Trending Topics:

‘New York Times’ reporter Bergman to speak at AIPAC– though he’s not identified as a Times reporter

News
on 30 Comments

Five months back we saw New York Times reporter Ronen Bergman at a closed-to-the-media AIPAC event in Westchester County praising the Israel lobby organization.

“You know, I’ve been all over the U.S. with AIPAC and it’s always a great pleasure, as an Israeli. I always tell AIPAC, you do so much in the U.S., and… I know that you’ve got our backs. It’s such a great feeling.”

Well, Bergman is going to have that great feeling again real soon. He will be speaking at AIPAC this coming Sunday at a session on the threat Iran poses to Israel. The panel at the policy conference in Washington sounds like a typically-slanted presentation by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee:

…the Islamic Republic is continuing its aggressive behavior across the region. Iran is building its intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, supporting the Assad regime in Syria, shipping missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and attempting to establish the Revolutionary Guard in the Syrian Golan Heights, next to Israel. …And what can be done to counter Iran’s negative influence in the Middle East?

AIPAC lists Bergman as “Investigative Journalist and Author, Yedioth Ahronoth.” How curious that AIPAC left the Times out. The Times is very clear itself: Bergman is a staff writer for the New York Times Magazine. On twitter, Bergman states that he works for the New York Times as well as Yedioth.

I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry. AIPAC exists to assure American support for Israeli colonization and massacres; the New York Times does a poor job covering AIPAC’s influence;  most of the Democratic presidential field is skipping AIPAC because it’s rolling out a red carpet to the prime minister even after he attacks Palestinians as non-citizens; and AIPAC doesn’t let independent media cover its conference. But Israeli reporter Bergman loves the organization, and he’ll be there.

Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

30 Responses

  1. DaBakr on March 22, 2019, 2:47 pm

    “…the Islamic Republic is continuing its aggressive behavior across the region. Iran is building its intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, supporting the Assad regime in Syria, shipping missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and attempting to establish the Revolutionary Guard in the Syrian Golan Heights, next to Israel. …And what can be done to counter Iran’s negative influence in the Middle East?”

    other then the comment about “negative influence” which is theoretically , opinion, name one thing in the statement above that isn’t true.

    • Talkback on March 22, 2019, 3:12 pm

      DaBakr: “… other then the comment about “negative influence” which is theoretically , opinion, name one thing in the statement above that isn’t true.”

      Why is he singling out Iran? The only Persian country in the world? That’s antipersianism. “aggressive behaviour” and “negative influence” are just anti-Persian tropes.

      Seriously, what has Iran done since 1945 that remotely compares to Israel’s violation of international and human rights law; its illegal annexation and colonialization, its expulsion, dispossesions and want on destructions; its collective punishment, disproportionate force and killing, crippling or injuring children and elderly people, journalists and medics; it’s nightly raids, kidnappings and prolonged detention without charge or trial, access to family and lawyers … and I could go on and on and on but basically its genocidal Apartheid policy against the native Nonjewish population of Palestine?

      • DaBakr on March 22, 2019, 5:12 pm

        whats your point? I already mentioned the ‘negative’ as opinion and acknowledged folks here might be very sympathetic to the totalitarian mullah regime. somebody else could easily rebut your claim that the mullah regime hasn’t done ‘anything remotely like Israel’ and argue that they have done much worse. one of your problems with Israel, I assumed, was its nature as a ‘jewish’ nation. you don’t seem to have any problems with the very fundamental and harsh version of islam imposed on all Persians after the shah was ousted. Iran at present is most definitely an islamic nation. your complaint about Israel heading towards religious theocracy, as if its the end of the world( and a pretty absurd claim anyway)? Iran did that 40 years ago. Imposing harsh interpretations of islam on men, women, the others(non-muslims) who were formally, in the past regime, allowed full access to education, employment and freedom of dress? yeah. that was the mullahs.not the rabbis. and while Israel has a vibrant arab population that has increased in size, the jewish community in Persia is a small shadow of what it once was before ’48 and ’77. and while jews are tolerated in Persia, any hint of a pro-israel(or the accursed zionist entity-where most jews in Iran have relatives) stance would likely be met with death or imprisonment for spying. seriously.

      • Talkback on March 23, 2019, 12:32 pm

        DaBakr: “somebody else could easily rebut your claim that the mullah regime hasn’t done ‘anything remotely like Israel’ and argue that they have done much worse.”

        It seems that you always refer to someone when you can’t prove your claim.

        DaBakr: “you don’t seem to have any problems with the very fundamental and harsh version of islam imposed on all Persians after the shah was ousted.”

        you don’t seem to have any problems with the very fundamental and harsh version of Judaism imposed on all Palestinians after Palestine’s mandatory goverment was ousted.

        DaBakr: ” Iran at present is most definitely an islamic nation.”

        Do its people have the right to leave the country and return? Do all citizens have equal access to its land?

        DaBakr: “your complaint about Israel heading towards religious theocracy, as if its the end of the world( and a pretty absurd claim anyway)?”

        Fabricating red herrings, again? I never said anything which even comes close. But here you go. Read “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel”.

        DaBakr: “Imposing harsh interpretations of islam on men, women, the others(non-muslims) who were formally, in the past regime, allowed full access to education, employment and freedom of dress?”

        Did Iran expell them to achieve a certain national character? Do Palestinians in Israel have full access to education and employment? Are they allowed to ride on all buses?

        DaBakr: ” that was the mullahs.not the rabbis. ”

        Seriously, don’t get me started about genocide sanctioning rabbis who call blacks “monkeys” and Nonjews Non-humans who should serve Jews. Spirituality faking scum.

        DaBakr: “And while Israel has a vibrant arab population that has increased in size, the jewish community in Persia is a small shadow of what it once was before ’48 and ’77.”

        What happened to them? Did they move to a place that decreased the Palestinian community by the millions through expulsion and denationalization?

        DaBakr: “and while jews are tolerated in Persia, any hint of a pro-israel(or the accursed zionist entity-where most jews in Iran have relatives) stance would likely be met with death or imprisonment for spying. seriously.”

        What do you maen by “likely”? That you can’t prove that either? What is their real fate? Prolonged administration with no charge and trail, family or lawyer visit while signing a confession written in a language they don’t even understand and be called “terrorist” for the rest of their lives? Or that they “incited” against their usurper, because they called for resistance, equality or because they filmed state sponsored terrorism?

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius on March 22, 2019, 3:56 pm

      Iran has acted – in actually quite a restrained way despite the hysteria you’ll hear from indoctrinated Israelis – to supports its decades-long allies at a time of existential threat. Why should they not do so? Nobody on earth owes Israel a damn thing. Certainly they do not owe it to them to run to their rescue when all their failed wars wind up blowing up in their faces.

      “and attempting to establish the Revolutionary Guard in the Syrian Golan Heights”

      “Revolutionary Guards” are the bogeyman of Israelis. Am I the only one who remembers in the last Lebanon war when Israel was ‘discovering’ the ID cards of ‘revolutionary guards’ who were so very helpful to leave such obvious identification behind them? Anything to cover up their humiliating defeat I guess.

      So what’s your evidence for the above statement?

    • echinococcus on March 22, 2019, 4:21 pm

      Boy oh boy is that Abubakr character outside the living world!

      “…the Islamic Republic is continuing its aggressive behavior”
      //
      Defensive. Being aggressed by acts of war of the Zionist Entity and its US attack dog, both nuclear and aggressive forever.
      //
      “Iran is building its intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities”
      //
      Has every right to arm itself and fight as it judges fit.
      Stupid.
      //
      “supporting the Assad regime in Syria”
      meaning the legitimate government of the country, confirmed as being elected with way more of a margin than the US shithole. Support given on offficial request by the legitimate government to defend it against Zionist+US aggression.
      //
      “shipping missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon”
      Of course! It should do a lot more to support these fearless fighters for Lebanese independence against Zionist aggression.
      //
      “and attempting to establish the Revolutionary Guard in the Syrian Golan Heights, next to Israel”
      The Julan Hills are Syrian, occupied by the gallowbait Zionist invaders. They are next to Palestine, similarly occupied.
      //
      None of this is “opinion”, propaganda poodle.
      Just as much fact as you are at least an accessory after the fact.

    • RoHa on March 23, 2019, 4:44 am

      “Iran is building its intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, supporting the Assad regime in Syria, shipping missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and attempting to establish the Revolutionary Guard in the Syrian Golan Heights, next to Israel.”

      These moves aren’t aggressive. They are defensive. Iran is doing what it can to counter the attacks and machinations of the Israel/US coalition.

    • umm al-hamam on March 23, 2019, 5:56 am

      Iran’s “influence” in the Middle East (which it is part of) has been primarily to defend itself and its allies—Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and increasingly now Iraq—from aggression by the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia and their proxies. Iran supports Hezbollah because Hezbollah is the only force preventing Israel from invading and annexing parts of Lebanon; Iran supports Syria because the US & Israel have been attempting to overthrow and weaken the Syrian government and funnelling arms and money to rebel groups for a decade; Iran supports Yemen because the US & Saudi Arabia have successfully co-opted the Yemeni government and are attempting to literally partition the country; and the presence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard across the region is mostly to fight groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda that were created as a result of 40 years (or more) of US aggression in the Middle East and whose genocidal anti-Shi’a ideology poses a significant national security threat to Iran.

      There’s no evidence of any Iranian presence in the Syrian Golan Heights btw. There is however evidence of an Israeli presence there going back to 1967, including 20,000 settlers and thousands of soldiers, and involving the ethnic cleansing of about 130,000 Syrian Druze and theft of their land. Until there’s evidence of something similar being done by Iranians, I submit that they’re not the party one should be worried about in the Golan region.

      If the United States were not attempting to impose its will on the entire collective Middle East, including thru propping up its Israeli puppet state, Iran would likely be doing none of these things.

      • Keith on March 23, 2019, 11:21 am

        UMM AL-HAMAN- “Iran’s “influence” in the Middle East (which it is part of) has been primarily to defend itself and its allies—Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and increasingly now Iraq—from aggression by the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia and their proxies.”

        Absolutely correct. Below is a link to Tulsi Gabbard who is the one Presidential candidate who seems to know what is going on in the Middle East. For what it is worth.

        Tulsi Gabbard- US trained and armed al Qaeda & ISIS to overthrow Assad regime. http://thesaker.is/tulsi-gabbard-vs-the-legacy-ziomedia/

      • DaBakr on March 23, 2019, 3:16 pm

        @k @an

        you both should read the flattering Vogue profile of Bashirs wife from around 11yrs ago. you’ll both thrill to her chicness and how she gushes about her ‘love’ for all Syrian children. I’d like to see where either her or her husband turn up to show their faces publicly other then Iran, North Korea or maybe gabbards living room.

      • DaBakr on March 23, 2019, 3:22 pm

        @u

        yes. those poor poor mullahs. they try so so hard.

    • Misterioso on March 23, 2019, 10:25 am

      @DaBakr

      Firstly, it is refreshing to note that Bergman correctly refers to the Golan Heights as the “Syrian Golan Heights.”

      BTW, how Israel’s came to occupy the Golan Heights is very informative:
      General Moshe Dayan confirmed that Syria posed no threat and revealed that the real reason Israel conquered the Golan Heights during the war it launched on 5 June 1967 (and subsequently expelled nearly all of the native Syrian Arab population) was to seize its fertile farm lands and gain control of the upper waters of the Jordan River. “‘I made a mistake in allowing the conquest of the Golan Heights. As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time.’ The attack proceeded, he went on, not because Israel was threatened but because of pressure from land-hungry farmers and army commanders in northern Israel. ‘Of course [war with Syria] was not necessary. You can say the Syrians are bastards and attack when you want. But this is not policy. You don’t open aggression against an enemy because he’s a bastard but because he’s a threat’.” (Quoted in “Israel and Syria: Correcting the Record,” by Stephen S. Rosenfeld, The Washington Post, 24 December 1999)

      Unaware of the pressure he was under from expansionists, two other well known Israeli generals wondered why Moshe Dayan ordered the invasion of Syria at 11:30 A.M. on June 9 – a full four days after Israel launched the war and four-and- one-half hours after Damascus had agreed to abide by the UN Security Council’s demand for a cease-fire. “[General Yitzhak] Rabin wrote in his memoir that he has ‘never grasped the reasons’ for Dayan’s decision to launch the assault. [General] Ezer Weizman, who likewise could give ‘no explanation’ for Dayan’s action, rhetorically asked years later, ‘if indeed the Syrian enemy threatened to destroy us, why did we wait three days before we attacked it?” (Quoted by Norman Finkelstein, Image and…pp. 133-34)

      I remind you that the entity known as “Israel” is still belligerently and illegally occupying Syria’s Golan Heights as well as Lebanon’s Shebba Farms, the Palestinian West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and of course, in brutal and gross violation of international law (i.e., the Fourth Geneva Convention), the Gaza Strip.

      Regarding Iran, it seems you are unaware of the following:
      “…in May 2003, a conference of the member states’ foreign ministers [of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation] in Tehran ‘reaffirmed its support to, and adoption of, the 2002 Beirut Arab Peace Initiative [** see below] for resolving the issue of Palestine and the Middle-East.’ Indeed, an information leaflet about the peace initiative posted on the Arab League’s official website shows the flags of all countries that endorse the proposal, including those of Libya, Syria — and Iran.” (“Why is Israel so afraid of the Arab Peace Initiative?, by Raphael Ahren, The Times of Israel, 18 June 2013.)

      The Beirut Arab Summit Initiative was also “formally accepted by the [then] ‘supreme leader’ of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei. [Furthermore, Sheikh] Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has made it clear that Hezbollah would not disrupt such an agreement if it is accepted by Palestinians [and] Hamas has repeatedly indicated its willingness to negotiate in these terms.” (“On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon” by Professor Noam Chomsky, Znet, August 23, 2006)

      Notably, the Beirut Arab Summit Initiative has also been adopted by the Organization of Islamic States which includes Iran. (Akiva Eldar, “What will happen if Israel ‘defeats’ Obama?” – Ha’aretz, 1 June 2009)

      I further remind you that in 2015, Iran signed a long-term agreement regarding its nuclear programme with the U.S., Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany (the P5+1 group.) With the sole exception of the U.S. under Trump who withdrew from the agreement (doubtless at the request of his pay and puppet master, war mongering Zionist zealot, billionaire Sheldon Adelson), all of the signatories have declared Iran is adhering completely to the terms of the agreement.

      **The Beirut Arab Summit Initiative (28 March 2002) was presented to Israel in April, 2002. Accepted wholeheartedly by the Palestinians, the Arab League proposals call for a formal peace treaty and normalization of relations, including full recognition of Israel as a sovereign state, exchange of ambassadors, trade agreements, tourism, cultural exchanges, etc. if Israel complies with mandatory international law, e.g., U.N. Security Resolution 242, the U.N. Charter and international humanitarian (e.g., the Fourth Geneva Convention) law by withdrawing to the borders of 4 June 1967.

      Fully aware of Israel’s demographic concerns, the Beirut Arab Summit Initiative does not call for the return of all Palestinian refugees of the 1948 conflict to their homes in Israel. Instead, in accordance with policy first enunciated by President Arafat prior to and during Camp David 2000, Article II of Paragraph 2 “calls upon Israel to affirm” that it agrees to pursue the “[a]chievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.”

      Clearly, “Israel” has no desire to reach a just peace agreement with the Palestinians and Arab states. Indeed, it is patently obvious that “Israel’s” prime objective is to seize and occupy more and more Palestinian and Arab land and drive out the indigenous inhabitants.

  2. philweiss on March 22, 2019, 2:53 pm

    what about the other regional power? the one with nukes that invades neighbors? Does such slanted discourse serve my country?

  3. wondering jew on March 22, 2019, 3:51 pm

    Here’s a voice (Michael Doran) that views Iran as the primary competitor (if you don’t like the term enemy) of the US in the region. https://jmp.princeton.edu/events/does-america-have-middle-east-strategy?fbclid=IwAR3bPz2mGeoJqOl8ENnhGClYnK58vmt_jLgcByEAUkLzSHUCP8ew-fzPk9c

  4. wondering jew on March 22, 2019, 5:26 pm

    According to Doran these are the major players (potential allies or enemies) in the Middle East: Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
    Quite obviously at this point: Iran and Russia have teamed up.
    Obama was attempting to shift US policy towards Iran. This infuriated KSA and Turkey to pick the other non Israel players listed above.
    Doran cited Jordan as vulnerable to Iranian pressure. (As the country that needs the US more than ever.)
    Obviously the US voting population is not interested in fighting wars in the Middle East and thus the isolationism of Obama and Trump reflects this reaction to the Bush wars.
    I think those who think the US can shift towards support for Iran, when in fact the US is aligned with the other three players mentioned above, are reflecting a desire for the US to stop playing a role in the world, rather than specifying a new direction for the US in the world. In terms of the world politics dynamic, the sides have been chosen: Turkey, KSA and Israel versus Iran. Russia is with iran and the US is with the other 3.
    A withdrawal of the US from the world is taking place under Trump and was taking place under Obama and I understand this general change in posture. Just one should be clear: that this realignment is a withdrawal rather than really a realignment. Iran is not a natural ally given the last 65 years and to present this change of attitude as something other than withdrawal is dishonest.

    • Mooser on March 23, 2019, 12:31 pm

      “Iran is not a natural ally given the last 65 years”

      Gee, I wonder why?

      • annie on March 23, 2019, 12:46 pm

        the absurdity of the statement. as if israel is a “natural” ally. what’s “natural” about this:

        The panel at the policy conference in Washington sounds like a typically-slanted presentation by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee:

        …the Islamic Republic is continuing its aggressive behavior across the region. Iran is building its intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities…

        this hate-mongering has been going on for decades, and we are to believe our aggressive stance towards iran is “natural”? if there was anything “natural” about our interactions in the ME there would be no reason for AIPAC to exist.

      • wondering jew on March 23, 2019, 7:58 pm

        Name one other time in the course of US history where the US did an about face , a 180 degree turn from its previous foreign policy to a new foreign policy. That is what some of you are proposing that the US will do: abandon Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Israel and become best pals with Iran. Obama’s nuclear treaty with Iran infuriated Saudi Arabia. I think it is more honest to say, “We wish to turn the Pentagon into an office building and to dismantle the US military. All commitments made until this moment of time are now null and void. We are no longer in the superpower business. All you people who we promised that we’d be there to defend you. Sorry. We were talking too big. We are no longer the world’s policeman. We quit. You are on your own.” That at least makes sense. But this: Let’s make a 180 degree turn, stop supporting Saudi Arabia and instead support Iran, how does that make sense? Where is the precedent for such a turnabout?

      • Talkback on March 24, 2019, 4:56 am

        wondering jew: “Name one other time in the course of US history where the US did an about face , a 180 degree turn from its previous foreign policy to a new foreign policy.”

        Like moving the embassy to Jerusalam or recognizing Golan Heights to be Israeli territory?

        wondering jew: “That is what some of you are proposing that the US will do: abandon Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Israel and become best pals with Iran. ”

        Oh, these kinds of 180 degree turns. I don’t think that the Zionists in the US would pay for that.

  5. DaBakr on March 22, 2019, 5:28 pm

    @pw
    you mean whataboutism? or Pakistan?
    has Israel ever threatened to invade and take land from an actual nation that wasn’t openly , politically and militarily hostile to it? threatening to ‘destroy’ or ‘level’ a nation that attacks it first is not an example of an expansionist nation. a paranoid possibly and extremely defensive nation..ok.

    and while normal , non zionist hating people can easily see from a simple geographic map that calling Israel an “expansionist colonialist regime’ is absurd when compared to the land mass that arab/muslim nations control in the region. and I noticed that some of the folks on here simply refuse to acknowledge that Iranian involvement and military expansion in the governments and militaries of: Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Gaza is anything close to expansionist. like the meaning of ‘the’ can be parsed as well to great political effect.

    • Misterioso on March 23, 2019, 11:10 am

      @DaBakr

      For your much needed edification, words of wisdom from an eminent scholar:

      “Israel’s Tragic But Predictable ‘Migration’ to the Right—An Analysis” (22 March 2019) by Professor Lawrence Davidson

      Part I—Israel’s Movement Right

      An article published in the Israeli news blog +972 on 19 November 2018 posed the question: Why does the right keep winning elections in Israel? The answer offered was “because Israelis are right wing.” Simple enough, and apparently, quite true. The article estimates that over half of Israeli Jews think of themselves as “right wing.” Self-defined centrists are about 25 percent, and those Israeli Jews who still cling to “leftist” ideals are now only about 15 percent of the population. The remainder are non-committal.

      This movement to the right is often blamed on the Palestinians, but that is largely an evasion. As the story goes, it was the Second Intifada (occurring from late 2000 to early 2005) that so scared a majority of Israeli Jews that it “led to a migration of left-wingers to the … political center… [and] centrists [to the] right, causing the percentage of Jewish right-wingers to drift upward over the decade.” While the “migration to the right” has certainly taken place, it is better understood as follows: under Palestinian pressure for democratic reforms and justice, along with corresponding resistance to oppression, Israeli Jews who could not face the prospect of real democracy had nowhere politically to go than to the right—what should properly be described as the racist right. And, so they went. From this point on there was no more obfuscation—Israeli “security” is now clearly a stand-in phrase for the maintenance of Israeli Jewish domination over non-Jews.

      Part II—Enter the Fascists

      The present shifting about on Israel’s political landscape prior to its April 2019 elections confirms this basically right wing racist scene. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu affirmed that Israel is “the national state, not of all its citizens, but only of the Jewish people.” A minority of Israeli Jews might denounce such racism, but Israel’s recently adopted nationality law states that the right of national self-determination in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people.” And whether the “left” acknowledges the fact or not, this law is in perfect sync with Zionist ideology.

      It should be noted that the prime minister’s personal preference is not for “the Jewish people” as a whole. Indeed, in his eyes, if you are an anti-Zionist Jew you are an anti-Semitic Jew—whatever that might mean. The prime minister is more comfortable with Jews of the fascist, racist right, with whom he has so much in common. This is the kind of Jew he has politically allied with. What in the world is a fascist Jew? Well, in this case, it is someone who uses violent methods to realize the logical consequences of Zionism—if Israel is a “Jewish state,” then non-Jews must go. How they ultimately go has been left an open-ended question, though Israel is engaged in a continuous effort to destroy Palestinian infrastructure. Fascist Jews advocate expulsion of all Palestinians and sometimes engage in direct violence—akin to classic pogroms—in an effort to fulfill this goal.

      You might shake your head in wonderment at the notion of Jewish fascists, but they have always been an important element in Zionist history. You can trace their activity from Vladimir Jabotinsky and his notion of an “iron wall” (1923) that would force the Palestinians to acquiesce in Zionist domination, right up to Meir Kahane, an advocate of expulsion, and his Kach Party (1971-1990). It is Kahane’s followers who now are political partners of Netanyahu. The “migration” of Israeli Jews to the right has narrowed the gap between the majority of “ordinary” citizens and the fascists. So, back into favor come the Kahanists.

      Part III—What Is an Israeli Centrist?

      Nor should we look for anti-racist activism among the 25 percent who see themselves as centrists. Presently, those who seek to capture the centrist vote are Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid. Gantz is former chief-of-staff and a man who is being sued for war crimes. He is leader of the Israeli Resilience Party (Hosen Israel). That party has allied with Yair Lapid, a former TV celebrity, and his There is a future Party (Yesh Atid).

      Both of these politicians call themselves “new centrists” and concentrate their platforms on “socio-economic issues such as the cost of living.” However, when it comes to the Palestinians, neither of them are interested in a democratic Israel that would afford non-Jews equal rights—nothing particularly “new” here for “centrists.” Gantz is the classic military maven so prevalent in Israeli politics. Here is his view of where “resilience” should take Israel relative to the Palestinians: “The Jordan Valley will remain our eastern security border,” Gantz declared. “We will maintain security in the entire Land of Israel … we will not allow the millions of Palestinians living beyond the separation fence to endanger our security and our identity as a Jewish state.” For someone who is campaigning on the theme that, under its present government, “Israel has lost its way,” Gantz’s intentions in this regard are remarkably similar to those of Benjamin Netanyahu.

      Yair Lapid’s position on the Palestinians is little different from that of Gantz. He says that “we need to separate from the Palestinians,” as if Israeli Jews haven’t been doing just that for the past 71 years. He goes on to demand that all issues of security have to “stay in Israel’s hands,” there is no such thing as a “right of return,” and Jerusalem will not be divided into two capitals.

      On the Palestinian issue—the one that now divides Israel from increasing numbers of citizens in the democratic world—there is little difference between the Israeli rightists and the centrists except that the latter do not publicly talk about the forceful expulsion.

      Part IV—Conclusion

      That approximately 85 percent of Israeli Jews should end up unwilling to grant equal rights to the 20 percent of Palestinians who are their segregated neighbors; that they should support, or at best not act against the relentless, vicious process of illegal settlement in the Occupied Territories; and finally that they should react to Palestinian resistance to Zionist oppression by “migrating” to the right, is both tragic and predictable.

      It must be realized that any country that allows racism to rule its public sphere cannot pass itself off as a democracy. It is simply a contradiction. The Zionist experiment looking toward a democratic Jewish state might have gone differently if it had been tried somewhere devoid of a non-Jewish population (like the moon), but then, in the end, the Zionists became obsessed with Palestine, fell in with the colonial mentality still prevalent during the first half of the twentieth century, and have never progressed beyond it.

      To this point, I beg the reader’s patience as I repeat an argument I have made more than once in past analyses: It is impossible to create a state exclusively for one people (call them people A) in a territory already populated by another people (call them people B) without the eventual adoption of racist policies by A and eventual resistance on the part of B. Under such circumstances, for A, there can be no real security, nor can there be anything like a healthy national culture.

      Indeed, unless a majority of Israeli Jews are willing to go the route of South Africa and renounce their program of discriminatory dominion over millions of non-Jews, they have nowhere else to go but head-first into the hell that is the racist right. With 85 percent sharing, or at least acquiescing, in the views of Netanyahu, Gantz, and Lapid, the chances for redemption do not look good. In fact, it is probably the case that the “light unto the nations” has long since gone out.


      Lawrence Davidson
      [email protected]

      Blog: http://www.tothepointanalyses.com

    • DaBakr on March 23, 2019, 3:11 pm

      @mst

      and for my “edification” I can pretty much from sentence one assume at any shift from the so-called progressive far left is the biggest problem for you other then a long laundry list of how every single problem in the Middle East (of which Iran is part of) stems from evil Israeli intentions. that much of your postings is well understood. but as far as Iran syria and assorted allies they share….they can barely shift any further right. no problem.

      • CigarGod on March 24, 2019, 9:50 am

        Holy Crap, Batman,
        How many of you write under the DaBakr name?

  6. Kay24 on March 22, 2019, 9:01 pm

    Shouldn’t Brett Stephen, Bari Weiss, and some others, also be headliners, in this cringeworthy gathering, where American leaders try to outdo each other kissing up to the zionists publicly?
    Or are they pretending to be unbiased “journalists”?

  7. pgtl10 on March 23, 2019, 1:07 am

    “You know, I’ve been all over the U.S. with AIPAC and it’s always a great pleasure, as an Israeli. I always tell AIPAC, you do so much in the U.S., and… I know that you’ve got our backs. It’s such a great feeling.”

    That’s funny. I’m pretty sure a black Muslim woman said something similar about AIPAC and was bashed with people outright denying it. That includes NYTimes staff.

  8. MalcolmLeftly on March 23, 2019, 1:16 am

    I guess we are to assume that Bergman being an Israeli is the difference maker for the NYT?

  9. MalcolmLeftly on March 23, 2019, 1:29 am

    Mr. Bret Stephens
    Associate Editor and Columnist
    The New York Times

    Also scheduled to speak.

  10. Misterioso on March 23, 2019, 10:47 am

    In case there is any doubt that America is in the hands of con artists and idiots:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47670717

    “Pompeo says God may have sent Trump to save Israel from Iran”
    BBC News, March 22/19

    “US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said it is ‘possible’ that President Donald Trump was sent by God to save Israel from Iran.

    “In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network during a high-profile trip to Israel, he said it was his faith that made him believe that.

    “He also praised US efforts to ‘make sure that this democracy in the Middle East, that this Jewish state, remains.’

    “The comments came on a Jewish holiday celebrating rescue from genocide.

    “The holiday, Purim, commemorates the biblical rescue of the Jewish people by Queen Esther from the Persians, as the interviewer noted to Mr. Pompeo.

    “What did Pompeo say?
    “He was asked if ‘President Trump right now has been sort of raised for such a time as this, just like Queen Esther, to help save the Jewish people from an Iranian menace.’

    “‘As a Christian, I certainly believe that’s possible,’ said Mr. Pompeo, a former Kansas senator and CIA director.

    “‘I am confident that the Lord is at work here,’ he added.

    “Mr. Pompeo came under fire during his tour of the Middle East for holding a conference call and only inviting ‘faith-based’ members of the media to join.

    “How often do US officials invoke religion?
    “Mr. Pompeo is not the first Trump official to suggest a divine will behind Mr. Trump’s actions: In January, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told a religious television network that God ‘wanted Donald Trump to become president.’

    “Vice-President Mike Pence and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions have also referenced Christianity or bible verses in official remarks.

    “His administration is also the first in 100 years to have a Cabinet member bible study group – of which Mr. Pompeo was a member.

    “What is the current state of US-Iran relations?
    “Since becoming president, Mr. Trump has sought a hard-line stance against Iran.

    “In May 2018, Mr. Trump withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal, calling it ‘a horrible one-sided deal’.

    “On Friday, his administration imposed new sanctions on 14 individuals and 17 organisations allegedly involved with Iran’s nuclear programme, claiming Iran would not answer questions about its weapons and research.

    “The new sanctions have barred these individuals and organisations from accessing the US financial system or any US assets.

    “And the threat of secondary US sanctions also discourages other countries from doing business with the targeted entities, making them “radioactive internationally”.

    “What about US-Israel relations?
    “Also on Thursday, Mr. Trump announced a change in US policy toward the Golan Heights, saying that the territory Israel has occupied from Syria since 1967 should be recognised as part of Israel.

    “In recent days, Mr. Trump has accused his Democratic rivals of being ‘anti-Israel’ and ‘anti-Jewish.’

    “The president is due to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next week, when he is in Washington to attend the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) annual meeting.

    “The remarks by Mr. Pompeo, and the Golan announcement by Mr. Trump, come just weeks before Israeli elections are held on 9 April.”

  11. James Canning on March 23, 2019, 10:58 am

    Aipac helped bring on the catastrophic US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Aipac pressed for sanctions against Syria which played a role in bringing on the disastrous civil war. And trying to set up war with Iran is yet further chaos & havoc in the Middle East promoted by Aipac.

Leave a Reply