Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 4700 (since 2011-11-07 00:34:23)

Peace, social justice, belonging, human rights, homeland for the peoples of the Holy Land. To discuss Mondoweiss articles further, please come to the Mondoweiss Friendfeed page:

Showing comments 4700 - 4601

  • A foreign leader -- Netanyahu -- set Trump's agenda in Middle East, Michael Wolff book says
    • Let's talk about Trump's political base of support and Breitbart. This can help us understand why Trump relies so much on them, and how as the title of the post says, "A foreign leader — Netanyahu — set Trump’s agenda in Middle East".

      Trump needed powerful forces to get where he is, and apparently a big part of that is Kushner. Phil can tell us alot about Kushner, having worked for him. He wants a major part of the Israeli lobby to support him, like Kushner. And Breitbart is a big part of that.

      Breitbart was set up as a pro-Israeli propaganda outfit to get the "Alt-Right" into the Pro-Israeli camp. Here is Wikipedia's biography page on Andrew Breitbart:

      Breitbart later said of his profession: "I'm glad I've become a journalist because I'd like to fight on behalf of the Israeli people...

      During a stay in Israel, Breitbart and Larry Solov conceived of the idea of founding Breitbart News Network, with "the aim of starting a site that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel. We were sick of the anti-Israel bias of the mainstream media and J-Street."[28]

      Solov has written:

      One night in Jerusalem, when we were getting ready for dinner, Andrew turned to me and asked if I would de-partner from the 800-person law firm where I was practicing and become business partners with him. He said he needed my help to create a media company. He needed my help to "change the world." ... We were blown away by the spirit, tenacity, and resourcefulness of the Israeli people on that trip. Andrew could be quite convincing, not to mention inspiring, and I decided right there and then to "throw away" (my Mom's phrase) a perfectly good, successful and safe career in order to start a "new media" company with Andrew Breitbart.


      So Breitbart's tactic is to get the Alt-Right to support the Israeli system and Trump. The Alt Right has a major portion of economically and politically disenfranchised voters. They do not feel like Bush or Obama addressed their needs and gave them a voice, as the economy continued to tumble under Bush & the NeoCons and under Obama. Breitbart realized that to appeal to them, he needed to divert their attention and outrage away from Neocon policies in the Middle East and economic concerns and back onto the "Whipping boy" of Muslims and Arabs. This way, even a historically antisemitic leaning demographic could be turned to support Neocon policies beneficial ot the Israeli system.

      Trump realized that he could use the Alt-Right, Breitbart, and the pro-Israeli lobby as a base of support, because the Alt-Right was unhappy with Obama, and the pro-Israeli lobby was quite powerful. The Pro-Israeli forces were unhappy with Obama for not doing enough for them, and Trump can fulfill their desires by moving the embassy to Jerusalem, etc. Meanwhile, the "Alt-right" does not realize that it's getting taken for a ride by what is in fact a repackaged NeoCon proIsraeli platform and political program.

      Getting back to the title of this article, the Israeli lobby is able to set the foreign policy agenda easily because it provides a major support base that Trump needs.

  • New Israeli train line with station named after Trump was built on stolen Palestinian land
    • It's surprising to me how deeply Trump is part of the Israeli lobby.
      I am surprised that he moved the embassy. Back before he was elected, when asked about it by a Zionist group, he was noncommittal.

      His ending of the war in Syria does not seem to be something the Israeli lobby wanted, on the other hand. So it's hard for me to tell how deeply he is in with them.

      There does seem to be a major overlap between:
      Trump, Kushner, The Israeli Lobby, and Breitbart

      All of them seem to want to use the "Alt Right" as a major support base, and it would be interesting to see if Mondoweiss might explore this. Since Phil used to work for Kushner, he might seem to have some insight on this.

      For example, did Trump look at his political options for supporters and then decided that Breitbart would be best as a support base? Or did Breitbart already exist, sending out its appeals to the Alt Right market of audiences, and then decide that some candidate like Trump would be great. Who picked who? Did Breitbart and the Lobby create Trump's candidacy, or did Trump pick Breitbart and the Lobby? And how close are they really?

      This is from the Wikipedia page for Breitbart News:

      Conceived by Breitbart during a visit to Israel in mid-2007 as a website "that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel",

      ... An article by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in The Hill disputed the allegations [against Breitbart of anti-Semitism], arguing that Breitbart defends Israel against antisemitism. Alexander Marlow denies that Breitbart is a "hate-site", stating "that we're consistently called anti-Semitic despite the fact that we are overwhelmingly staffed with Jews and are pro-Israel and pro-Jewish. That is fake news."

      Breitbart London announced that it would have a staff of 10 along with hundreds of contributors covering Israel and the Middle East from the London office.

      On November 17, 2015, the website launched Breitbart Jerusalem, which covers events in Israel and the wider Middle East. It is edited by Israel-based American reporter Aaron Klein.[116] Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has been an occasional columnist.

      "Friends of Hamas" story
      On February 7, 2013, Ben Shapiro published an article on Breitbart News reporting allegations that former Senator and nominee for United States Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) may have been paid to speak at an event sponsored by a group called "Friends of Hamas."[140] Breitbart News said that the story was based on exclusive information from U.S. Senate sources. ...

      An investigation by Slate reporter David Weigel failed to confirm the existence of the purported group.[145] On February 19, New York Daily News reporter Dan Friedman said that the story had originated from a sarcastic comment he had made to a congressional staffer. "Friends of Hamas" was one of several groups which Friedman considered to be so over-the-top as to be implausible and obviously fictitious. He was investigating rumors that Hagel had been paid for speaking to "contoversial organizations", and asked sarcastically whether he had addressed "Friends of Hamas."

  • Zionism didn't have to turn out so badly for Palestinians, says Roger Cohen
    • In Chomsky's nonstate Zionist model, as I understand it, Israelis and Palestinians would each get separate economic and social organizations, while living in a binational state.

      Unfortunately, isn't that model based on an unrealistic segregation principle of "separate but equal"? If one group's social and economic organizations are more successful and become richer and more powerful than the other's, won't inequality result?

  • How Netanyahu's son became the poster boy for white supremacists
  • 'It is time to break the silence': Palestinian professor speaks out after having speech cancelled under pressure
    • "How much longer will The Lobby continue to get away with this stuff?"
      For a long time, ie as long as their supporters are zealous and socio-economico-politically powerful. There is no near counterweight in terms of funds and dedication on the IP issue. The biggest potential counterweight, JStreet, is de facto AIPAC lite.

    • "And have the teachers been reinstated?"

  • Israel charges UNESCO with 'Fake history'
    • In the city of Pervomaysk ("May 1st"), a 50 year time capsule from 1967 was dug up recently, for the centenniel of the November 1917 Revolution. In the capsule there was an Address to the future generation of 2017, where they believed there would be would peace. Instead of the 1967 Israeli-Arab conflict and Agression against Palestine, the Address said with certainty that the future generation would not have to worry about conflicts like the "Aggressors of Israel".

  • Clinton lost because PA, WI, and MI have high casualty rates and saw her as pro-war, study says
    • Great article.
      I am a registered Dem and live in a rural area and Clinton's prowar outlook is what made the election contest very tough. I ended up not voting.

  • Trump may want a deal, but Israeli Jews are not interested
    • “I am on the left. I think we are wrong. I don’t think we are right,” said Dahlia, 71. “But I don’t want Arabs in my state. They are too different from us. I am afraid of them. I think they’re violent. I don’t think it’s their nature, but their culture. I don’t think they’re a nation. They came from I don’t know where.”

      Sounds like typical Xenophobia.
      Jordanians and Lebanese and non-ISIS Syrians are fine.
      There are already 25% of Israelis who are Palestinian, so she is even being hateful to her own cocitizens.
      If that is from a "leftist" Israeli, the xenophobia must run really really deep.

  • Gilad Atzmon’s attack against me – the 'merchant of JVP'
    • I wonder if he could intentionally be trying to create conflict in the solidarity movement. If he were legitimate, why would he be opposing BDS.

      It seems like if someone wanted to derail the SOlidarity movement they would create people saying outrageous things to create inner conflict.

    • Good points.

  • US body on religious freedom rebuffed Palestinian Christians-- and Zogby says group was 'bullied'
  • Traveling on Israeli government's dime, novelist trashes Netanyahu and ministers as 'sorceress and stupid apprentices'
  • Anti-settlements resolution could be 'last straw' for many Massachusetts Dems, warns party boss in AIPAC's pocket
    • So settlements is more important to those pro-settler Dems than basic liberal v. conservative politics?

  • Settlers from Kushner family-funded community attack 3 Israeli grandmothers
    • I want to ask Phil what it was like being a what, 40 year old journalist, and working for a strict(?) 25 year old editor at the Observer, Jared Kushner.

  • 'Why do I not cry out for the right of return?' -- an exchange between Uri Avnery and Salman Abu Sitta
    • It's kind of like if your nice multimillionaire neighbor's dog comes over and bites your kid on the back of the neck and you ask for restitution and they reply "It's complicated".

  • 'We need revolutionary visions and radical imaginations' -- a report from JVP
  • Robert Silvers was a lion on Vietnam and Iraq, and a pussycat on Israel
  • UNC SJP responds to ongoing debate over cancellation of Rania Khalek event
    • Don't worry, there is "at least one of them clearly and consistently opposing the US imperialist line and international aggression. "


    • Harry,
      Thank you for your reply.
      You answered my question by saying:

      When “the West” and the whole of the MSM want regime change and call Assad a monster, it is difficult to argue against this group think. It is a fact that when newspapers like the Guardian have pro regime change opinion pieces , there has been tremendous pushback from the comments section.

      However, it seems that in the case of Yugoslavia, when the West and MSM was saying Serbia was genocidal, and in the case of Palestine, when the West and MSM were calling the PLO terrorist, the Left and Solidarity forces understood that the West and MSM was wrong in its campaign and that Serbia shouldn't get attacked and that Palestinians were abused under occupation. L.Proyect for example had at least partial sympathy for Yugoslavia.

      So this raises the question of why a significant faction of the radical/strong Left and Solidarity movement would be taking such opposite sides on this issue.

      It looked like Max Blumenthal was super-anti-Assad and supported the rebels, but then he seemed to later have a very different attitude about the war like in his reporting on the White Helmets. So it looks like there are some major conflicts within the Left on this issue.

      So I am trying to understand better what is going on inside the Left. I can understand that Assad was authoritarian and so Leftists would support a change there, but then in that case I need to ask realistically how Leftist or even simply democratic the rebels are before supporting them.

    • Hard to say that Trotskyists collectively "were on the other side" on the Syria issue. It looks like those identifying as Trotskyists were rather divided on this issue.

      L.Proyect has said why he chose "the other side" this time, although I don't think he would agree with that characterization.

    • Most recent was 2003 Iraq invasion. They had large antiwar marches. Most effective was probably Vietnam era in ending the war.

    • Harry,
      Do you have an explanation for the major faction of Solidarity and Left activists who support FSA and want to see the rebels overthrow Assad?
      Where are they coming from? Do they believe FSA is for freedom and democracy, and that Assad is no better than ISIS?

    • Rania was born in Lebanon I think. Were her parents Palestinian refugees?

  • 'We may no longer be permitted—nor permit ourselves—to enter Israel,' 172 scholars write
    • Please explain how this got in the list:
      "Adolph Hitler, National Socialist University of Berlin"

      It's listed closer to the end and right below
      Rachel Havrelock, University of Illinois at Chicago
      Alma Heckman
      Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College

  • British artist Banksy opens 'Walled Off' hotel in Bethlehem, to international attention
  • 'We will not go back' in struggle against racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia -- Bernie Sanders
    • "as a society which is taken as a foreign outpost and as a messenger of another—of a big power"?:

      "My Country" ("Moldau"?)
      Good music.

    • " It’s a pleasure to be here with J Street, which has been such a strong voice for saner, more progressive foreign policy ideas."

      There is a certain theory that J Street is actually (and not just practically) another side of the same lobby.

  • The 50th anniversary of the occupation will rock the Jewish establishment
  • On rewards against terror and for justice
  • Albert Einstein's advice to Jared Kushner
    • I liked this article and the story about quotes on the refrigerator reminded me of our site's champion of THE PROPHETIC, Marc Ellis, whose writings I miss a bit recently.

      The question of One State, or even Tow States reminds me of the theme of THE PROPHETIC. It is a prediction of a positive, good status to come.

      The question I would like to ask someone who has studied THE PROPHETIC, is: If something is predicted in Tanakh, how do we know it will come to pass? For example, Isaiah 26 predicts the resurrection, Rambam said Daniel predicted the date of Messiah's arrival and that Is. 42 predicted Messiah's death. These were associated with a blessed future state of the world.

      The prophecies in Tanakh were accompanied by claims that God inspired or said these predictions through the prophet's mouth. But just because a person is inspired I don't know is enough to mean some prediction will occur.

      I mean, if Marc Ellis or another moral, powerful writer declared that God inspired him to say that we will have a Two State or One State solution within in the next 20 years where millions of Israelis and Palestinians live in justice and peace together, I don't know that this would be some full proof. I mean, I respect Marc and would value that he said this, but I don't know that simply him making that declaration would mean it must occur. I would think rather that we would have to examine the prediction on the merits before coming to a conclusion.

      Nowadays we have different Prophetic, moral, inspiring leaders making predictions, but I don't know that we can say that the inspiring predictions will definitely occur.

  • Celebrating Tu B’shvat, the 'new year for trees,' as ethnic cleansing continues
    • I am interested in your ideas too, Keith. For example, do you believe in the concept of The Prophetic?

    • Keith,
      You ask: "As for a Christian Prophetic, wouldn’t that be more meaningful coming from you than from him?"
      Sure, I can see that it would be.
      However, I am asking what the "Christian Prophetic" would be according to Judaism.
      Marc is saying that only the "Jewish Prophetic" is "indigenous", whereas the "Christian Prophetic" is imported from Judaism. I am putting in question whether the prophetic is really only imported when it comes from gentiles, because the Torah talks about legitimate prophecy from gentiles, even ones like Balaam who weren't getting their belief system from Judaism and at times were even antagonism to Old Testament/Tanakh Judaism, which even Christians aren't.

      Balaam was gentile and had the prophetic, yet the Tanakh didn't suggest that he adopted it out of Judaism, rather Tanakh treats it as independent corroboration of Tanakh.

    • Mooser,

      Maybe it's a ghostlike problem. For practical purposes, a Luther-owned worship building is not itself a Lutheran church service. For practical purposes, it's the same as a synagogue during synagogue worship. The fact that it's Lutheran owned building seems to imply a ghostlike presence left over that still lays around when the synagogue service occurs.

      Or maybe for Marc it's like holding a Jewish or Christian service in a witches' coven: Luther's anti-interfaith antagonism and polemics are so blasphemous that no Dietrich Bonhoeffer can wipe Luther's evil out from their religion.

    • It's nice that M.Ellis takes up the topic of the Prophetic. I think this topic should be for dialogue and I wish he responded to the comments section more.

      For example, he has said that The Prophetic is "indigenous" to the Jewish people, not to, say, Christians.

      Interestingly, the Judaism 101 article on prophets explains:
      A prophet is not necessarily a Jew. The Talmud reports that there were prophets among the gentiles (most notably Balaam, whose story is told in Numbers 22),

      So already in the era and eyes of the Torah there were fully legitimate non-Jewish prophets indigenous in their homelands, before the Bible was spread to other nations in Christian times.

    • OK. Thanks. Maybe I will take you up on that sometime.

    • How does one get in touch with Marc Ellis?
      Does he have a website?

    • "worse, in of all places, a Lutheran church. Luther was a Jew-hater, and though Lutherans are now thoroughly reformed, I still can’t abide worshiping in a Lutheran space."

      I understand what you mean, Marc.
      However, if you would like a way to deal with this fact, think of it in a pragmatic sense. The building is owned by Lutherans, but when the synagogal service is going on, it's not a Lutheran thing. The physical space itself is the same thing as a Jewish synagogue, pews and all, except they could have a table at the front.

  • Israel-Palestine conflict could 'explode' under Donald Trump, Israel supporter warns
  • Adelson and Saban were kingmakers, now they're beggars
  • Trump has a 'magic moment' in June 2017 to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, Israel lobbyist tells NY synagogue
  • Stephen Cohen calls out liberal media for demonizing Russia, slurring Tillerson and stigmatizing all dissent
  • Unsettle Zionism, champion humanity
  • 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' -- Really?
    • I think he means both because he said "only".
      If he meant just one kind of problem, he would not say "only".

    • “Judaism only solves problems through discussion."
      The Torah of Moses comes off more as dictates by God to those in his covenant, rather than a series of negotiations between him and Moses.

      "The purpose of the Talmud is discussion not dictates."
      Talmud often or usually does rely on discussion, but sometimes the discussion results in decisions and rules that serve as dictates. Also, as on Mount Sinai, wouldn't you agree that not everybody affected by the discussion is invited to take part in the discussion.

    • Jonathan,

      You asked a good question:

      Rosenberg professed that this ‘radical inclusion and love’ is what the Torah teaches. But is this really true?

      It is hard to agree that the Torah teaches "radical inclusion", because it de facto treated gentiles, those who are outside the Mosaic covenant based on circumision as ritually unclean, even if they accept belief in Yahweh and monotheism. One of the reasons was that the gentiles did not obey the food rules of ritual cleanliness.

      a Jew, in order not to eat of the kinds of food God had prohibited, could not eat in a Gentile home because undoubtedly there was going to be contamination there. That built up a great wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles.
      It forced them to distinguish themselves from other nations, for those kinds of food stipulations meant that an Israelite could not have real intimate interaction with a Gentile because intimacy most often came around a dinner table. So if you didn’t eat with Gentiles, you didn’t have the intimacy of communion that you would have had otherwise. Remember that it is when they started eating and drinking and making merry that the Israelites started mingling with the Canaanites. So God’s distinctions with regard to food helped to maintain the distinction of Israel as a nation apart from Gentiles as a nation in the Old Testament.

      The Torah maintained a strong sense of separation between those who were part of the Mosaic covenant and those who weren't. Besides food, other distinctions included what community could rule the land and what group could go into the Temple to pray. And with these ritual requirements and walls, it's hard to see the Torah as teaching a "radical" inclusion. I understand that the Torah did demand toleration to be exercised towards other communities living under Israelite rule. But that is different from a teaching of "radical inclusion".

    • This was a good article - I liked it in that it was able to take a dissident critical view of religion, in particular ancient Judaism. I would like to see if Marc Ellis would comment on it. Sadly, I haven't seen his articles on Mondoweiss for a long time.

      I think that the essay implies how Christianity was revolutionary or revelatory. Jesus addressed the question this way:

      29 But he... said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

      30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed,[j] he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’ 36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?”

      37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.”

      So in Jesus' idea of who the "neighbor" is, the "neighbor" is in fact the person who shows compassion like the Samaritan outsider, rather than the person who belongs to the same religious community.

      It's an interesting issue, because when the Torah refers to the "neighbor", as a matter of linguistics it looks like the verse in Leviticus does not specify the answer exactly about who the "neighbor" is. I think if the answer was obvious from the text, then in the gospel story the man would not have raised the question to Jesus. That is, the ambiguity in Leviticus is what allows the parable about the Samaritan to be told.

      For Strong's Dictionary on the meaning of "neighbor", see:

  • The link between Israel's forest fires and the 'muezzin bill'
  • FL State Sen. Dwight Bullard opposed an anti-BDS measure -- and lost his job
    • Although Congressman Ellison’s public announcement in opposition to BDS is unfortunate, Congressman Ellison is an ally to Palestinians and should not be ostracized for what I am sure was a very difficult and forced decision for him to make.
      You mean Bullard?


  • A conversation with Miko Peled
    • i think sometimes you just have to accept that people have different opinions, impressions and/or conclusions than you do and accept you won’t always see eye to eye.

      You are right, and I wish it was that simple. With Geezer it could be a moot point, since he is saying Peled was not antiSemitic.

      It becomes a practical obstacle to activism when these "impressions" are used as a basis to target the leading activists for human rights issues. De Facto it has the appearance of finding some "politically correct" bases to denounce them. So JVP and US CEIO can write out long denunciations, but when you pick them apart, the denouncers can't give specific, exact explanations as to what is supposedly anti-Semitic.

      It's like the Bullard case. Wasserman and others didn't need to explain to Bullard on the phone that he was "anti-Semitic" or anti-liberal or anti-American, or even explain how BDS is inherently anti-Israel (Chomsky says BDS is not anti-Israel, for example). All Wasserman and the apparatchiks and lobbyists need to do is to make denunciations of Bullard or threats to him, in order to impose their political will and make him lose his re-election.

      Same thing with JVP and US CEIO. They have become "big deals" now and don't feel a need to give an actual blow by blow account and dialogue about what they have claimed to be various anti-Semitisms in the activists they denounce. They just make private judgments on their own - their leadership decided to support canceling Peled's talks, and no discussion with the membership was needed. And when JVP reversed their decision, again, no public discussion was needed about the specifics of the accusations.

    • Dear Geezer,

      Thank you for writing back. Your views are important, because they could give insight into why people like JVP were offended by Peled's tweet. I understand that you are not calling Peled "Anti-Semitic."

      However, I have read all your messages and it's as if you did not actually weigh what I asked you about, giving examples and analogies.

      For example, how exactly did Peled announce a "who can blame them type of thing"?

      Peled never said "Who can blame them?"!

      Peled, who is a Jewish Israeli, pointed out that the state, dedicated to only one religion/ethnicity, was getting very large US donations for its policies against a conquered religion/ethnicity. And he directly implied that people shouldn't be surprised if it creates a negative reputation for the religion/ethnicity.

      Where exactly in the paragraph above did he say that the negative reputation was correct or actually ask "Who can blame them?"

      Why do you not understand that he never actually said what you are inserting into his statement? You have never given any specific explanation of where he actually clearly stated this.

      Why are you reading into his statements things that people don't read into statements about Christian countries' conquests of the Americas and the resulting impressions it creates about Christians, correct or not? It's a very important question, because JVP is repeatedly doing the same thing when it interprets statements by numerous activists this way.

    • Geezer,
      You are right that Yonah hijacked the thread, which is his standard MO here, making anti Palestinian commentary, vacuous or otherwise (eg. his woof comment).

      I also like that you understand Palestinians' human rights needs. This brings me to something that is quite relevant to thread and curious, namely, the challenge of understanding how supporters of Palestinian rights like perhaps the JVP leadership or yourself could find Peled's and Bruce Shipman's statements to be inherently anti-Semitic.

      I request that you please review Phil's mention on the Shipman case here:
      I also responded to your last comment to me above.

      Namely, why do you believe that saying "Severe abuses by a state dedicated to only one ethnicity or religion can lead to negative impressions about the ethnicity or religion on question" implies that anyone who forms those impressions is CORRECT to do so?

      If I told you that Germany's crimes in WWII led to discrimination against German Americans, would you be able to say reliably if I believed that the discrimination was excusable?

      One of the big obstacles to addressing Human rights in the Holy Land is that activists are given the burden of proving that they are not antiJewish by not only anti-Pals like Yonah here, but by professed advocates like JVP. I have even heard such supposed sympathizers of Palestinians in denouncing A. Weir claim that Yes, activists have to first prove totally that they are not racists, or else they are racist.

      It's like by working on the IP issue over a long time, it's guaranteed that JVP or others will automatically presume that something objectively factual you said is anti-Semitic, even if like Peled you happen to be Jewish.

    • Dear Geezer,
      Peled did not "Crimes by a state dedicated to one ethnicity or religion cause people to CORRECTLY blame that ethnicity or religion".

      He said it can cause people to make that association.

      Do you see the difference?

      I think that conquests undertaken by Christian countries or by Muslim countires have created a reputation for Christians or Muslims to spread their faith by conquest. Marc Ellis has written here on MW making these kinds of generalizations, saying that Christians spread their religion by conquest.

      In the paragraph above, where did I ever say or imply "Christians CORRECTLY have a reputation for spreading their religion by conquest because of the actions of Christian kingdoms"?
      In fact I have repeatedly objected to Marc Ellis that one cannot equate the actions of Christian states with those of "The Christians".

      This is one reason why it is so hard to advocate for Palestinians as an activist in the US. You are someone who sincerely cares about Palestinians. And your case is not unique. Critical discussions about Israel unavoidably bring up the topic of the Jewish people, because the Israeli state claims to represent them everywhere as their home. And when that happens, there are very many people who do like you just did and insert anti-Jewish insinuations and implications that are not inherent in the critical statements made by the activists.

      So if someone says that "In 16th c. Greece the Muslims repressed the Christians and forcibly converted some of them to Islam", people understand that to be a statement of fact. But if someone says "In early 1948 in Palestine the Jews had already begun expelling Muslim and Christian villages", then some other people will automatically insert all kinds of implications into that statement, as if it blames The Jewish People per se.

      This kind of inserting anti Jewish discriminatory sentiment where it may not actually exist goes a long way to shutting down critical discourse in America about Palestinians' suffering under Israeli rule, since the state is dedicated to The Jewish people. That fact instantly creates de facto "pro Israeli" anti critical defensive walls in the minds of many otherwise thoughtful progressives.

      How else can you explain why JVP would automatically applaud shutting down Peled's human rights speaking campaign?

    • Dear Geezer,

      You misunderstood Peled and me. Peled never said "Jews are sleazy". I never said that the state's bad actions justifies or proves negative ideas about the nationality it is dedicated to.

      Instead, Peled said that the nation state's sleaziness cold cause some people to think that this reflects the state's dedicated nationality . He did not actually say that such impressions about the nationality would be correct.

      Do you see the difference?


    • Geezer,
      What is offenaive about the thesis that if a state dedicated to only one nationality conquers and brutally supresses another nationality indefinitely, it inadvertently came the nationality that it is dedicated to look bad?

      If I told you that England's repression of Ireland for 300 years makes English look bad to some people, would my statement of fact offend you?

    • It sounded like yonah knows peled is right about palestinian suffering, but he still comes down against Peled.
      It reminds me of jvp's initial reaction against peled, which has been stranger than yonah's. You might guess that jvp discussed the matter among its leadership before taking a position against peled.

      Before 2015 when they came out against Weir, JVP was an excellent top rate organization in my eyes, along with us ceio. But I have trouble seeing why fully legitimate Palestinian solidarity organizations would make such misleading accusations.

      It's like how I don't understand why any antiwar liberals would to push for conflicts and interventions in the mideast and Libya.

    • "Miko peled’s ire at the US military aid bill is commendable.But...


    • Claim #1: An officially Jewish state's crimes can cause some people to be anti-Jewish

      Claim #2: Objecting to the state's crimes is anti-Jewish


      I have trouble seeing the relationship between these two claims.

    • I didn't understand this:

      " Shipman-style argument that Israeli crimes cause anti-Semitism sounds close to accepting that objection to those crimes is often indeed anti-S, ".

    • Why do you say "Jews who disagree" and not just "people who disagree?"

      Do you see the Israeli system and its policies as representative of the world's Jews?

    • Phil,

      This was a good interview reminding me why I like Mondoweiss. Miko is a heartfelt speaker who goes to places like visits to the Holy Land Five that others are afraid to.

      Do you realize the similarity between this and Rev Bruce Shipman's case that you wrote about? He and Miko had the same kind of thesis.

      It's very unpleasant to me how when the US and EU/NATO commit atrocities like in Serbia, Iraq, and now Libya, people who I meet in other parts of the world will get negative ideas about Americans.

      Another example is when people like Marc Ellis make generalizations about Christians, saying that they are oriented toward conquest of others. Unfortunately, while there have been Christians like Quakers who have even been semi- pacifist, and most Christians dont make conquest some kind of Christian teaching, Marc could give examples of Christian nations' focus on conquest, like the Spanish Catholics' conquest of the Americas. That is, unfortunately, nation states' actions like those of the US or Catholic Spain can create mistaken impressions about their peoples.

      So the reasoning behind what Rev Shipman and Miko have been saying is sound, and they didn't say they agreed with the stereotypes.

  • Rally marks the rebirth of the New York Jewish left
    • Toivo,
      The article's point seems to be that Bannon is "fascist" and, based on the headline, Jews are coming together to oppose Bannon and Trump, because of their cultural intolerance. One thing I would question here is whether Bannon actually represents "fascism" any more than Bushes Sr and Jr did, with the introduction of the Patriot Act and surveillance state and its continuation or even growth under Obama. I think there really needs to be a bipartisan or nonpartisan review and approach to these more fundamental issues if "the Left" actually wants to address them.

      Secondly, while I see Republicans as tending to be more intolerant, based on what I know of his personal history, I don't actually think Trump is anti-semitic, as I quoted about him in another Comment below.

      You ask: " Maybe it is time to sit back and think a bit about why the American working class is rejecting the Democratic Party and think a bit about how we can once again represent their interests? "

      Definitely YES. The article itself is begging for an answer when it says:

      "A woman next to me at the rally seemed as befuddled at Trump’s election as she was outraged. "
      Yes. So if you don't understand why a largely working class nation with many minorities voted for Trump, we DO need to ask why so many of those very voters are rejecting the Democratic Party machine. Otherwise we just stay "befuddled" like the characters in the author's account about what is happening in the nation.

      Unfortunately, I am not very hopeful for a major needed turn around. I mean, would liberal oligarchs really prefer to funnel bigtime campaign donations into a Democratic party that didn't represent them bigtime?

    • Rob, you write:
      " Trump is his father’s son, the type of anti-Semite who would gladly play in a Jews-free country club "

      Wayne Allen Root says:
      " When he bought his Florida home and turned it into a popular and exclusive country club, he specifically opened the membership up to Jews. Mar-a-Lago was the first club that ever allowed Jews in Palm Beach. Donald changed the customs of the most-wealthy, WASP-y town in America to favor Jews."

      Personally, I am a strong supporter of civil rights and equality, and so I lean democrat on this topic. That's true again especially talking about race or women's rights, where I support the Democrats.... But....... why not try to be more objective about Trump's relations with Jews. Isn't his son in law Jewish? Why imply that he's antisemitic when he isnt, and, if anything, could lean pro-Jewish?

    • " on Sunday night the lines could not have been clearer."

      The lines could have been clearer if the Republican candidate was responsible for deadly interventions in Libya and Syria, and conflict with Russia, while the Democrat was a strong opponent of the proxy conflicts with those nations.

      But instead, we have the opposite. Aren't World Peace vs disastrous and deadly Regime Change very crucial issues for us on the Left, Rob?

      Shouldn't this be a major moment for soul searching for any pro peace leftists if it risks supporting a neoliberal pro war campaign?

      It feels as if many pro peace antiwar activists have their head on backwards, since wouldn't you agree that pro war liberalism is a contradiction in terms? It's mind boggling.

  • Why 'give him a chance' is not an option
    • Decent article:
      "Stop this stupid sabre-rattling against Russia. It’s not their side that worries me; it’s ours."
      A month or so back I spoke to a chap who worked on behalf of the refugees in those two benighted countries and was certainly no friend of the Assad regime. What would be the best scenario now, I asked him? ‘That Russia and Assad win as quickly as possible. That would minimise the number of civilians killed.’ But we are doing what we can to prevent that outcome, thus prolonging the war.

    • Antidote,
      Of course " the US/EU being on the side of Ukrainian nationalists, including those unabashedly displaying Nazi symbols and salutes is unacceptable". The US should not be supporting them or looking the other when they did in fact temporarily put Hitler's portrait on the Rada. I am skeptical that you even believe alot of the things you put in your message.

      Can't you see that the media and Nato are talking about Russia like the cold war was what they wanted? I can't believe that sincere leftists would actually believe these things and promote global hegemony. It sounds too much like cointelpro type leftism.

      You ask:
      " One of them, also asked by Zionist pioneer Jabotinsky, is: why should some people have all the land? " that's ironic, becauseJabotinsky wanted all the land to be for the Jewish community, ie only some people.

      " Why does he need the Crimea or Ukraine?"
      Russians need Crimea because it has a major Russian population and series of Russian bases for the last 250 years. He needs ukraine to be at least neutral in the cold war that apparently you are encouraging.

    • Bandolero,

      You need to write a MW article on this stuff. I had never thought very much about the 210n1st angle you brought up, although I did know that Russia's work in Syria seemed to be the triggering event that gave them an incentive to stir up Ukraine at that moment, as payback for Putin not rolling over in Syria like they had asked. And Syria was being targeted because of the plan in the Clean Break Doc. Yes, I am also sure most Ukrainians and Russians don't notice that angle either. And based on A. Rothchild's comment on Putin, I think some leftists here need to hear a different perspective like you can provide.

      The astroturf revolutionary socialism is mind boggling for me. I wonder how much their leaders are sincere about the rev. Socialism they expound. I mean, they seem to have researched the topics and made persuasive antiglobalist correct explanations about how the EU deal is bad for Ukraine.

      Another thing I'm curious about his how much the post Maidan western "technocrats" like Saakashvilis staff were serious about ending corruption. According to some of those technocrats, they could not make progress in fighting corruption due to resistance from the Administration in Kiev, and so they have been leaving over the last year, with Saakashvili's resignation this November being the most prominent example.

    • I think that this is a major issue, because Leftists in the US and Europe are going to want to reference Ukrainian Leftists in order to understand what is happening in Ukraine. Meanwhile, there are Ukrainian youth who are going to try to find out themselves what Left activist groups are saying about the events happening around them. The Euromaidan movement was in fact able to bring out a large amount of students, like the Occupy Wall Street movement and Mideast color revolutions were. So in a sense I think it may not be correct to simply call them fake groups, in the sense that in Maidan and some other events they were able to bring together a large number of youth to listen to them and get channeled into the protests. That is, they are not groups who exist on paper only. I also read interviews with Leftists and professed Marxists who volunteered to fight against DNR. It's confusing for me, since I always thought of the Marxist Left as anti-globalist antiwar.

      Here is a good example of the kind of Left groups and figures I am confused about. Volodymyr Ishchenko is an author for the British New Left Review, and he sounds critical of Ukraine's government after Euromaidan:

      people are very much dissatisfied with the economic crisis and with government policies. So I am not so sure about the extent to which they support official propaganda, for example, about the “revolution of dignity”. does not feel like Ukraine has become more tolerant. For example, what do you call “Europeanization”? Maidan supporters tend to promote a progressive understanding of Europe. But Europe is about progressive values, tolerance, equal rights for everyone, and so on. It seems that they indeed believed in these ideas, but it does not mean that this was the reality of the Maidan. The far right did have strong positions there, despite the fact that they were a minority – numerically a minority, but also the most active in the movement.

      But checking his writings from Jan. 2014 in the Guardian, he favored the protests as a way to bring down Yanukovych's corrupt government, and he said he was against moves to join the EU or for rightwing forces to take over:

      Ukraine protests are no longer just about Europe

      ... on Monday, students at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, one of the best universities in Ukraine, started an indefinite strike against the police state laws, aiming to stop completely teaching in their university and initiate political strikes on other campuses and workers strikes as well. If they succeed, they could show the way to a non-violent but still radical and efficient way to bring down Yanukovych's government.

      He wrote a paper for a Nordic Left publication, aiming to survey Left groups, saying:

      Deep splits in the Ukrainian left in relation to Maidan and the civil war exacerbated this problem. Both the pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan part of the Ukrainian left were actively promoting very contradictory messages for the international left
      A free trade zone with the EU would probably lead to the de-industrialisation of Ukraine unless it was combined with big investments from western corporations, who would obviously be interested in political security and control in return for their investments. All this would be combined with an economic shock for the majority of Ukrainians, especially for the highly urbanised and industrialised eastern regions.
      US and EU elites openly supported the Maidan protests and indeed financed "democracy promotion" in Ukraine for many years. However, its scale and consequences should not be exaggerated. They were rather exploited in the EU's and US's interests than directly manipulated from abroad.

      So he is saying that the Maidan protests were exploited in the EU's interests, rather than being directly manipulated? Next, he writes:

      the major turning points in terms of the radicalisation of the protest were clearly responses to police violence and governmental repression. The brutal dispersal of the first Maidan camp turned the protest into rebellion ... The package of laws passed on 16 January 2014 by the pro-government majority that broke parliamentary procedures, but which did not impose a dictatorial regime as Maidan supporters claimed, nevertheless, systematically limited freedom

      ....the most systematic study of the sniper assassinations on 20 February is the one by the University of Ottawa researcher Ivan Katchanovski [3]. He concludes that at least some of the Maidan protesters might have been killed in the false flag operation

      So again I am confused - it's like he is saying that the government is basically the side responsible for the violence by attacking protestors, but then he claims that that the Heavenly Hundred was a false flag. That's not the kind of thing I would imagine a fake antiglobalist to say. His writing seems long and he put alot of thought into it.

      I did find an article by a critic claiming that he puts culture wars over the interests of the working class and represents a kind of Soros First World Socialism:

      Ishchenko’s is a form of radical liberalism which masquerades as a Marxian form of (even) revolutionary socialism. But it is ultimately a radical, extreme liberalism – in the pejorative sense – in terms of its views of the individual and identity politics, which among other things privileges sex and gender ‘minorities’ over the ‘reactionary’ working class , even calling the parties of the latter ‘bourgeois’...
      I read some more of the critical article and...
      *Mind blown*
      Very confused:

      Otpor! and later CANVAS. These were the fake-left protest movements organized against the socialist government of Milosevic, which the US later used to legitimize the bombing of Belgrade, an assault that lasted for 76 ceaseless days, killing thousands of innocents, and plunging the whole city into a state of terror.

    • I know, Annie.
      That stuff is so weird, along with other aspects of antiglobalist Euromaidaners. It's confusing for me. Like maybe they are not even intending to be real antiglobalists, even though they write lots of long statements, coordinate with other Left activist groups, claim to bring in hundreds or thousands of students, etc.

      It reminds me of the question of what percent of the Syrian rebels' supporters include actual Left Syrian "student activists", vs. how much of it is astroturf.

    • Bandolero,

      You are right about the Com. Party and some others. But do you realize how many doctrinal socialist, anarchist, Left youth, and other Left supposedly anti globalist groups were forces supporting Euromaidan?

      I would be interested to hear your take on the article below, talking about ukrainian socialists of Left Opposition (maybe weakly affiliated with European groups like CWI?) asking the UK parliament to support the Euromaidan:

      I also heard about how anarchists and antifascist youth were trying to support Euromaidan and got roughed up by Right Sector. I also heard about how antiglobalist maidan Ukrainians boggled the minds of Greek antiglobalists.

      Kiev students threatened an indefinite strike and the cities of Lviv, Ternopil and Ivano-Frankivsk announced general strikes in solidarity with the protests. ...
      the Confederation of Free Trade Unions (KVPU), originally born out of the miners' strike in 1989, supported the protests.

      But when its president, Mikhail Volynets, addressed a Euromaidan rally he called for all to unite to show "our firm determination to become part of Europe" for "European values" which would prevent the regime "robbing us blind".
      The KVPU passed a resolution in January that included a call for "organising a warning strike as a national movement of labour force resistance in order to ensure and preserve the working people's rights and freedoms" and "forming self-defence structures".

      This could have opened up the space for independent demands to be formulated but does not seem to have come to anything. The KVPU is not a "yellow union" -- its activists were attacked by the fascists -- but its leadership is wedded to illusions in European integration and unwilling to openly break with the opposition.

      The Ukrainian left is small and divided on how to respond to Euromaidan, but sections did attempt to intervene. The Left Opposition -- an orthodox Trotskyist group -- attempted to unite the "left Maidan" in the protest movement around a list of reformist demands.

      This article describes euromaidan as having a huge occupy wall street style force among the youth

      This article claims the Leftists of Direct Action were able to get hundreds or thousands of people protesting in Maidan:

      Vadym Gud, a veteran of Direct Action student labor union who had earlier pursued the activist path as an anarchist, was immersed in such controversies at the time.

      Within the group, Gud remarks, “we had a huge debate about getting involved in the protests.” Most leftists, he says, didn’t like the idea of signing a trade pact with the European Union. Gud, who moved toward socialism by the time of the Maidan protests, took a more pro-EU line. Perhaps, he reasoned, Ukrainian activists could help to move the EU to the political left in the event that Kiev signed an association agreement with the west.

      As it turned out, Gud was not alone. Denis Pilash, another activist affiliated with Direct Action, noted many of the ironies confronting the student left. “I was skeptical about the Maidan protests from the very outset,” he says. During his own political evolution, Pilash had focused more on social questions like poverty, inequality and police brutality rather than foreign policy issues such as Yanukovych’s tilt toward Russia and away from the EU. At the time, Pilash declares, “some Greek left colleagues wrote me and said, ‘you’re crazy, you want to be in the European Union even as we are burning the EU flag?’”
      Amidst worsening violence on the square, Gud set up an information team and a Facebook page dedicated to “revolutionary struggle” which quickly attracted a whopping 300,000 followers. Gud also conducted live online reports from the front lines, ...

      Here is an example of Borotba taking an opposite view on Maidan, showing that the left was not all pro maidan:

      So, Bandolero, since I am impressed with your insights on the European Left, can you please explain what was going on with the antiglobalist leftists of Euromaidan? They said they didn't join anti Maidan because they saw that as progovernment. I mean, they talk about their desire to shift Euromaidan into antiglobalist while supporting the removal of the government, noting how they are a fraction of protestors, most of whom were EU supporters. Does this logic make any sense, join a pro globalist movement against a government in order to make the movement antiglobalist?

      It's so weird, but I know that they have a few hundred cothinkers at least, and there are numerous such groups... Do they actually believe in Euroskepticism? Or is their actual goal to serve as auxillaries for the Maidan, bring in more young protestors on the idea that they are going to make the protests Euroskepticism and not about supporting one ruling party over another?

    • Mooser.
      I wouldn't be surprised if Trump had Koch bro. Backing or that De facto he was forced to take in Neocons into his cabinet just like somehow they got Obama to follow the opposite policies Obama wanted to.

    • Thanks for writing, Toivo!

      I think you are quite a smart person and like how you have been able to take an independent consistent antiwar position here.

      I think it may have been easier for China or Russia to have detente with Nixon in that being conservative, he could speak with more authority over conservatives in the us, while a democrat trying to do detente could get accused of being weak.

      Keith calling it astroturfing the Left was a great way to put it. In the IP world the best analogy can think of is how propeace Jstreets base can include many or mostly peaceniks , but in terms of Gaza it ends up supporting war and it gets tons of cash from Soros.

      Take a hint too from the color revolutions that have backing from liberal ngos in the mideast and ukraine, but then result in fundy conservative neocon regime change when the leaders take a non globalist stance.

      This is a danger I see, that if Trump tries to take antiglobalist actual pro peace stances, the neo liberals will use "liberal" ngos as a backlash in the same way. Namely, in the color revolutions they had liberals united with conservative fundies, ultimately driving at neocon goals like overthrowing an antiglobalist, even though the liberals thought they were working for liberal values, like fighting corruption.

      Since you are quite smart and have written before, and because we're seeing a stream of bandwagon articles that don't challenge this prowar problem in the Left that you mentioned, I would love to see you write something on MW on this problem.

    • Do you prefer to live under a nice illusion of liberal pro peace slogans that are a cover for neocon war policies, Mooser?

      "Propeace" J STREET can give you that when it comes to IP. Didn't they support they war in Gaza?

      So much deadly betrayal by some "liberals", Mooser, why can't you see this?


      Trump is not going to impose Segregation. You are making this up. It's not even conceivable outside dem. Party dog whistling. But Hillary invading Syria on behalf of fundy rebels IS conceivable.

      How do millions of pro peace liberals not get something so fundamental?


      Having to pick between Trump and Hillary would be very very hard for me as an antiwar leftist. Voting for Hillary means voting for a deadly fundy war against millions of syrians. Voting for Trump means social programs I believe in risk getting cut.

    • You and bandolero are two of my favorite writers because of independent thinking on many issues.

      So many people even on the left will just follow some bandwagon or herd or authority voice, whether it is the Dem. Party leadership, the "liberal" antisyrian NYT or even a well funded "liberal" activist group that thought polices it's members.

      I love you guys.

    • I understand, since the plan was to switch to focusing on the west bank.

      Still, it could have been a secondary factor. If everything was hunky dory, why not stay? American and EU pressure?

      My personal preference is for them to be pacifists, but this is because of my general dislike of violence and seeing how they are way outgunned.

      Still, it looks to me like they could be in a catch 22 situation.

    • Mooser,
      Due to interventions in Syria and Libya, there are very many more people with ptsd.
      Sorry, I have big difficulty crying when someone who opposes those interventions gets elected.

      I hope you and others will be able to understand why.

    • I think this is hard to say, although personally I would prefer to agree with you.

      The PLO put down their arms except for what they use to police their own population, and their kids are getting imprisoned and their villages are getting taken over by settlements big time, which are made safer and easier due to the PA's pacifism. Meanwhile, Gaza is hostile and the settlements were removed, but the IDF leveled gaza.

      Maybe a catch 22 here.

    • RoHa.
      Exactly. There is a major portion of Americans, including among liberals, who lack the full scope of independent critical thinking skills.
      Besides my apprehension that Trump could be a closet neocon, my other concern is like what Toivo expressed, that if he works hard at habing good, respectful international relations, then his neoliberal opponents will blow the dog whistle on him. A great example of this was the Lewinsky impeachment case for Clinton in the 90s when the Republicans were going to impeach him over his adultery case with monica, something that was not an issue of critical national importance. So in Trump's case my concern is that they will blow this kind of dog whistle on "Bandwagon Liberals". So if he says No to war in Syria against Assad, then the media will trump up some offensive comments he made or whatever his most illiberal policy is, even if its not super important and then they will use liberal protests as a kind of tool in their toolbox make him weak, and to get the Bandwagon Liberals to put the heat on, even though their goal is Neocon and not actually liberal.


    • This is new info to me that Biden and Obama were even against war in Libya? I always had a sense Obama was acting like a very weak brake pedal on neocon plans, not really putting gusto into the Syrian war.

      Speaking of H.C. and Libya, one thing I have never understood is why Benghazi was allowed to happen. To say that the compound was not reinforced with sufficient backup because they wanted to keep good relations with local Muslims does not make sense, because across the world in risky Muslim places the MO is not to underarm yourself.

    • Thanks, bandolero. Very informative. I can see how as a postwar occupied country they could set up the media to be like this.

      Over in Holland the govt had a referendum on the Ukraine EU Agreement and most Dutch voted against it and now the govt approved the agreement anyway.

      How about that?

      Now that we are talking about Russia and Ukraine, One thing that surprised me about Ukraine was how their Left, including their antiglobalists, revolutionary socialists, left youth, maybe even Antifa participated in the Euromaidan, minus a few Eastern groups like Borotba. Can you explain this? I thought antiglobalist leftists were supposed to be skeptical of the EU.

    • So well written.

    • "I voted for Clinton. " "Move to ... Israel." ~Raphael


      What's next, "I voted for Tzipi Livni. .... Come, plant a pine tree in an abandoned village?"

    • Bandolero,

      Can you please say a bit how the Postwar West German system was set up to prevent a change in policy, by design? (eg. how did they arrange for long chancellorships and to keep Schoder's Russia/China axis from catching on?)

    • I think many bandwagon Party Democrats who lament Hillary's loss may not understand her approach to foreign policy enough.

      “I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake... And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win,”
      ~Hillary, 2006

      Do you actually realize the implications of this?
      How different is that from the Neocon approach?

    • Toivo,

      You say "She seems to have created a mass following of many tens of millions liberal Democrats lusting for war with Russia."

      I know, brother! It's nuts and unpleasant. Things were nice after the Cold War, and even in the 1980's the liberals talked about how we needed to emphasize world peace in relations with Russia. Now somehow liberals are saying it's time for a showdown instead of respect? I can only think that it's because of signalling from the professedly "liberal" mass media to "liberals" in the audience.

      Listen to McGovern's talk on Ukraine at 12:47 where he relates being in the audience of DC progressives who talked about Crimea and how the speaker imagined events there:

      He says they imagine and fill in their own details (like Crimean War casualties) because the NYT and the TV doesn't tell them otherwise. He makes a lot of good points in the video, like how no Russian president in history would give up Crimea's bases to NATO.

    • So.... if Annie says that she has no idea if Hillary learned needed lessons about the working class from her election debacle.... it means people are investing high hopes in Donald Trump?

      My hope is that Trump will smooth relations with Russia and Syria instead of imposing Libya 2.0. Based on all the trashing Trump got from the "liberal" mass media over this, I think there is a basis for the hope.

      Still, I am apprehensive based on past disillusionment with politics. Was Obama's Hope and Change what you expected it to be, Mooser?

    • Mooser,

      I did not say that Trump was not a capitalist or wasn't involved in multinational capitalism.

      If Trump is rejecting a major globalist expansion like TPP that Bandolero has described, then it's good.

      Do you understand this?

      So if Trump announced last winter "I have decided to postpone my trip to Israel " because Netanyahu was harsh with him, or not long ago Bannon skipped a major AIPAC fundraiser is that good or bad?

      Apparently the "Bandwagon Establishment 'Left' " thinking is that it's got to be very very bad.... because it's from Trump.

      "The Bandwagon is Everything, The Goal is Nothing"?

    • Mooser,

      Did Trump say that he wants to see American Muslims or Blacks die?

      If you are complaining about Trump's immoderate speech, why make even worse immoderate speech?

      A lot of Two Party Election commentary is like people are rooting for a football team, where one team (Republicans vs. Democrats) is all good and the other team is all bad, and they go into hysterics and threats when their supposed "good" team loses. It's very sad that many supposedly "antiwar" liberals' "team" is the hawk who wants to dive down and eat Syria. I don't get it except to think that it's a herd mentality.

    • Yes, Miriam.

      It's nuts. Many of my fellow "liberals" are fighting the "culture wars" by objecting to Hillary's loss to Trump while millions of Syrians and Libyans have been devastated through actual neoliberal wars.

      "If that is your position, then I will talk only to White People" ~ HRC on the 2016 campaign trail.

    • Dear Marnie,

      Hello! It's interesting you do not live in the states. Which country are you in?
      I heard that foreign academics like that Trump is not bent on antio-Syrian military intervention, at least in his campaign claims.

      Can you please show you what you mean by his "racism is court-documented"?

      No candidate got " the majority of votes". He and Clinton both tend to be seen negatively by Americans.

      It's awful and sick when you say

      He’s not a young man and looks pretty out of shape so i’m hoping he’ll stroke out or have a massive MI (or both) before January (have a very heart unhealthy thanksgiving donald) and his vice has an unfortunating hunting accident with dick cheney.

      I don't know that MW should even clear these kinds of comments. It reminds me of when I was in Middle School prayer group and some right wing Evangelical teen prayed for Clinton to die (probably because of the abotrion issue or some other "culture war" issue). It's the same kind of thinking the Israeli far right has about their political opponents.

      How many Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanis, and Libyans has Trump killed, Marnie?
      That's right, ZERO.

      Let's have those of us who actually care about human rights keep our analyses and emotions thoughtful, careful and orderly.

    • Good response, Echin.

      In a supposed REAL democracy, would the DNC have rigged the Primaries against Sanders? In a real democracy, would Hillary have been the Dem. Candidate?

    • Brewer,
      Obama's Iran deal was good. Probably he gave some resistance to Neocon pressures, like to fight Syria harder.

      But as a leftist, his administration was very weak and for me disappointing, in some ways even hurtful. Obama care is a pain because it fines the middle class if they don't buy private companies health care. Should you be fined for not eating at restaurants?

    • Great points again Bandloreo. Yours is a needed voice.
      I don't get how so many among us " liberals" miss this stuff, like on EU backed war in Libya and other regime changes. I thought liberals were supposed to be against exploitation.

      Do EU citizens not vote for their EU delegates?
      Are pro EuroMaidan Ukrainians more mistaken about the EU than I thought?

    • John,
      What do you think of the EU role in Yugoslavias crushing, in its exploitative financiAL policies, especially in greece, and the way it facilitated the coup in Ukraine?

      I can't understand it John, why some liberals are so enthusiastic about the EU. It's a bit like being enthusiastic about NAFTA or IMF demands.

    • Mooser,
      One reason TPP is bad is because jobs move with it to Asia, even if not China.
      Any rejection of capitalist globalist expansion by Trump is good.

    • Annie, I agree with you about reforming the Dems and a third party. I wonder if Hillary even understands why she lost working class votes.

    • Thanks for writing in, Ritzl.
      Good ideas here. Yes if Hillary was not fighting Russia, Syria, and Libya and wanted to fix Medicare from being such a boon to insurance companies where the middle class gets taxed if they dont BUY healthcare, hillarys loss could be a bit disappointing.

      The best way I can explain the after the fact bitterness is that there are many Americans who are not ACTUALLY very multifaceted in critical thinking. They will just believe in whatever the democratic party or a bigwig tells them. So if they are supposedly an antiwar liberal, they could still believe in invading Libya or Serbia IF democratic party leaders like the Clintons oversee it. It's a herd mentality!

      You finished it with some more great thoughts. I would love for you to put them in a MW article, like how we can leverage Trump's good points and recognize what they are.

    • Bandolero,
      Good point about the currency manipulation accusation. I think that articles from your kind of antiglobalist perspective on Trump are needed on MW. I am impressed with your knowledge. Maybe you could write something?

    • Keith
      I have both hopen and apprehension with Trump. My apprehension is that he could turn out to be Bush 3.0, but I will have to Wait and See if he does. My hope is that he will patch up relations with Russia and Syria.

Showing comments 4700 - 4601