Trending Topics:

Pro-Israel org praises Kamala Harris for being to the right of Obama on Iran Deal

on 32 Comments

During a campaign stop in Ames, Iowa last week, California Senator and presidential hopeful Kamala Harris was asked a number of questions by a crowd assembled at a local coffee shop.

One of those questions came from Kat Wellman, a woman affiliated with the organization Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI). Wellman asked if Harris would reenter or renegotiate the Iran Deal if elected president. While Harris condemned the Trump administration for violating the deal, she also made it clear that she would take a more aggressive stance than the Obama administration originally did. “We will reenter the agreement,” she said, “but also I will want to strengthen it. And that will mean extending the sunset provisions, including ballistic missile testing, and also increasing oversight.”

In an interview with the Ames Tribune, Wellmann praised Harris’ response. “I was very impressed with her. I thought she gave an excellent speech, she gave a very detailed, responsive answer to my question,” she told the paper, “I’m pro-Israel, so I was I was very concerned and all about making sure we limit nuclear missiles in any country that could possibly destroy us all. I thought her answer was very good.”

Democratic Majority for Israel was formed this past January by veteran Democrats and party donors. It aims to stomp out growing pro-Palestine sentiment within party and serve as a counterweight to anti-occupation Jewish organizations like IfNotNow. After IfNotNow activists confronted Elizabeth Warren at a campaign stop and asked her whether she would pressure Israel to end the occupation, DMFI sent out a memo claiming that Warren had been the “victim of [a] hit-and-run” tactic and condemning the organization for denying Israel’s right to exist. “The memo made clear to me how terrified the Democratic establishment is,” IfNotNow’s Emily Mayer told the Huffington Post at the time, “They know they are completely out of touch with the opinions of the Democratic base on the question of Israel’s military occupation and Israel-Palestine more broadly.”

Harris has distinguished herself as one of the most pro-Israel Democrats running for the presidential nomination. She’s resisted calls to condition aid to the country, refused to embrace United Nations votes condemning settlement expansion, and has openly embraced her affiliations with AIPAC.

“Her support for Israel is central to who she is,” said Harris’ campaign communications director, Lily Adams this past April, “She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza.”

Just days after Israeli forces injured 92 Palestinian civilians this past June, Harris told the New York Times that Israeli actions met human rights standards to her personal satisfaction.

Michael Arria

Michael Arria is the U.S. correspondent for Mondoweiss.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

32 Responses

  1. Steve Macklevore on October 10, 2019, 1:45 pm

    Kamala Harris, a disgusting so called ‘progressive.’

  2. Misterioso on October 11, 2019, 3:08 pm

    Kamala Harris is a disgusting supporter of racism and fascism, i.e., Zionism and its evil spawn, “Israel.”

    • echinococcus on October 11, 2019, 8:14 pm

      Why single out the Harris harpy? All Dim candidates are “disgusting supporters of racism and fascism, i.e., Zionism and its evil”, with the possible exception of Gabbard with regard to warmongering. I’m sure it will be no different for the Puke lineup when we get to hear from it.

      So why just Harris? All the bunch including Sanders (who voted the AUMF 1991) supports the Zionist state’s right to invade and commit genocide and all (outside perhaps Gabbard) support the spy outfits and the MIC wars.

      • gamal on October 12, 2019, 3:32 am

        “with the possible exception of Gabbard”

        “Islamophobic World View of Tulsi Gabbard’s Guru Revealed in Unearthed Recordings – Can she Still Run for President?”

        ““They [Muslims] are demons. They’re demons that go ‘Allalalalah’. It’s bullshit. But everyone is afraid of them, and Christians are so f*cking passive. So-called Christians are just watching the faggots take over. Watching the Muslims cut their throats. They’re just cowards because they’re afraid to tell the truth in case of what happens,” says Butler in one lecture, whose words are followed by the encouraging laughter of his followers”…..

        “Gabbard must now not only answer questions about her ties to Butler and the Science of Identity, but also those that ask how deeply entrenched the sect is embedded within her 2020 presidential campaign.

        Christine Gralow, a journalist who has contributed to The New York Times, has tracked the relationships and influence of known Science of Identity members since becoming a resident of Hawaii. At considerable risk to her life, Gralow has posted a great many of her investigative insights into the sect on her community-based website”

        One of the defining characteristics of people ignorant of the Islamic world is the notion that Islam is run by “Ulemas”, Chris Butler and “The Science of Identity” are apparently deeply involved in her campaign, hopey-changy ain’t what it used to be or is her belonging to a virulently racist sect irrelevant.

      • echinococcus on October 12, 2019, 1:59 pm

        No contest, Gamal.

        In fact, just because I don’t think that she’s the best thing since the invention of sliced bread, I qualified the statement that you truncated in your quote. “… with the possible exception of Gabbard with regard to warmongering”. Undeniably, so far she’s been opposing war of aggression by the Empire (a tad less forcefully, though, when it comes to war of aggression directly by the Zionists, and that makes the whole of her policy pronouncements a bit suspect.)

        Still, she is the single exception in XXty years out of the Single Party except possibly for Kucinich/Ron Paul. And that is the only relevant item for any candidate now.

        As for “ulemas and rabbies” in my note on circumcision (I imagine that’s what you’re referring to), as indicated by the redundant plural, it was not used as the plural of 3âlim but as the well-known colonialist term (borrowed from French) for upper-tier Moslem clergy.

      • echinococcus on October 12, 2019, 2:18 pm

        One other thing, Gamal: the use of the term “racism” for any group discrimination based on accident of birth is perfectly justified.

        If that discrimination is based strictly on religion, though (the Guru seems to oppose all Moslems, as in followers of a given religion), this has nothing, nada, zilch to do with racism. Religion is not transmitted by heredity. In the case of so-called “Islamophobia” of the Murkin Empire, of course it’s not what the propaganda title says, but murderous racism directed against all peoples of the Middle West of any goddam religion, or without any. So invoking “racism” here is ludicrous.

      • gamal on October 12, 2019, 3:38 pm

        “for upper-tier Moslem clergy”

        No Muslims either Shia Muslim or just Muslim, the sunni shit is starting to pall, have clergy neither Alim or the plural Ulema, even in the French sense of a religious establishment i am guessing, are clergy, they can certainly express opinions and issue futawa which have absolutely no force other than acclaim. There is neither clergy nor monasticism in Islam.

        It is usual for an Alim to achieve eminence by acclaim alone they are not elected appointed but just arise by reputation like a good doctor so the saying goes. And still they have no divine authority whatsoever, only that of example and argument.

        I often watched as the unofficial Grand Mufti of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland was derided for his errors of Law and Quranic interpretation by Pakistani teenagers among many others most non-Arabic speakers but a few Arabs too.

        Have you seen the Yemeni couple whose daughter, 12 or so, was droned to death, in their garden, I was struck by what the Niqabi mother said “All the time the drone was buzzing overhead filming everywhere it went they bombed, filming but still killed her”

        probably the arabs don’t love their children like we do…

        perhaps we should seize the kids put them into schools to protect them from the ulemas, like the native Americans like the first nations like they are still doing in Australia ( have you seen Utopia its a real place in Australia Pilgers film of that name is available free on youtube)

        cutting to the chase let me express my utter disgust with people who have the gall to claim that Muslims abuse their children doing what quite normal to them while the west has slaughtered and continues to do so Arab children in their multiple thousands has bequeathed untold generations of deformed and severely impaired children, has wasted the lives of an untold multitude.

        I circumcised both my sons and would do so again were I to have any further issue, nor you nor anyone else own their innocence and defenselessness, nor do I or we owe you an explanation, you don’t like it don’t do it, we do it it’s our business.

      • gamal on October 12, 2019, 3:48 pm

        “nada, zilch to do with racism”

        Because Islam isn’t a race? You don’t know what racism is? according to the commonly accepted usage?

      • Mooser on October 12, 2019, 5:00 pm

        “As for “ulemas and rabbies” in my note on circumcision…” “Echin”

        Ah yes, that note, containing “matchless medical and biostatistical wisdom”. I believe it went like this:

        “The best in all this is that ulemas and rabbies both profit from a supposed (and statistically faulty, controversial) advantage in homosexual men. So, in all logic, they are essentially recommending circumcision… in order to allow the circumcisee the practice of sodomy.” “Echin”

        And such plain logic, too.

      • echinococcus on October 12, 2019, 9:28 pm


        As written a couple comments upstream, ” the use of the term “racism” for any group discrimination based on accident of birth is perfectly justified.”

        Islam, rosicrucianism or pentecostalism are not accidents of birth. I believe that the age of majority, when one is supposed to know if one have has any religion, and if so what, varies between 18 and 22 years of age according to local law.

      • echinococcus on October 12, 2019, 9:44 pm


        “Ah yes, that note, containing “matchless medical and biostatistical wisdom”. I believe it went like this:”

        Just for the record, Mooser, it went exactly like this:
        “Mr Weiss and Co. now censor medical discussion. I suppose I’ll have to defer to their matchless medical and biostatistical wisdom”

        Who’d’ve thunk it, the specialist in archive hunting engaging in petty distortion games…

        As for plain logic, nothing plainer than this:

        1. the only argument for the official US medical recommendation on child circumcision is extrapolated from some data on homosexual male intercourse,

        2. that recommendation is being pushed both by Muslim and Jewish clergy, without mentioning the many faithful, and of course the many godless Zionists,

        3. ergo, the only group that the religious pro-circumcision protesters are certainly encouraging by using that medical-backed recommendation to defend circumcision is that of those for whom the data apply (the advantage was not proved for any other group of males.)

        Let me know where the fault with the logic is.

      • oldgeezer on October 13, 2019, 1:59 am


        The study was not, by definition, a scientific study. I think it might make sense that the same results might be validated in a scientific study but until one is undertaken that is irrelevant. This was more a situation of we have results that support our bias so we’ll publish them.

      • Talkback on October 13, 2019, 9:31 am

        echi: “As written a couple comments upstream, ” the use of the term “racism” for any group discrimination based on accident of birth is perfectly justified.”

        Nope. The term racism is not defined by the targeted group but by the racist. A racist inherently claims that all members of its targeted group have the same negative features by birth which implies that they can’t do anything about it, because it’s in their genes/biology. It doesn’t matter if the targeted group are a “race” or not.

      • echinococcus on October 14, 2019, 2:59 am


        I’m not saying anything different than you do re racism: it’s not about race, but any characteristic by birth, real or imagined.

        One thing it is *not is any discrimination based on later-acquired character, more precisely choice — like effective religion (as opposed to hereditary allocation into religious groups.)

      • echinococcus on October 14, 2019, 3:03 am

        Old Geezer,

        That was my objection, too.

      • RoHa on October 15, 2019, 2:33 am

        I’d like to expand on Echi’s basic point.

        Part 1.

        Racism is seen as a Bad Thing because it conflicts with our sense of justice. We hold that people should not be punished for things over which they have no control, and race, in the biological sense, is one of those things.

      • echinococcus on October 15, 2019, 12:05 pm

        Thank you, RoHa.

        Part II – Discrimination based on things other than real or imagined biological “race”, which are inherited at birth, or determined by these, such as citizenship, mother tongue, etc., counts for racism as much as that based on race. At least in civilized usage. So that is exactly what I’ll continue to use it for.

        Part III – Anything else, ie any group discrimination based on characteristics acquired later in life, like *the choice* of religion (as opposed to “religion” as stamped on birth certificates by the Ottomans or the Zionists), or none, or in fact any other choices, are perfectly kosher: all choices are always open to discussion or censure.

      • mondonut on October 15, 2019, 1:45 pm

        Hating on Gingers is now racism. Who knew? Too funny.

      • Jon66 on October 15, 2019, 6:25 pm

        “Racism is seen as a Bad Thing because it conflicts with our sense of justice. We hold that people should not be punished for things over which they have no control, and race, in the biological sense, is one of those things.”

        Of course Echi makes an exception for the majority of Jewish Israelis who are there having been born there..
        If a baby born in 2019 was descended from a great great great great grandfather who emigrated to Israel in 1900, Echi would like that infant dispossessed and deported.

      • RoHa on October 15, 2019, 9:36 pm

        Part 2
        If a chap is born with red hair, or has a Welsh grandfather, or something similarly awful, we grit our teeth and try not to hold it against him. Those misfortunes are not in his control.

        (As Echi said.)

      • RoHa on October 15, 2019, 9:42 pm

        Part 3
        But if a fellow decides, of his own free will, to become a Mafia enforcer, or an opera singer, or a Postmodernist, we then say that he has chosen to be a blot on the landscape and a torment to his fellow men. It was in his control, and so we say he deserves a damned good kicking for it.

        (Still following Echi’s line.)

      • RoHa on October 15, 2019, 9:43 pm

        Part 4
        So when the many-headed use the term “racism” to refer to prejudice against religious groups, they are, as usual, adding to the general conceptual disorder that passes for thought among the fashionable.

      • RoHa on October 15, 2019, 9:45 pm

        Part 5

        This does not mean that prejudice against religious groups is always permissible, but it does mean that such prejudice should be treated on its merits or lack thereof, rather than simply subsumed under the category of racism.

      • RoHa on October 15, 2019, 9:45 pm

        @ Mondonut.

        But everyone loves Fred and Ginger.

      • RoHa on October 15, 2019, 9:48 pm


        That is a point on which I disagree with Echi. I think that those people do, in fact, have a right to live there.

        I do not think that they have a right to maintain a supremacist state there, or to deny the Palestinians the right of return.

      • echinococcus on October 15, 2019, 9:59 pm

        “Of course Echi makes an exception for the majority of Jewish Israelis who are there having been born there..”

        Of course I do not!

        That is not up to me but to the Palestinian people as a collective, as expressed in a plebiscite
        – that excludes all invaders as of the moment the Zionists declared their intent to subvert the sovereignty over Palestine;
        – that consults all Palestinians inside or outside Palestine, who had to emigrate as a result of the genocidal Zionist invasion and the British repression supporting it;
        – in the absence of any duress or coercion, most importantly in the absence of any military occupation or economic sanctions.

        If the Zionist invader offspring can produce this permission and get accepted as loyal Palestinian citizens, fine with us, of course. The people who should shut up about this, in any case, are the Zionists, who all have a vested interest in the invasion and colonial settlement (like 66 himself.)

        Otherwise we would be remunerating criminals against humanity for their crime of colonial settlement and genocide.

      • echinococcus on October 15, 2019, 11:30 pm


        Thank you for Part 5. In my minimalist lowbrow thinking, I always assume it is implicit. Which it is not for everyone.

        As for your comment to Part 2, you could, and certainly at first had an urge to, have chosen French mother tongue as an example. I’d like to thank you for your gracious restraint.

      • Mooser on October 16, 2019, 12:03 pm

        “If a chap is born with red hair… we grit our teeth and try not to hold it against him.”

        I sure wouldn’t! He might be a member of The Red-Headed League.

      • Mooser on October 16, 2019, 12:10 pm

        “Let me know where the fault with the logic is.” “Echin”

        Looks like you drew the only possible conclusion.

      • RoHa on October 17, 2019, 1:29 am

        “your gracious restraint”

        I didn’t want to exceed the limit of my teeth-gritting powers.

      • Jon66 on October 17, 2019, 10:19 am

        “Otherwise we would be remunerating criminals against humanity for their crime of colonial settlement and genocide.”

        Is there a limit on the number of generations that a child is accountable for what you consider crimes committed by a distant relative?

  3. genesto on October 11, 2019, 4:14 pm

    I’m actually happy to see only one other comment on this article. It’s consistent with the fading away of her candidacy. She has exposed herself to be little more than an HRC clone, and HRC clones are dying away. Just ask Joe Biden.

    Soon, Kamala will sit alongside Joe and Hillary in the dustbin of American history. Adios!

Leave a Reply