Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
It’s not bigoted to call out the Israel lobby over Iran Deal
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/semitic-israel-lobbyIf a rightwing Prime Minister gets invited into Congress to submarine our president’s policy and the New York Times says that Democrats are torn between their “loyalty to the Jewish state” and their support for Obama, I have a right to talk about where their loyalty should lie. If Bill Kristol of the Emergency Committee for Israel responds to Obama’s statement that Israel is the only country publicly to oppose the pact by saying, “All the greater Israel’s glory,” well, I have a right to say that deal opponents care about a foreign country.
If Natan Sharansky, an Israeli closely allied to Netanyahu, gets to write in the Washington Post, “Jews stood up to the U.S. government 40 years ago, and should again on Iran,” I’m allowed to ask why the Washington Post is running appeals to Jewish American dual loyalty.
People would have to be living under a rock not to be aware Netanyahu and American rightwing Likud backers don’t like this deal. After years and years of the worst kind of incendiary fear mongering over Iran, a total repetition of what we endured, as a country, over Iraq, Netanyahu and the Israel lobby are now ferociously rejecting what I and by the way President Obama too see as the only alternative to another war. Well, they placed themselves in the crosshairs of an argument. We didn’t drag them there. Lots of American people don’t like and resent the access Israel has to influence our foreign policy; I do. And heaven forbid we get a long-needed rapprochement with Iran after decades– which could reduce Israel’s power in the region. Many Americans want that, the lobby doesn’t.
None of this is a secret, nor should it be. So don’t expect to shut up anyone telling the truth about it. Calling it Jew-baiting (as Tablet did just two weeks ago) is a form of blackmail.
If Natan Sharansky, an Israeli closely allied to Netanyahu, gets to write in the Washington Post, “Jews stood up to the U.S. government 40 years ago, and should again on Iran,” I’m allowed to ask why the Washington Post is running appeals to Jewish American dual loyalty.
People would have to be living under a rock not to be aware Netanyahu and American rightwing Likud backers don’t like this deal. After years and years of the worst kind of incendiary fear mongering over Iran, a total repetition of what we endured, as a country, over Iraq, Netanyahu and the Israel lobby are now ferociously rejecting what I and by the way President Obama too see as the only alternative to another war. Well, they placed themselves in the crosshairs of an argument. We didn’t drag them there. Lots of American people don’t like and resent the access Israel has to influence our foreign policy; I do. And heaven forbid we get a long-needed rapprochement with Iran after decades– which could reduce Israel’s power in the region. Many Americans want that, the lobby doesn’t.
None of this is a secret, nor should it be. So don’t expect to shut up anyone telling the truth about it. Calling it Jew-baiting (as Tablet did just two weeks ago) is a form of blackmail.
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Did ya even bother to read the article before you knee-jerked, ober?
[img]
[/img]
....and centuries old depictions of greedy, unpatriotic, warmongering Jews controlling government policy.
It's straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Reminds me of what some assholes have been trying to do to Bernie Sanders. 
As I wrote previously about Hamas supporters like Mondoweiss...
[font color = "red"]Mondoweiss defending Hamas' genocidal Jew-hating charter:[/font]
The obsessive focus on the Hamas charter
Most often discussions regarding Hamas in the Western media begin with its notorious 1988 Charter. But have media outlets who spew obsessively narrow readings of Hamas’s military position even bothered to do any research into its political work?
....Klein explains that
Hamas is a pragmatic and flexible political actor and focusing on its 1988 Charter completely misses Hamas’s contemporary identity. However, disgracefully the US and European states maintain their uneducated or purposefully misleading understanding of Hamas.
Most often discussions regarding Hamas in the Western media begin with its notorious 1988 Charter. But have media outlets who spew obsessively narrow readings of Hamas’s military position even bothered to do any research into its political work?
....Klein explains that
Hamas will not revoke their Charter because it represents an important historical document for the group,
which was written at the time of their inception during the first Intifada. The Charter, however, is not representative of Hamas in its current form. There are more contemporary Hamas documents, such as their 2006 election manifesto, which describes Hamas’s broader vision for Palestinian society and which author Khaled Hroub states, “could be said that the document was designed to carry out exactly the kinds of reform that had been demanded by Western governments and financial institutions.” Still, US and EU officials continue to be obtusely obsessed with Hamas’s Charter. Through this reductionist and reified reading of Hamas, Western officials continue to be blind to Hamas’s politics....
Hamas is a pragmatic and flexible political actor and focusing on its 1988 Charter completely misses Hamas’s contemporary identity. However, disgracefully the US and European states maintain their uneducated or purposefully misleading understanding of Hamas.
- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/understanding-hamas#sthash.wTK5PFeE.dpuf
[font color = "red"]Mondoweiss promoting David Duke...[/font]
An interview with David Duke
As part of the research for this article, I contacted David Duke by phone. Duke, it should be noted, rejects the notion that he is an anti-Semite, racist, or White supremacist. He also rejects the label of “ex-Klansman,” as it defines him by a membership that he had ended forty years ago. I asked whether he considered himself a “White nationalist”—particularly since he is a frequent contributor to the self-proclaimed “White nationalist” forum Stormfront.
No, I consider myself a human rights activist. And when I do go on Stormfront posts, that’s what I preach, and that’s what I teach.
One wonders then, if other human rights activists should renounce human rights—as the term has now been claimed by Duke—or if Amnesty International “should reflect on why” they promote a concept shared by Duke. And despite endorsing the Presbyterian Church USA divestment move, Duke qualified his endorsement by dismissing the undue weight with which critics have attempted to give it.
I think it just shows the bankruptcy of their argument. You don’t criticize any principle because someone else endorses it.
“I certainly agree with disinvestment—I have a right to speak like everyone else does,” Duke told me. But he found it ridiculous to reject PCUSA’s divestment “because of some guilt by association, which is not even an association.”
In fact, in my conversation with Duke, it was clear that he would endorse almost any action that was critical of Israel. Duke disagreed with but didn’t have any serious objection to the clauses in PCUSA’s divestment measure that asserted Israel’s “right to exist” and support for the two-state solution.
Thus if one sought to engage in ways to hold Israel accountable for its actions without gaining approval from Duke, one would be immobilized. In the end, freedom for Palestinians—or for that matter any other oppressed peoples—should not be dependent on whether the US “Jewish community” approves or whether David Duke disapproves.
As part of the research for this article, I contacted David Duke by phone. Duke, it should be noted, rejects the notion that he is an anti-Semite, racist, or White supremacist. He also rejects the label of “ex-Klansman,” as it defines him by a membership that he had ended forty years ago. I asked whether he considered himself a “White nationalist”—particularly since he is a frequent contributor to the self-proclaimed “White nationalist” forum Stormfront.
No, I consider myself a human rights activist. And when I do go on Stormfront posts, that’s what I preach, and that’s what I teach.
One wonders then, if other human rights activists should renounce human rights—as the term has now been claimed by Duke—or if Amnesty International “should reflect on why” they promote a concept shared by Duke. And despite endorsing the Presbyterian Church USA divestment move, Duke qualified his endorsement by dismissing the undue weight with which critics have attempted to give it.
I think it just shows the bankruptcy of their argument. You don’t criticize any principle because someone else endorses it.
“I certainly agree with disinvestment—I have a right to speak like everyone else does,” Duke told me. But he found it ridiculous to reject PCUSA’s divestment “because of some guilt by association, which is not even an association.”
In fact, in my conversation with Duke, it was clear that he would endorse almost any action that was critical of Israel. Duke disagreed with but didn’t have any serious objection to the clauses in PCUSA’s divestment measure that asserted Israel’s “right to exist” and support for the two-state solution.
Thus if one sought to engage in ways to hold Israel accountable for its actions without gaining approval from Duke, one would be immobilized. In the end, freedom for Palestinians—or for that matter any other oppressed peoples—should not be dependent on whether the US “Jewish community” approves or whether David Duke disapproves.
- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/goldberg-presbyterian-divestment#sthash.TXPttwmE.dpuf
[font color = "red"]Mondoweiss promoting David Duke fan, Gilad Atzmon....[/font]
Atzmon and Jewish identity
Israel/Palestine Philip Weiss on June 23, 2011 595 Comments
Gilad Atzmon did an interview with me on Jewish identity. It’s pretty good, and it’s here. Though I regret my flip comment calling the Catholic church the church of pedophilia, apologies. Here’s a bit from it:
Israel/Palestine Philip Weiss on June 23, 2011 595 Comments
Gilad Atzmon did an interview with me on Jewish identity. It’s pretty good, and it’s here. Though I regret my flip comment calling the Catholic church the church of pedophilia, apologies. Here’s a bit from it:
- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2011/06/i-found-my-identity-down-on-highway-61#sthash.IgPXAjCU.dpuf
[font color = "red"]If that's not enough to prove Mondoweiss is a hate site, there's this...[/font]
Weiss suggested (a) that Jews are more inclined to cheat than are non-Jews, and indeed Jews don’t even recognize it as cheating;
(b) that the American non-Jewish establishment made some sort of deal with the Jews back in the 70s, in which Jews provided their economic prowess to the U.S. in exchange for support for the Israel lobby (indeed, that one is so ridiculous that my fingers rebelled at typing it);
(c) Jewish media company CEOs force their Gentile employees to express support for Israel and
(d) that Jews need to “understand our role” in causing the Holocaust because of the “power” we had. Weiss now elaborates that he’s talking about Jewish economic power, as if the German Jew who started as a peddler and built his business into a chain of department stores wasn’t simply an individual Jewish businessman who found success, but instead part of a cabal of Jews using their “power” to undermine the Gentiles, who retaliated via the Holocaust.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/04/mondoweiss-is-a-hate-site/
In addition, and all the evidence for what follows is easy to find in this thread, 10% of Mondoweiss funding comes from ultra-Rightwing troll Ron Unz... Mondoweiss believes all Jews are responsible for dead Palestinian kids...Mondoweiss supports Hamas & unrepentant murderers of Jews like Rasmeah Odeh...Mondoweiss argues that PeaceNow & B'tselem enable the destruction of Palestine. All of this is easy to confirm right HERE in the links.
I will link to the numerous hidden offensive posts of yours as well as the RW sites you have used as sources, not as an attack of course but to show how callous you have been to the Palestinians, then you can have DU weigh in if you should be the one labeled as a hater.
Wanna play?
I never forget.Last edited Tue Aug 11, 2015, 02:02 AM - Edit history (1)
...by trying to argue that since I post bigoted stuff (not that I do) it makes it okay for you to do it.
Major Fail for you.
Do whatever you wish with my posts. Go to town. But I get to do the same with your posts, right?
