said) “with mallets toward none”.

        Nobody can say anything worse about Jews and Zionism than the stuff we say about them.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        March 10, 2019, 12:14 pm

        Annie, thanks for linking that video of Bill Maher’s many minutes of shame, showing just how anti Muslim he is, and just how ignorant he is of the religion. He has tarred all 1.6 billion Muslims with the same brush. He reminded me of Trump kissing up to Putin, when he praised, and flirted, with Netanyahu. I wonder what he thinks of his hero Bibi now, as he has turned out to be corrupt, and on the verge of being indicted. I have never seen such anti Muslim hatred before, and when you see it clipped together, it makes anyone cringe. No wonder Bari Weiss, is a regular on Maher’s show, they are both staunch zionist supporters, and have so much in common.

      • annie
        annie
        March 10, 2019, 2:35 pm

        i couldn’t even make it through the video although i tried. for me, he’s like fingernails on a blackboard, that’s how much he offends my senses. i also stopped reading bari weiss, i just can’t make it through her articles i find her so offensive. both of them, it’s a visceral thing.

        it blows my mind with all this blatant bigotry blasted out through the msm omar is being asked to be “a little more careful in her use of words”. the contrast is stunning, with the serenading spectacle of mcCain’s weeping soundtrack flavoring this moment in history. and when she is even more careful, they will ask her to be even even more careful while nary a word about the mainstreaming of bill maher. this would make a fabulous comedic hollywood blockbuster, if it all wasn’t so tragic.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 10, 2019, 5:25 pm

        Omar is a congresswoman and that is different than an entertainer like Maher. If she wants to quit congress and get into entertainment/broadcasting that is up to her. but meanwhile she’s a congress person representing a specific district in the united states, a member in good standing of the democratic party.

        She wants to stop Aipac from forcing its will on the American Congress. That will is objectionable in itself as dual loyalty.

        To interpret this as objecting to Jewish nonAipac support for Israel because it is dual loyalty is really not a gigantic leap. The only reason you are minimizing the possibility that this is easily deduced is because you believe that it is true and those jews who support israel are dually loyal and it’s not that Omar didn’t imply it, but that it’s true is the real opinion here.

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 10, 2019, 5:48 pm

        || wondering jew: Omar is a congresswoman … representing a specific district in the united states, a member in good standing of the democratic party. … ||

        But to you Zionists she’s just a Jew-hating anti-Semite.

        || … She wants to stop Aipac from forcing its will on the American Congress. That will is objectionable in itself as dual loyalty. … ||

        It’s cute how when she talks about AIPAC forcing its will on Congress she’s a Jew-hating anti-Semite but when you talk about it you’re…what…the voice of reason?

        || … To interpret this as objecting to Jewish nonAipac support for Israel because it is dual loyalty is really not a gigantic leap. The only reason you are minimizing the possibility that this is easily deduced is because you believe that it is true and those jews who support israel are dually loyal and it’s not that Omar didn’t imply it, but that it’s true is the real opinion here. ||

        Strike my suggestion that you’re voice of reason. You’re just another Zionist voice of hatefulness and immorality, taking gigantic leaps to distort words and smear people with destructive accusations of anti-Semitism (and maybe even Jew-hatred) in order to defend your preferred brand of evil.

      • annie
        annie
        March 10, 2019, 7:00 pm

        I am uncomfortable with Omar’s rhetoric AND with the occupation. This combination is intolerable to the commenters here.

        maybe you should limit your commentary to what’s intolerable to you. i can tolerate you because i don’t really care if she makes you uncomfortable. she’s not here to make you comfortable, that’s not her job.

        She wants to stop Aipac from forcing its will on the American Congress. That will is objectionable in itself as dual loyalty.

        i don’t care about the dual loyalty charge. i’ve already stated (for years) i think dual loyalties are totally normal, and have repeated my analogy of a child w/divorced parents over and over too.

        more and more, the trope thing is beginning to look like an obstacle course designed to set up anyone targeted as not devotional enough. you’re doing just what omar claimed, turning it all about your feelings and everyone defending themselves or whatever. it’s broken record.

        israel slaughtered another kid in gaza on friday. i heard kushner and david freedman are coordinating with arab league to find out what they will accept and then i think trump is planning, along with netanyahu&co, to impose a solution on palestinians, and then blaming that on palestinians. but everybody’s talking about — anti semitism! lol, it’s become the joke of the century how right omar is. and the more you complain the more accurate her analysis becomes.

        effectively, i sense this entire episode in aipac’s history is immunizing the public from accusations of antisemitism.

        hasbara: shut your mouth antisemite

        us: no, israel is an apartheid state. fix it.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 10, 2019, 8:07 pm

        “when she is even more careful, they will ask her to be even even more careful”

        No matter how careful she is, it won’t make any difference. They can find anti-Semitism in a simple “Good morning”.

        They just want to shut her up.

      • annie
        annie
        March 10, 2019, 9:06 pm

        clearly

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 10, 2019, 8:11 pm

        “Omar is a congresswoman and that is different than [sic] an entertainer like Maher. ”

        We expect entertainers to be fairly decent and honest, and we have no such expectations of politicians. Omar has reversed the roles.

        I’ve warned you before of the dangers of allowing in immigrants who do not understand or share your cultural values.

      • annie
        annie
        March 10, 2019, 9:17 pm

        different than [sic] an entertainer

        than is correct.

        introducing the second element in a comparison.
        “he was much smaller than his son”
        2.
        used in expressions introducing an exception or contrast.
        “he claims not to own anything other than his home”

        that said, show me an entertainer who has a regular msm show who makes bigoted statements (and laughter) and host bigoted commentary normalizing hatred of jews! hello, that doesn’t exist. i don’t buy the “congressperson is different” excuse for his filth. islamophobia is normalized in america and systemic in our wars and policies, part in thanks to those lobbies and the msm, it’s horrendous.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 10, 2019, 8:48 pm

        annie- When was the last time you conversed with a Zionist Jew face to face on the topic of Zionism or antisemitism. (eljay- you too. when was the last time?)

      • annie
        annie
        March 10, 2019, 9:03 pm

        face to face? on the topic of zionsim? i think i’d rather have a root canal. probably never, not that i can recall anyway.

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 10, 2019, 9:36 pm

        || wondering jew: annie- When was the last time you conversed with a Zionist Jew face to face on the topic of Zionism or antisemitism. (eljay- you too. when was the last time?) ||

        To the best of my recollection, I’ve never had a face-to-face conversation with a Zionist, but I’ve never had one with a member of the KKK, either. I believe that each of these ideologies is hateful and immoral and has no merits worth discussing.

        My turn: When was the last time you conversed face-to-face with a female member of the KKK on the topic of her ideology or misogyny?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 10, 2019, 9:36 pm

        “Than” is for scalar comparison on a single feature. That feature is specified.

        For example:
        “Larger than …” – size
        “Greener than …” – greeness
        “More pedantic than …” – pedantry

        “Different” simply announces that the items are not the same, but does not itself specify which features are not the same. The word implies separation, divergence, and metaphoric movement or position “from”.

        Thus, “from” is preferred.

        (Australians see it as contrastive, and so use “different to”. I don’t approve of that, either.)

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 10, 2019, 9:39 pm

        “When was the last time you conversed with a Zionist Jew face to face on the topic of Zionism or antisemitism.”

        Around 35 years ago. I suggested that it was wrong for Israel to drive out the Palestinians. She accused me of hating Jews and refused to have anything more to do with me.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 10, 2019, 9:59 pm

        Well, then it’s no surprise that when you talk to one on line you talk to the crowd and not to the person. If you had experience talking one on one then you would bring your experience in eye to eye conversation to the on line conversation and a little of your human being would be involved, because face to face involves human contact and you might bring some of that here. but in the given situation there is no humanity to your antizionism, it’s mechanical, automatic, divorced from your human nature.
        If I spent three hours a week arguing with nazis on line, you better bet i would have gone down to their latest rally and argued with them face to face.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 11, 2019, 12:55 am

        “in the given situation there is no humanity to your antizionism, it’s mechanical, automatic, divorced from your human nature.”

        So what would humanist anti-Zionism be like?

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 11, 2019, 8:29 am

        || wondering jew: Well, then it’s no surprise that when you talk to one on line you talk to the crowd and not to the person. If you had experience talking one on one then you would bring your experience in eye to eye conversation to the on line conversation and a little of your human being would be involved, because face to face involves human contact and you might bring some of that here. but in the given situation there is no humanity to your antizionism, it’s mechanical, automatic, divorced from your human nature. … ||

        Evidently you have no “experience talking one on one” or “humanity” because, once again:
        – you asked me a question and I gave you a direct and concise answer; but then,
        – I asked you a question and you did your usual best to ignore it / not answer it.

        Nevertheless, I’ll ask again: When was the last time you conversed face-to-face with a female member of the KKK on the topic of her ideology or misogyny?

        || … If I spent three hours a week arguing with nazis on line, you better bet i would have gone down to their latest rally and argued with them face to face. ||

        And after you got all up in their face with your “human contact” arguments, then what? Would you become pro-Nazi or would you still oppose the injustice and immorality they advocate, engage in and/or defend?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        March 11, 2019, 11:21 am

        “If I spent three hours a week arguing with nazis on line, you better bet i would have gone down to their latest rally and argued with them face to face.”

        Brave, brave “Yonah”!

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        March 11, 2019, 12:00 pm

        “unconsoled by your Talmudic interpretation of Ilhan Omar’s innocence” “WJ”

        ROTFLMSJAO! Let’s not have any Talmudic interpretation around here. It’s just another name for prevaricating and pilpul!

      • annie
        annie
        March 11, 2019, 2:15 pm

        there is no humanity to your antizionism, it’s mechanical, automatic, divorced from your human nature.

        another ad hominen, how special. let’s all note that all this touchy feely you hurt my feelings approach has not worked for palestine, for decades. it’s sustained a criminal state totally unwilling to budge. you have no creds passing judgement on anyones “humanity” while defending a state engaged grossly inhumane practices. you want human contact, why are you online? this is a war of ideas where exposure and truth is the most valuable weapon. i’m not backing down, nor divorced from my human nature. i don’t have an addictive personality, it’s been years, i’m nobodies battered wife.

        Denial: The woman is unable to accept that she’s being abused, or she justifies it as “just being that once.”

        Guilt: She believes she has caused the abuse.

        Enlightenment: In this phase, she realizes that she didn’t deserve the abuse and acknowledges that her partner has an abusive personality.

        Responsibility: She accepts that only the abuser holds responsibility. In many cases, this is when she’ll try to escape the relationship.

        frankly, i think people need to stand up more to this zionist “you’re hurting my feelings” crap. starting like, yesterday. you’re not supposed to feel comfortable. besides, that’s totally hypocritical. zionism doesn’t care about the comfort of palestinians. it thrives in sadistic practices. or didn’t you notice? we won’t be silenced.

        as i mentioned “the more you complain the more accurate her [Omar’s] analysis becomes”

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 11, 2019, 2:38 pm

        || annie: … frankly, i think people need to stand up more to this zionist “you’re hurting my feelings” crap. … ||

        Zionists have spent decades deliberately and unapologetically whoring out the Holocaust and grotesquely distorting the meaning of anti-Semitism (i.e., hatred of people who have embraced the religion-based identity of Jewish simply for having embraced that identity) in order to:
        – promote and defend their preferred brand of evil;
        – justify the past and on-going (war) crimes committed in its name; and
        – deliberately destroy lives, reputations and careers.

        Zionists are truly hateful and immoral hypocrites.

        But no-one ever promised them that aggressor-victimhood would be an easy gig…   :-(

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 11, 2019, 5:06 pm

        eljay- I never argued with a Nazi in person or on line.

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 11, 2019, 6:08 pm

        || wondering jew: eljay- I never argued with a Nazi in person or on line. ||

        But you said that if you had argued on-line you’d’ve gone to a rally and argued in person. After that in-person, one-on-one, humanistic argument, would you have become pro-Nazi or remained opposed to the injustice and immorality Nazis advocate, engage in and/or defend?

        Anyway, you still haven’t answered the question I initially asked you: When was the last time you conversed face-to-face with a female member of the KKK on the topic of her ideology or misogyny?

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 11, 2019, 9:45 pm

        eljay:”When was the last time you conversed face-to-face with a female member of the KKK on the topic of her ideology or misogyny?” i think you might have surmised my answer, but to answer you: Never. I have never conversed face to face with a female member of the KKK on any topic from the weather or the weather underground from vietnam to iraq to her ideology or misogyny.

        But I have also never conversed with such a person on line.

        and i only asked that question of you and annie because the two of you, each individually, spend hundreds of hours a year “conversing” with zionist jews on line, but the mechanistic, automatic way that your “conversations” head, easily reveals that you have zero interest in conversation of any sort other than the knee jerk variety.

        my position on palestine has changed over the years (not enough to satisfy you, but still it has changed) and it may change again tomorrow and it is my search for my opinion of the moment that kind of drives my presence here. but you have not changed your opinion a millimeter and don’t intend to change your opinion a single millimeter and thus I think you are wasting your time here.

        as far as annie is concerned, she would be entirely satisfied if all zionists were kicked off of this comments section and her purpose is to discourage their/our participation whether their comments are about feelings or real politics or ideal politics or history or the weather or about trump or about obama or about john lindsay or robert kennedy or about antisemitism, jewish history or the movies, or about colonialism, or about soccer or about the reality on the ground in jerusalem. she doesn’t want to hear from Zionists period. And if only phil weiss would listen to her advice anyone advancing a position more sympathetic to zionism than that expressed by donald johnson would be kicked off of the site and her purpose in “conversing” with zionists is to discourage them from participation. but as far as you, eljay, are concerned, you impress me as a record of the old variety stuck in a groove repeating the same thing over and over again. mechanistic, automatic, of no use to you or me or the cosmos. and by the way of zero use to the palestinians as well.

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 12, 2019, 7:51 am

        || wondering jew: … i think you might have surmised my answer … ||

        I asked you a direct question. I was talking to the person, not to the crowd. Why on Earth would you – experienced as you are in one-on-one, humanity-based conversations – expect me to have to “surmise” your reply?

        || … but to answer you: Never. I have never conversed face to face with a female member of the KKK on any topic from the weather or the weather underground from vietnam to iraq to her ideology or misogyny.

        But I have also never conversed with such a person on line. … ||

        See? Direct replies to direct questions aren’t so hard. Thanks for that.  :-)

        || … and i only asked that question of you and annie because the two of you, each individually, spend hundreds of hours a year “conversing” with zionist jews on line, but the mechanistic, automatic way that your “conversations” head, easily reveals that you have zero interest in conversation of any sort other than the knee jerk variety. … ||

        Which brings me back to my other point based on a scenario you raised: If you were to have on-line conversations with Nazis, presumably you’d object (perhaps even mechanistically) to their hateful and immoral ideology. If you were then to attend a rally and have a one-on-one “conversation of any sort other than the knee jerk variety” with Nazis would you:
        – continue to object to their hateful and immoral ideology; or
        – come to understand / accept / embrace their hateful and immoral ideology?

        I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you would continue to object to their hateful and immoral ideology. And rightly so.

        Please explain to me again how talking to a Zionist in person – how having a “conversation of any sort other than the knee jerk variety” – would make a difference.

        || … my position on palestine has changed over the years (not enough to satisfy you, but still it has changed) and it may change again tomorrow and it is my search for my opinion of the moment that kind of drives my presence here. but you have not changed your opinion a millimeter and don’t intend to change your opinion a single millimeter and thus I think you are wasting your time here. … ||

        My position on I-P is based on my belief in the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality.

        Your position on I-P is based on your hateful and immoral Zionist belief that people who choose to hold the religion-based identity of Jewish are entitled to Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” and to do “necessary evil” in its name.

        I honestly don’t know if you’re going to be able to comprehend what I’m about to say, but I’ll give it a try anyway:
        – It is entirely right that your position should shift toward one that is more moral.
        – It would be entirely wrong for me to shift my position toward one that is more immoral.

        || … but as far as you, eljay, are concerned, you impress me as a record of the old variety stuck in a groove repeating the same thing over and over again. mechanistic, automatic, of no use to you or me or the cosmos. and by the way of zero use to the palestinians as well. ||

        Yup, I’m stuck in a groove, repeatedly advocating justice, accountability, equality and respect for human rights and international laws. Terrible, isn’t it?

        But you (like every other Zionist on MW) are stuck in a groove repeatedly advocating and defending your preferred brand of injustice, immorality and supremacism.

        I’m of no use to the Palestinians. You (like every other Zionist on MW) are intentionally and unapologetically detrimental to them.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 12, 2019, 8:59 am

        eljay-
        This “thread” of a thread started with the video of gideon levy. levy is in principle a jewish supremacist in your book? or because he sees the death of the two state solution, is he now a penitent and therefore kosher in your book? or because he endorses ilhan omar you are willing to forgive all his sins?

        i did not mean to imply that one’s opinions would change as the result of conversation with zionists, i meant to imply that one’s human interaction with one’s own ideas would be different and richer. i used to argue all the time in person with pro palestinians. some of them were incapable of conversation, more interested in shouting to the crowd and letting their freak flag fly. others were incapable of talking without the spittle of venom appearing at the corners of their mouths. others were incapable of the thought involved in real conversation, only repeated cant and said, “isn’t that what everyone does.” but some of them were thoughtful human beings and i hope i impressed upon them the intensity of the post second intifada moment.

        history has its own rhythm. one cannot predict its timing. i don’t know when you began following this issue in earnest. i think i have been following this since september of 1970 and i am not shocked by people claiming to speak in the name of justice and to call me a nazi. there is a fatalism to my position. if i thought if i moved my mindset to norm finkelstein’s and i could change history, i would be mighty tempted, but in fact my brain waves and voice aren’t particularly powerful and it won’t change anything a mm. therefore my position is dictated by the desire to have some degree of peace between me and my relatives and friends from yesteryear, which makes bds beyond the pale and a massive return of refugees beyond the pale and i accept the compromise. i am pessimistic like benny morris, although i do not have his assurance regarding the history and am not near enough to imagine his alternate history (of 1948’s more complete ethnic cleansing). but my pessimism does not tell me: get on the right side so that you will know you are on the right side. in my vision the palestinians are crossing the allenby bridge in jordan with me accompanying them, they are filled with excitement and potential for violence as they head off in the direction of jerusalem and they invite me to join them and i say, “no. until here and no further. i watch you off to jerusalem, but do not join you in whatever escapades that might ensue. I accompany you no further.” so the vision is not a vision of peace, it is a vision of war and as such my shying away from that vision is acceptable to me. if i ever see a real need to amp up my volume, i’m sure that truth will show up and bite me in the ass. but until now. i allow history to do its thing and i do not accompany the palestinians with violence such an apparent potential beyond the allenby bridge.

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 12, 2019, 10:37 am

        || wondering jew: eljay- This “thread” of a thread started with the video of gideon levy. …

        This thread started with you pissing on Ilhan Omar. I responded.

        || … levy is in principle a jewish supremacist in your book? … ||

        If he’s a Zionist, he is necessarily a Jewish supremacist.

        || … i did not mean to imply that one’s opinions would change as the result of conversation with zionists, i meant to imply that one’s human interaction with one’s own ideas would be different and richer. … ||

        In that case, the on-line discussions in which I participate enrich my human interactions with my own ideas just fine.

        I will continue to believe in and advocate the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality.

        When it comes to advocating, engaging in or defending injustice and immorality, I’m the last person you should worry about.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        March 12, 2019, 12:57 pm

        “history has its own rhythm. one cannot predict its timing.” “WJ”

        Gee, Hannah Arendt (in one of Phil’s best articles) did a pretty good job of it:

        “[T]he Zionists ended by making the Jewish national emancipation entirely dependent upon the material interests of another nation.

        The actual result was a return of the new movement to the traditional methods of shtadlonus [court Jews], which the Zionists once had so bitterly despised and violently denounced. Now Zionists too knew no better place politically than the lobbies of the powerful, and no sounder basis for agreements than their good services as agents of foreign interests…”

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        March 12, 2019, 1:15 pm

        ” therefore my position is dictated by the desire to have some degree of peace between me and my relatives and friends from yesteryear, which makes bds beyond the pale” “WJ”

        Yeah, that makes sense. You don’t want to get boycotted.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 13, 2019, 2:00 am

        ” therefore my position is dictated by the desire to have some degree of peace between me and my relatives and friends from yesteryear, which makes bds beyond the pale” (WJ)

        The Duke of Norfolk: Oh confound all this. I’m not a scholar, I don’t know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can’t you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!

        Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

        (Robert Bolt – A Man For All Seasons)

  7. Kay24
    Kay24
    March 8, 2019, 10:06 pm

    This has really been blown out of proportion. Progressive still see it as not being anti-semitic, and the other side either has a job that prevents them from agreeing with her, or is faking outrage after giving Trump a free pass when he referred to white supremacists as some “nice people,” after they shouted anti Jewish slogans at a rally, and he called African nations” s/hole countries.” Whenever I travel internationally and US policies come up, I have heard many non Americans say “the Jews control America”, whether we like it or not, this is the image America has abroad. I guess there are many reasons why they keep getting that impression, especially when it comes to the Palestinian issue. They know about the Israeli lobbies, they know about campaign contributions, they know about our policies always favor Israel because Congress votes that way, they know that the US consistently vetoes resolutions against Israel at the UN and protects it. The information is all available in the media, and the internet, so let’s stop pretending to be outraged.

    If only the Democrats had the damn courage to openly differentiate criticizing Israel, and criticizing a people and their religion, there would be a little more clarity. The zionists made a huge push to make people believe that BDS is anti-semitic, to silence the BDS movement, and here they are trying to make Americans go against their rights to free speech, to pounce on Ilham Omar, demonizing her, attacking her religion, her attire, and even making death threats against her. These are people who accepts ALL the racists sayings, and policies, of Donald J. Trump. Members of Congress who criticize her, have never spoken up for her rights to free speech, and are doing exactly what she said was happening, that Israel does control what they say and do. No one can have any doubts where Congress stands, after watching that tape of Netanyahu brag that America can be easily “moved”?

    No other nation, or their lobbies, have that much control over our rights to free speech, ME foreign policies, and gets so much of aid and weapons. but Congress pretends they cannot see it, because to say so will be considered “anti-semitic”. What an unfortunate situation we find ourselves in.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      March 8, 2019, 11:54 pm

      Kay, do you agree that other than the topic of Israel that the Jews control America?

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod
        March 9, 2019, 9:39 am

        Ha!
        You mean PEZ and commanding congress to perform 25 standing ovations…or everything in between?

      • Misterioso
        Misterioso
        March 9, 2019, 10:04 am

        @wondering Jew

        “Kay, do you agree that other than the topic of Israel that the Jews control America?”

        Inane question!!!

      • MoCHo
        MoCHo
        March 9, 2019, 2:42 pm

        “do you agree that other than the topic of Israel that the Jews control America?” Did she say SHE believes Jews control American? NO. She said in her travels other people around the world believe this to be true. I wonder why they get that impression? Hmmmmm . . . . couldn’t be that we’re always the ones on the UN Security Council who override any actions calling Israel to adhere to international law. Couldn’t be that because Israel “demanded it,” Trump pulled the US out of the Iran agreement (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and then to further placate Netanyahu (and Trump’s Christian Zionist base) moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Gosh, I just can’t imagine how the rest of the world ever gets the impression that Israel is the tail that wags the dog of US foreign policy!!

      • annie
        annie
        March 9, 2019, 3:04 pm

        mocho, yonah’s question wasn’t elicited to get an answer per se! he likes to be inflammatory and divert the conversation to >>> you guessed it! anti semitism. and if kay doesn’t respond and others do (like you) it’s perfectly fine. a trap has been set.

      • Brewer
        Brewer
        March 9, 2019, 5:41 pm

        WJ’s question was put with baited breath.
        (Note to pedants, its a pun.)

      • gamal
        gamal
        March 9, 2019, 6:24 pm

        ” a trap has been set”….beware the tropes of march.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        March 9, 2019, 8:04 pm

        Your inane question has been answered brilliantly by the others. Let those sink in…

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso
      March 9, 2019, 10:01 am

      @Kay24, et al

      Meanwhile, in Canada, Zionism’s war within also rages.

      https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/canadians-blast-israeli-far-right-political-alliance

      “Canadians blast Israeli far-right political alliance”

      By Alex Rose
      Canadian Jewish News, March 8/19

      “Jewish groups in Canada are responding to the merger of two Israeli political parties, Otzma Yehudit (meaning Jewish Power) and Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home), ahead of that country’s April 9 national election. The parties are running on the same list to better their chance of amassing the minimum 3.25 per cent of the total vote necessary to serve in the Knesset.

      “Otzma Yehudit is a far-right party based on the philosophies of Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose Kach party was banned from the Knesset for racism and promoting violence. Otzma Yehudit’s platform advocates for, among other things, pressuring Arab-Israelis to emigrate and annexing the West Bank.

      “Last week, almost 40 North American rabbis who identify with the religious Zionist movement signed a letter denouncing the merger. The letter called Otzma Yehudit a violent and racist party whose beliefs run counter to ‘the long-held principles of the religious Zionist movement,’ and declared the rabbis’ dismay that Bayit Yehudi felt it appropriate to partner with Otzma Yehudit.

      “’Anyone who participates, directly or indirectly, in the inclusion of a group of people that worships power, is indifferent to violence, honours a murderer and is full of hate towards many Jews and non-Jews, bears responsibility for the hillul ha-Shem (desecration of God’s name),’ reads the letter.

      “Rabbi Chaim Strauchler of Shaarei Shomayim Congregation in Toronto was one of the letter’s signatories. He felt it was important for the religious Zionist rabbis to speak out against the merger to make it clear it was not being done in their name and not in line with their vision of Zionism. Rabbi Strauchler said he recognizes the political reasoning behind the merger, but that the ethical price to be paid is too high.

      “’It comes at a great cost to Israel’s security and the sense that our security is not just a function of the strength of our army, but our security is also a function of the strength of our ideals and the message that we share among ourselves, and also the message that we project outwardly to the world as a whole,” he said.

      “’Israel survives by projecting a certain narrative, a certain story about what it means to be a Jew,’ he added. ‘And it inspires Jews to act a certain way and it inspires the world to see Jews a certain way. And that, too, is essential to what Israel is and how Israel will continue to thrive and survive long into the future.’

      “Some Canadian Jewish organizations that have condemned the merger are JSpaceCanada and Canadian Friends of Peace Now (CFPN). JSpace took aim at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for helping broker the deal, calling Otzma Yehudit ‘an ultra-right-wing, racist party which embodies the most reprehensible elements of Israel’s political life.’ The group went on to say, ‘We equally condemn Jewish Home, another political ally of the prime minister, for voting to bring these elements into its own ranks instead of rejecting them in disgust.’

      “CFPN, the sister organization of Israel’s Peace Now movement, said in its statement that it is non-partisan and usually would not speak out on partisan issues. ‘But when the prime minister of Israel implicitly endorses a worldview that has until now been beyond the pale in Israeli public life, we must speak out,’ CFPN said.

      “’Attempting to bring Kahane’s disciples into government is a despicable, cynical move that undermines Israel’s democracy, strikes at its moral fibre and violates widely accepted Jewish values.’

      “The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) and the UJA Federation of Greater Toronto both declined to comment specifically on the merger. CIJA noted that it had consulted with Federation stakeholders across Canada who determined it would be inappropriate to comment on partisan political developments during an election campaign. ‘We express confidence in the Israeli people’s commitment to an open, inclusive democracy with equal rights for all its citizens,’ said CIJA CEO Shimon Koffler Fogel.

      “The merger was also criticized south of the border, with the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), two U.S. political groups that usually do not comment on partisan matters, both denouncing the move.”

      In short, I am again reminded of the wise words of Henry Morgenthau Sr., renowned Jewish American and former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, 1919: “Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history….The very fervour of my feeling for the oppressed of every race and every land, especially for the Jews, those of my own blood and faith, to whom I am bound by every tender tie, impels me to fight with all the greater force against this scheme, which my intelligence tells me can only lead them deeper into the mire of the past, while it professes to be leading them to the heights. Zionism is… a retrogression into the blackest error, and not progress toward the light.” (Quoted by Frank Epp, Whose Land is Palestine?, p. 261)

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        March 9, 2019, 8:01 pm

        It seems those who harshly criticize Rep. Ilhan Omar, and mute when it comes to this shameful alliance. Netanyahu never gets any criticism even when he orders snipers to kill unarmed kids, but no American should dare speak of the obvious when it comes to the occupation, land grabs, and massacre of civilians. Netanyahu has not simply partnered with a right wing group, he has signaled exactly who he really is, and how dangerous he can be, by making a pact with a racist, hate group, who has been labelled as “TERRORISTS’ by the US State Department.
        Shouldn’t that elicit outrage far louder than what poor Rep. Omar is now facing?

    • Boomer
      Boomer
      March 10, 2019, 8:55 am

      re: “Progressive still see it as not being anti-semitic, and the other side either has a job that prevents them from agreeing with her, or is faking outrage . . .”

      I’ve noticed that several news readers, “anchors” and “TV personalities” on the major broadcast networks routinely refer to the controversy sparked by Omar’s “anti-semitic” comments. This takes as a fact that the comments were actually anti-semitic. No “allegedly,” is used, as is customary for people accused of crimes. Nor is there any acknowledgment that not everyone agrees. For example, Willie Geist did so this morning on NBC news. Whether they do so because it is their job, or their personal viewpoint, it defines reality for many Americans.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        March 12, 2019, 8:32 am

        I agree. Most tv personalities did refer to Rep. Omar’s remarks as “anti-semitic”, and the word “trope” was sometime thrown in for good measure. I guess they need to please their zionist bosses.

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 12, 2019, 11:01 am

        || Boomer: … I’ve noticed that several news readers, “anchors” and “TV personalities” on the major broadcast networks routinely refer to the controversy sparked by Omar’s “anti-semitic” comments. This takes as a fact that the comments were actually anti-semitic. … ||

        But of course they were:
        1. Ms. Omar spoke about Benjamins, Israel and AIPAC.
        2. Zionists immediately (and anti-Semitically) conflated Benjamins, Israel and AIPAC with all Jews and all Jews with Benjamins, Israel and AIPAC.
        3. They were then able to smear her with destructive accusations of anti-Semitism because, as they just proven beyond a shadow of doubt, her comments were anti-Semitic.

  8. Sibiriak
    Sibiriak
    March 8, 2019, 10:55 pm

    It is good to have the lines so clarified. Omar– who says she supports a two-state solution– is now a hero of the progressive left, including many Jews.

    * * *

    […]The renegade Jewish group IfNotNow is calling on all Democratic presidential candidates not to attend the policy conference in Washington later this month because AIPAC supports settlements.

    ———————————————————————————

    Democrats may be “officially split on Israel“, but there is no split when it comes to support for two states.

  9. Boomer
    Boomer
    March 9, 2019, 7:55 am

    Juan Cole discusses what it means when some of the “others” get elected to Congress:

    https://www.juancole.com/2019/03/somalia-explaining-scares.html

  10. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    March 9, 2019, 10:20 am

    “younger Democrats rallied behind Omar” Young and older. Drives me crazy when the media tries to brand those who support a fair and just outcome for the I/P conflict or standing up against the I lobby as always”young” Total hooey.

    Drove me nuts when MSM outlets tried to paint the support for Bernie as just “young” people again total hooey. My 90 year old mother and several of her pals total Bernie supporters.

  11. bcg
    bcg
    March 9, 2019, 12:19 pm

    I notice that in this thread (and many threads here on MW) folks spend a lot of time trying to unearth what the U.N. said, did, implied with regard to Israel/Palestine/partition/Zionism. What’s the real meaning of U.N. resolution 385.1a-63Z, subsection 6?

    So does everyone who thinks that this is the stuff that gives Israel legitimacy agree with this proposition: the U.N. can change its mind?

  12. brent
    brent
    March 9, 2019, 12:52 pm

    “Next thing you know, we might even discuss Palestinian human rights!”

    This will happen in a serious way only after Palestinians, probably starting with citizens of Israel, initiate a determined campaign for civil and human rights… for equality under the law. That’s when the whole Democratic Party will stand up to be counted. The apartheid system will then crumble.

    Currently its unclear what is meant by “from the river to the sea…” or if Jewish legitimacy in West Jerusalem is to be respected.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      March 9, 2019, 8:37 pm

      “This will happen in a serious way only after Palestinians, probably starting with citizens of Israel, initiate a determined campaign for civil and human rights… for equality under the law.”

      And they are not doing that now?

      • Keith
        Keith
        March 10, 2019, 12:12 am

        MOOSER- “And they are not doing that now?”

        Yes, how many need to be killed before Brent takes them seriously? The whole Democratic Party stand up and be counted? For what? In support of empire? Is it possible to be this far out of touch with reality without taking drugs?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        March 10, 2019, 12:12 pm

        “Is it possible to be this far out of touch with reality without taking drugs?”

        I don’t really know. Perhaps someday I’ll experience it for myself. Til then, however, I’m stickin’ with drugs.

  13. Marnie
    Marnie
    March 9, 2019, 1:06 pm

    Ilhan is the best hope for real honest conversation about the hold that special interests and money have on washington. She wasn’t sent to washington to help maintain the status quo but to end the status quo. God bless her and protect her.

    • Kay24
      Kay24
      March 9, 2019, 8:50 pm

      Here is Phyllis Bennet’s brilliant response to Ilham Omar:

      • Marnie
        Marnie
        March 10, 2019, 4:13 am

        Phyllis Bennet about Ilhan – ‘She mentioned AIPAC, but there are certainly others’. BAM! Hearing the truth spoken is like a balm for the soul. Please continue and continue to defend Ilhan Omar!

      • Boomer
        Boomer
        March 10, 2019, 9:02 am

        Yes, a brilliant and illuminating response. Thanks for this.

        Alas, most Americans won’t see it. A lie travels from coast to coast while the truth is putting on its boots.

  14. jeff_davis
    jeff_davis
    March 9, 2019, 1:07 pm

    The extent of Israeli crimes — Zionist crimes — over the last hundred years has been concealed behind the “curtain” of Zionist media control. Some might prefer the term “media influence”, but one need only look at those who own the media, to understand the difference between simple influence, and control.

    So In this moment, where media control is collapsing — not merely leaking around the edges but truly collapsing — I would bring this to your attention: when a dam bursts it suddenly and uncontrollably releases in a rush the entire vast, controlled/collected/contained quantity of water collected over years. The trickle turns to deluge.

    Watch for it now. All those who were afraid of the consequences of being called an anti-semite, will now see in the flood of people willing to speak up, the opportunity to join them and find safety in numbers.

    From this moment, the narrative surrounding Israel will rapidly shift. The once-dominant and unchallenged fiction/mythology of “the only democracy in the Middle East”, will be confronted with the powerful justice-based, reality-based condemnation of the Judeo-supremacist “Zionist project” as “the geo-political crime-in-progress” that it is.

    Watch for it. The Jewish state will soon stand naked and alone, supported only by those in the diaspora, whose support will be challenged — as it should be — as disloyalty. This is where the claim of supremacism — racial, religious, ethnic, or national — always leads.

    The 5000 year pattern of supremacist aggression followed by corrective “reaction”, has been the history of the Jews, starting with Egypt and old Israel and then spreading like an infection into the “diaspora”. But it would be a mistake to imagine it as an exclusively Jewish phenomenon. All of humanity tends to be aggressively supremacist and imperialist.

    Ordinarily, it would be confined geographically, to the fluid boundaries of Empire. Eventually the supremacist phenomenon leads to the violent push back of war, then to defeat, and then to the Dustbin of History. The Jews alone have been an exception.
    Dispersion into the diaspora has prevented their comprehensive destruction.

    That won’t change. The Jews will continue to survive — and to flourish — in the diaspora. Which is where, logically — and with breathtaking irony — their greatest “over-achievement” and contribution to humanity has been enabled.

    It is Israel where the Jewish “Galut” has emerged.

  15. Mustacq Abdullah
    Mustacq Abdullah
    March 10, 2019, 12:32 am

    I’m really amazed to see how my Jèwish cousins are reacting here with a flurry of “feel sorry for us” posts. Ilhan only rallied half of Congress to wake up and vote with her proposal, just all! How will they react when half of the Americans wake up from the great American Dream? They will realize then that they have been fighting Zïonist wars and loosing their lives and their money on it too!

    Maybe that is what my Jèwish cousins are afraid of. Shame.

  16. Marnie
    Marnie
    March 10, 2019, 7:21 am

    US Zionists urge Trump to withdraw controversial legal opinion

    As Trump’s Deal of the Century looms, a Carter-era State Department legal opinion surfaces which gives an advantage to the Arab side.

    Orli Harari, 10/03/19 12:01 Arutz Sheva

    “With Trump’s Deal of the Century in the offing, an anti-Israel legal opinion in the State Department has surfaced, which outlaws all Israeli communities over the Green Line. CUFI, which speaks for 4 million Christians, as well as the RCA and ZOA, are urging the Administration to rescind the controversial document. The fear is that Israel will be in a disadvantageous position if the “Deal of the Century” is published and an official pro-Arab legal opinion, negating all settlements, remains intact. Pro-Israel organizations call for the opinion, also known as the Hansell memorandum, to be rescinded, while BDS organizations are relying on it. The controversial legal opinion is even starring in a Palestinian-American lawsuit filed against Sheldon Adelson and other prominent pro-Israel Americans. Since the opinion, authored by the late Attorney Herbert Hansell at the request of his superiors in the Carter Administration, has not been revoked or updated, it is still valid.

    Distinguished legal experts in the West, as well as the State of Israel, are adamant that Israel’s settlements (communities in Judea-Samaria) are legal. But the Hansell memorandum, penned by the legal adviser to the State Department under President Carter, unilaterally adopts Arab legal arguments, bolstering an anti-Israel position according to which all Israel’s settlements in Judea and Samaria are actually illegal.

    Arutz Sheva has learned that both Jewish and Christian groups in the United States are calling for the opinion to be rescinded, given that leading legal experts support Israel’s legal position. In addition, the chairman of the Israeli Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, MK Nissan Slomiansky, appealed to the Trump administration several months ago, also requesting that the opinion be revoked. The author of the opinion himself admitted the opinion was “controversial”, wrote Slomiansky in his appeal to American Ambassador David Friedman. However, contrary to the accepted practice, Slomiansky’s letter is still waiting for an American reply.

    Zalman Shoval, former Israeli ambassador to the United States, recently revealed that a second American legal opinion was penned by a government legal adviser, which differs from the negative opinion of the State Department. The second opinion was written by a legal adviser to the White House National Security Council and does not yield a conclusion of settlement illegality, Shoval explains in his recent book. However, the adviser to the National Security Council, who has since resigned and returned to academic life, opposes the US confirming legality of settlements for political rather than legal reasons: not to help Israel too much in her negotiations with the Arabs. In addition, this second opinion is not available to the public, in contrast to the negative opinion against the settlements, which is available to the public and appears on the website of a leading Palestinian-American group.

    Assessments are that if the Trump plan is published (reportedly immediately after the elections in Israel) before the damaging opinion is canceled, this could give a deliberate advantage to the Arab side, regarding the entire issue of the settlements. The negative opinion does not claim that the IDF presence in Judea and Samaria is illegal but it does attack the legality of all of the hundreds of thousands of civilian residences in the Judea-Samaria region, relying on legal argumentation characteristic of the Arab side, but denied by the legal experts Israel relies on.

    The pressure to cancel the opinion comes from a number of American organizations. Rabbi Mark Dratch, Executive Vice President of the Rabbinical Council of America, which represents North America Orthodox Jewry in its relations with American government officials, said that the RCA “joins others in urging the United States administration to withdraw the Hansell memorandum”. The RCA’s Executive Vice President explained that the RCA “views settlements as legal according to international law”. Rabbi Dratch emphasized that the RCA “appreciates the support for Israel of the Administration” and also stressed “the strong bipartisan support for Israel in Congress.”

    A statement from Christians United for Israel (CUFI), an American Christian organization that supports Israel, similarly clarified that “CUFI does not agree with the opinion offered by the Hansell memorandum and supports its revocation.” As of May 2018, CUFI’s membership is said to include 4.1 million Christian Americans.

    Dan Pollak, Director of Government Relations at the ZOA warned that “the legal reasoning in the Hansell memorandum… has been used inside the State Department to actively sabotage the policies of several US presidents. With the new thinking of President Trump on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the negative impact of the memorandum have finally become too great to ignore…. The memorandum should be rescinded.”

    The Orthodox Union has referred press inquiries regarding the Hansell opinion to a longstanding OU statement according to which “Assertions that Israeli ‘settlement activity’ is illegal under international law are incorrect.”Therefore, the organizations chose to recommend that the opinion be revoked, instead of demanding that it be amended so as to reflect a reasoned position of legality.

    The cancellation of a legal opinion is a simple administrative action that can be implemented immediately. On the other hand, rewriting an opinion to include missing considerations that were not reflected in the first opinion is a much more complicated process.
    In addition to the statements made by the organizations, a number of American public figures known as President Trump’s supporters have personally approached government officials and expressed their opinion that the opinion should be revoked.

    As of today, none of these efforts have borne fruit.

    In the meantime, BDS activists in the United States and abroad rely on the alleged illegality of the settlements as justification for boycott actions against Israel. In addition, 18 American-Palestinian activists have, for the past 3 years, been promoting a billion dollar lawsuit against American philanthropist Sheldon Adelson and others. Adelson is accused by the American-Arab plaintiffs of supporting Israeli “settlements.” This support, the Palestinian claimants allege, citing the Hansell memorandum and various international law documents, is illegal.

    Sheldon Adelson did indeed donate a medical school to Ariel University. The entire city of Ariel is deemed illegal by the Hansell memorandum.”

    An ‘advantage to the Arab side’. Clutch the pearls!! Right wingnut, Zionist rag claims pro-zionists (american, christian and jew) are attempting to influence tRUMP and that’s a good thing! With all the conservative right wing judges tRUMP has appointed, not to mention the stacked deck in the supreme court, this will happen without being called out by the MSM, but being heralded in a zionist rag. Heaven’s to Murgatroyd!

  17. klm90046
    klm90046
    March 11, 2019, 1:51 am

    All this is satisfaction for the soul, and appeasement of conscience. It will not get Palestinians their land back from European occupiers. What will, is a war of independence. So Palestinians have to find their George Washington, who will unite them, motivate them, energize them, arm them, train them and then lead them in war.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      March 11, 2019, 11:29 am

      “So Palestinians have to find their…”

      You forgot “finance them”. And BTW, what’s your plan for the Palestinian Air Force?

      .

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      March 12, 2019, 6:19 am

      So interesting to see the usual US-supremacist clowns jump in in defense of continued Zionist presence, the very moment anyone mentions the only possible and realistic solution.
      Heaping ridicule on the only real solution to the Zionist invasion will not stop the war of liberation, Mooser. Nothing will, short of a successful genocide.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        March 12, 2019, 1:22 pm

        “the only possible and realistic solution.”

        I think you need to get in touch with the PLA.

Leave a Reply