Exactly the sort of person I would imagine who sees himself on the far left and then campaigns for Clinton.
Quotes from Tony Kushner on Israel and ZIonism:
“[Israel was] founded in a program that, if you really want to be blunt about it, was ethnic cleansing, and that today is behaving abominably towards the Palestinian people.”
— Yale Israel Review (winter 2005)
“I’ve never been a Zionist. I have a problem with the idea of a Jewish state. It would have been better if it never happened.”
— The New York Sun reporting Kushner comments made at a conference in NY (10/14/02)
Kushner: Establishing a state means F****** people over. However, I think that people in the late 20th century or early 21st century – having seen the Holocaust, having seen the 20th century and all of its horrors — cannot be complacent in the face of that. Ha’aretz reporter: But you are saying that the very creation of Israel as a Jewish state was not a good idea.
Kushner: I think it was a mistake.
— Ha’aretz (4/7/04)
“Zionism aimed as the establishment of a national identity is predicated on a reading of Jewish history and an interpretation of the meaning of Jewish history I don’t share. Insofar as Zionism is an idea that the solution to the suffering of the Jewish people was the establishment of a Jewish nation, I think it is not the right answer.
— Ha’aretz (4/7/04)
“I am not a Zionist in case you haven’t noticed.” Kushner cited “the shame of American Jews” for failing to denounce Israel.”
— Chicago Tribune (4/10/02)
“The existence of the state of Israel, because of the terrible way that the Palestinian people have been treated, is now in great peril and the world is in peril as a consequence of it.”
— In These Times interview (3/4/02)
“Israel is a foreign country. I am no more represented by Israel than I am by Italy.”
— Ha’aretz (4/7/04)
“The Israeli-built security wall should come down, the homeland for the Palestinians should be built up, with a strictly enforced peace, not enforced by the Israel Defense Forces, but by the United Nations.”
— Baltimore Jewish Times (6/4/04)
“I deplore the brutal and illegal tactics of the Israeli Defence Forces in the occupied territories. I deplore the occupation, the forced evacuations, the settlements, the refugee camps, the whole shameful history of the dreadful suffering of the Palestinian people; Jews, of all people, with our history of suffering, should refuse to treat our fellow human beings like that.”
— London Times (5/7/02)
“[Israel is involved in] a deliberate destruction of Palestinian culture and a systematic attempt to destroy the identity of the Palestinian people.”
— New York Sun (10/4/02)
“To avoid facing up to such atrocity, to sustain the refusal of any Israeli share in culpability, Zionism has produced a long, shameful, and debilitating history of denial…”
— Wrestling with Zion – Introduction p.5
Quotes are from a ZOA letter condemning Kushner, posted by Norman Finklestein. As far as I know they are accurate quotes. Kushner is not a Zionist, and he is farther to the left than Bernie Sanders on Israel. He is also a surrogate for Clinton. I assume that is because he thinks she would make a better President than Sanders, despite her hawkishness on Israel. I'd agree with him on that point.
Mondoweiss has covered Kushner's views here in the past in quite a few posts. See here:
I haven't seen Munich and don't have an informed opinion on it, other than having read some reviews of it. However, it certainly isn't the end all and be all of Kushner's political views.
Its worse than just withholding treatment, old geezer. According to MK Oren Hazan (Likud), the soldier who shot the Palestinian was a MEDIC!
"Enough, stop already," Hazan responded. "Let the mother of a terrorist cry and not a Jewish mother. A combat soldier, a heroic medic, neutralized a murderer and said 'there was concern that he would blow up with an explosive.' I believe him. Period."
Looking at the footage it appears that the shooter was in fact a medic. He is seen earlier tending to the wounded soldier at the ambulance, and his uniform is slightly different from the other combat soldiers, some of whom are nearer to the wounded Palestinian.
Its a minute 53 seconds into the video before the medic takes his shot, and most probably quite a bit more time before the camerawoman started recording.(The ambulances are there and the wounded soldiers is already on the stretcher. Five minutes, ten minutes?)
So after all that time, suddenly a medic is worried about a suicide vest? And he doesn't warn the other soldiers who are nonchalantly standing closer to the wounded Palestinian? If you follow his movements it looks more like he decided to shoot the Palestinian well before he was close to him. He's raising his gun well before he walks closer to his victim. Looks like a revenge killing. And no one else seems to bat an eyelash.
A medic "confirming the kill". The IDF is a morally sick institution.
Got to love the caption on the photo, too.
"Arab residents leaving Haifa, accompanied by Haganah men, April 1948."
How considerate of the Haganah men to "accompany" the fleeing residents. And they even brought their rifles for protection. I'm sure that was much appreciated. I'm not at all surprised that Ben Gurion, according to his diary, was aghast at how all those Palestinians could have just up and left.
And for those of you who don't do links, here's the relevant paragraph about the letter:
The letter was sent by Ben-Gurion on June 2, 1948, a month and a half after Haifa was captured and a few weeks after Israel's independence was declared. It was addressed to Abba Khoushy, the secretary-general of the Haifa Workers' Council, and later the city’s mayor.
“I hear that Mr. Marriot (Cyril Marriot, the British Consul in Haifa) is working to return the Arabs to Haifa. I don’t know how it is his business, but until the war is over we don’t want a return of the enemy. And all institutions should act accordingly” instructed Ben-Gurion.
Kris, I'd like to make several points in response to your latest comment, in a somewhat random order. First, you said, You’re right, I shouldn’t have said that Bush didn’t want to provide money to help NYC, since actually it was some Republicans in Congress who objected to that.
However, neither you nor I said that. You still aren't accurately describing what I said, Hillary Clinton said, or in this case what you yourself said. You never said in your first comment that Bush didn't want to provide money for NYC.
In fact your were incredulous that I would believe Clinton's assertion that Bush did not want to provide money for NYC reconstruction. As I pointed out in my following comment, this was NOT what Clinton said, nor what I said. Now you seem to be acknowledging that Clinton didn't say that, I think, but are asserting that you incorrectly stated that Bush didn't want to give those funds but YOU didn't say that either. You seem to be having problems following the argument and I don't quite know how to address that when you don't seem to be consistent even in describing your own statements, but I'll try again anyway.
Second, you've twice repeated the false meme that Clinton said "that her daughter only just avoided death on 9/11 when that was not the case". She never said that. That was a lie made up by rightwing pundits. Here's the story about the pundit lies from Media Matters, complete with the transcript of what Clinton actually said.
She said nothing about Chelsea "only just" avoiding death, but instead said that Chelsea was in Manhattan that morning, had planned to jog from Battery Park to the Twin Towers and back and had been in a coffee shop when the first plane hit, and that Clinton was understandably worried about her daughter because she hadn't been able to get in touch with her until a few hours after the attack. The rest, about Chelsea just avoiding death was a purposeful misstatement of what Clinton said, uttered maliciously by right wing pundits, in order to cast aspersions on Clinton.
Yes, that was a lie, but not Clinton's lie, and you repeat it twice here without having checked whether its truthful or not. I think that's poor judgment on your part, and doesn't show any of your claimed disdain for lying, but rather a disdain for Clinton, even when its built on other people's lies. You sound perilously close to someone throwing stones from your own glass house, and in a political arena you'd likely be rhetorically mugged repeatedly for your own "lies".
This is just another example of what I was complaining about with my first comment on this thread. Someone makes up a lie about what Clinton said or did and people swallow it whole, and then use that lie to reinforce the idea that any new accusation of Clinton lying must be believable, without need for question or fact checking, because she " lied before" even when she didn't.
As for " but remembering landing in Bosnia under “sniper fire” when nothing like that happened is not normal". Clinton did misstate what happened on that occasion. Probably an embellishment on her part of an incident that happened 12 years before. According to everything I've read, others' recollections, and archival video have corroborated what she said about the incident in her 2004 book, "Living History".
"Security conditions were constantly changing in the former Yugoslavia, and they had recently deteriorated again. Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find. One eight-year-old girl gave me a copy of a poem she had written entitled 'Peace.'"
This later embellishment, or misstatement or whatever, was blown out of all proportion in the heat of the campaign in 2008. I see it as an example of her being held to a higher standard than other male politicians. Here's an example of that. Richard Cohen, the columnist, acknowledged that McCain had made numerous false statements and inconsistencies, but they were "understandable" while Clinton's one exaggeration on her Bosnia visit was "disqualifying" for the Presidency. (And likewise, Obama's stated position on NAFTA in Ohio, which was the opposite of what his economic adviser told the Canadian government was the Obama campaign's position, was not a "disqualifying" falsehood but exaggerating sniper fire was.)
I can only see this as sexist treatment of a woman candidate. There seems to be no other reason for the number of vociferous lies spread about Clinton, all made while disingenuously decrying lying as being a particularly heinous fault of hers, not theirs. It reeks of projection to me as well as a double standard. I'm much more interested in policy positions that in whether or not someone embellished an incident from 12 years earlier in one comment made to the press. I just wish that more voters would ignore the war of the sound bites and the "gotcha" moments and focus on the issues. This kind of petty stuff only demeans the contest, but politics in the US seems to have devolved into an ongoing episode on Jerry Springer, or a badly scripted "reality" show, now complete with Donald Trump..
And here's the report from Politifact on Clinton's statement on North Ireland, where again you claimed she said she was "instrumental' which is incorrect: She said she was "helpful" and several of those instrumental in the negotiations in fact agreed that she was helpful. So again, not a lie on her part.
I think they are a bit harsh at the end in judging her statement "half true" , because they interpreted "helpful" to have implied more importance than it deserved, but in any case they acknowledged that she was in fact "helpful" as she said, according to several of those more intimately involved in the negotiations of the Agreement.
The story right now is that Hillary thought that she could trust Bush, and voted for pre-emptive war, because Bush resisted Republican opposition and came through with funds to “rebuild” NYC .
The story used to be (as in the Slate article) that Hillary voted for the Iraq resolution in order to strengthen Bush’s use of diplomacy.
No, you are still not getting it. The real "story" in both instances is the same- that Bush assured everyone, including Congress and the UN for that matter, in October of 2002 that the AUMF would be used as a diplomatic tool to pressure Hussein into allowing the UN inspectors to complete their work and to enforce the UN resolutions, not to wage war. One of Clinton's stated reasons for believing Bush's assurance in this instance, whether faulty or not, was based on her experience of Bush having keep his word on NYC. It wasn't the money per se,it was that he made a promise and kept it, despite some pressure to do otherwise. In both "stories" as you call them, her belief, avowed by Bush to Congress and the UN at the time, was that the AUMF would be used as a "big stick" for a diplomatic solution, not a preemptive war as you assert. You may disagree vehemently with her reasoning, but she has been consistent over time with her rationale, even though she now admits her vote was a mistake. Again, she has gotten much more flak for her vote than any other Senator or House member who cast the same vote. Kerry wasn't considered "disqualified" in 2004 for "poor judgment" for his "Yes" vote, nor was Biden in 2008 or 2012. Nor was Obama for that matter, who chose to put all three (Biden, Clinton and and Kerry) in his Administration after their "poor judgment".
*BTW, the wording of the AUMF resolution itself required that military force was only to be used as a last resort, after all diplomatic efforts had been exhausted, and after the Bush Administration had confirmed in writing that all diplomatic options had failed. Of course the Bush Administration ignored the AUMF requirement and declared war 5 months later. He also ignored UN requirement to put the question to another UN vote at that point and refused to let the inspectors finish their work. The Administration simply created a new legal theory that the earlier UN resolutions from the 1990's justified their "right" to declare war on Iraq in 2003. They were bound and determined to go to war on Iraq and a different vote on the AUMF wouldn't ave changed their actions. Its good you protested, as did I, but those protests didn't start until January of 2003, not October of 2002.
Again, my main point in commenting on this story is that people are buying into lies in order to justify their own reasons for choosing to vote against her. Vote how you choose on policy, don't double down on one untruth with more repetitions of old untruths you haven't bothered to research.
And be aware that every politician at one point or another has told an embellishment or an untruth, including the saintly Bernie Sanders. It doesn't make them "abnormal". It makes them politicians. I'm planning on voting Green as I have done for the previous three Presidential elections, but I am under no illusion that Jill Stein, or any other future Green Party candidate, isn't entirely capable of exaggerating, equivocating, misremembering or even downright lying at times. If I agree with the policies, then that's how I'll vote.
Tree, do you really believe Hillary when she says that President Bush didn’t want to give NYC funds for reconstruction after 9/11? -
Kris, that is not what Hillary said, nor what I said. She said that Bush wanted to and promised to give funds to NYC. It was other Republicans that were pressuring him not to. Do I think there were Republicans that didn't want to help out NYC? Yes, I'm sure there were. If you can't get that point correct then why do you think that you are getting any other point correct in this story? *
Did you read the Slate piece or Clinton's speech on the floor of the Senate before the vote? She laid out then exactly why she voted for the authorization and it totally coincides with what she is saying now. This isn't just some story made up after the fact, as you seem to think.
And should I take it that you refused to vote for Kerry for President in 2004, or for Obama/Biden in 2008 and 2012 because of Kerry's and Biden's similar bad judgment? Or is Clinton's "yes"vote somehow different from and more toxic than their "yes" votes? The war was the fault of the Bush Administration. Whether or not Clinton, or any other Congressperson voted for the authorization or not, the Bush administration was going to go to war. I would strongly urge you to read the Slate piece, which you seem not to have read. Again, we aren't talking about a "cognitive disorder", we are talking about the actual historical record in this case. Her description of her vote today exactly parallel's what she said when she cast her vote in 2002.
And people don't always remember things exactly correctly. Its not a "cogniive disorder", its a human frailty. You should know that as a nurse. I used to have a nearly eidetic memory when I was younger (sadly lost since adulthood.) But I still made mistakes in my memory on occasion, even then, and certainly now.
*And BTW, speaking of "cognitive disorders", would it be fair to claim you have a cognitive disorder because you misread something I wrote a few minutes ago and claimed it said something it didn't? I don't think so, but do you? We'd all be diagnosed with cognitive disorders if so.
If you want to dislike Clinton for her vote, or her policy on Israel or whatever, that's certainly your prerogative. I just don't like people making up stories about "bribes" that are clearly false and defamatory. People shouldn't resort to lying to justify their own decision not to vote for someone. It's not fair nor open nor democratic. The writer of the piece that accused Clinton of admitting to a bribe did just that-lied- and that, and the widespread willingness here to accept the lie as fact, is the primary objection I am voicing here.
I would respond to the question by asking another one. "Do you agree with the sentiments and beliefs avowed in the US Declaration of Independence?" If so, then you agree that governments are only legitimate when they have the consent of the governed, and Israel does not have the consent of the Palestinians to govern them, and treats them as unequal, not worthy of a right to consent. Therefore, Israel, in its present form, should be abolished and a new government, respecting rights for all, regardless of religion or ethnicity, should be formed. (That should be the shared value!)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
This is why I hate election seasons. People with axes to grind start writing crap and people buy into it. Suddenly it becomes an accepted "truth" when its simply a case of false political spin. I'm not saying you, David, or Phil have axes to grind. I'm talking about the original writer of the opinion piece who tried to, and, by the reactions of people here, including you David (and Phil), succeeded in planting a false story.
If you listen to the full answer from Clinton at the MSNBC link its clear that she ISN'T saying that she voted for the War Authorization because Bush gave NY millions. She's saying that she trusted Bush to keep his word on Iraq because he kept his word on aid to NYC, even when there was significant pressure from his fellow republicans to quash the aid and go back on his promise.
This seems to have gone down the memory hole, but at the time of the vote Bush promised that he would let the weapons inspectors finish their work and also promised to go back to the UN for ratification if weapons were found. He did neither, but Clinton, knowing that he had kept a promise to her on providing funds to NYC despite pressure to renege on that promise, believed Bush's promise that he would use the authorization in order to press Iraq diplomatically rather than merely as an excuse for war. That is what she is saying when she said she had a different experience from Sanders, who was not present for Bush's promise to provide funds for NYC. Of course he lied.
But to insinuate that Clinton was bribed to support the Iraq War is totally false. It's part and parcel of what I complained about earlier here on the demonization of Clinton. She was wrong, and admitted as such, but so were 28 other Democrats (and all but one Republican), including Kerry, Biden and Dodd, none of whom have been raked over the coals for their votes as much as Clinton has. Even Obama cut Kerry slack for his vote when he supported Kerry in his 2004 bid for the Presidency. This "bribery" crap is just more of the same unfair treatment that Clinton has consistently gotten, and I'm sorry to see so many here lap it up without question. Criticize Clinton for her vote if you so choose but don't latch onto false propaganda and repeat it as gospel.
If you doubt my word on this, I'd suggest reading snopes.com, which has deemed the rumor of Clinton "admitting bribery" as false, here:
Or see slate.com, which discusses Clinton's similar explanation of her vote made in February of this year.
In response, Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.
Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.
Kaplan at Slate then goes on to explain the circumstances around the vote and quotes from Clinton's speech at the time. I'd suggest reading the Slate piece at length if you really want the truth instead of more false rumors and innuendos.