You might disagree but I credit Joseph Lelyveld with an intellectually respectable discussion of Carter , Isreal and Apartheid in the March 29 NYRoB

Whew, not just one, but three terrific articles. Much of the recent news out of Israel, where Netanyahu's star appears to be rising once again (not to mention Avigdor Lieberman!), has been discouraging, but maybe this is a portent of hope. The Soros article in particular seems exceptionally good - it's clear Soros is someone who is genuine and who truly has Israel's best interests in mind. Kudos to Soros and to you too, MJ.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

GEORGE SHOULD TUNE IN HERE....

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/

Emet knows that only a tiny minority of Jews support his position, which is why Aipac had a bible thumping fundie preacher keynote their conference this year. Mainstream Jews despise Aipac but Aipac funnels the big bucks.
Of the 5.8 million Jews, 20% have been to Israel. So only a fifth have enough interest (they sure have the money) to even visit there. So you have 20% that care about Israel much at all. Of that number, most are two-state, get-out-of-the-territories types.
So what does Aipac have. They claim 100,000 which means they have maybe 50,000.
Of that number, 200 activists who donate to campaigns.
So 200 Jews out of 6,000,000 are dominating US Mideast policy.
Emet's only prayer is that the right-wing Christians save the day which is why Aipac featured Hagee.
Jews are too liberal and no liberal can support colonialism by anyone.
But the fundies have no money and prayer count for bupkes with Congress.
So Aipac is done. Buh bye.

Well that wasn't a v. productive post ...'o' I think... nutters night?

You wouldn't expect the nutter to actually spend enough time reading the article so he/she would actually know it was referring to Tommy Lapid & not George Soros, now would you?

Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam>

Ummmmm...Soros?  From what I've seen around these parts, when he is mentioned, it means...

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

If it was Lapid, then I owe you thanks for pointing that out MJ.

Do you mean trashing a holocaust victim like Soros? I don't fault him for being left on Israel. I don't consider myself trashing him or bashing him. If I was intentionally making untrue statements about him, you would let me know.

What I can't stand about him is his always simmering below the surface venom, his mention of his being a holocaust victim as you just did, when in fact he was as he later claims he was accused of being a "young cog in the Hitlerite wheel".

The thing that really bothers me is his cavalier attitude towards the suffering of those around him. When he admits that he worked for the Nazis is one thing but his remarks that he felt no guilt and that it was really not that difficult of a memory. You may not see the parallel from the left, MJ, but to me that fits right in with his sitting comfortable and protected with his billions while he passes judgement of Israelis and Jews whose lives are at risk.

Whether Soros shares similar views to yours or not on Israel, he is a man full of bitterness and elite disregard for some of the same people who survived the holocaust without joining Hitler youth.

If you are nauseated and you call that trashing him, which part is untrue? I don't like him, that's my opinion. My opinion is based on facts. How is that unfair? Are you trying to argue that no matter what he does in his personal life, if he pours truckloads of money into your liberal causes, then all his sins are washed away. Since I don't consider that a big redeemer, it seems as though you are the one who lets his politics sway your view of him as an individual, not me.

Your statistical illiteracy is not surprising. Isn't it far more likely that the large number of anti-AIPAC, pro-peace posts on a liberal forum such as this suggests that most liberal Jews are anti-AIPAC and pro-peace?

Personally, I've found the settler types little short of fascist scum ever since I lived in Israel, and I've been disgusted by AIPAC since serving briefly as an intern there in high school. And it wasn't even neocon back in those days.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

SeeDee

It seems from your vitriolic portrayal of Soros' past that whether some (or none) of the charges you post are based in fact or no, your main motivation is an envy of the guy's wealth.

Who is the Bush multi-billionaire Jewish contributor whose name crops up in the Abramoff/Cunningham/Lewis scandal? TJKing, have you no concerns for those 'truckloads' of money?

Soros should be allowed to toss his money around to support his convictions just like those millions from other Jewish billionaires being tossed to GOP campaigns...as long as both of them adhere to the VERY LENIENT rules controlling such 'money tossing'.

The more public exposure we give AIPAC, the faster it's going to implode-

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/16/aipac/index.html

We're not going to need a competing organization- we'll need a successor.

My dear friend,

"My employer is IPF which has never gotten a dime from Soros"
Why? What happened?

May I ask you also to comment on the following articles:

http://www.forward.com/articles/soros-sits-in-as-fledgling-dovish-coalition-sets-o/

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/17/155154.shtml?s=ic

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200702/FOR20070205a.html

Regards,
- Davai.

"The Truth Will Set You Free"

If the IFP and George Soros relly wants to make a difference they will ignore AIPAC. Instead they will use Soros genius for business and investing and take Palestinians and Arabs and Muslims in general into the global economy with education and training.

As long as what Jackson Diehl reports in his Washinton Post column continues no mount of money from Soro will make any difference:

"Hamas has been busy in recent months building bunkers and stockpiling anti-tank weapons in the Gaza Strip, in imitation of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Despite a cease-fire, crude rockets are being fired at southern Israeli cities every day. Israeli military commanders are pressing for action, and even political leaders seem to believe a new war like that of last summer is all but inevitable."

However, if Soros can break the narrowness of Muslim existence and worry a lot less in convincing that Israelis should do what they currently believe to be dangerous, he will have done a great service.

One last point. It is obvious that people who respond to Rosenberg's posts live in fantasy. It is no surprise the Kristof has his column published. Setting aside Times policy for columnists the Times has never been pro-Israeli in its editorial policies. Pinch's Great-Grandmother opposed the foundation of Israel. No editorial about the Middle East does not ultimately put all the responsibility on Israel. If that is not obvious from any reading of the Times then there is no hope or a world based on facts.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

MJ: the link to the Soros article in your post is no longer working. Here's a good link.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Being pro-Israel is simply the morally right thing to do. Anyone who doesn't support Israel is morally bankrupt and indeed is pro-terrorism. That's the bottom line. One should not be evenhanded between a free democratic country and its terrorist enemies. Soros and the left in general are depraved and dangerous to the free world.

The Times editorials since 1997 have been critical of Israel, but they still have consistently lamented Hamas' unbending refusal to recognize Israel's legitimacy. Btw, everybody, it's "Punch" Sulzberger, not "pinch".

I can hardly understand what you are saying. II think you are calling me an anti-semite. Please clarify. It also seems you comparing me to the nazis and implying that I want to kill someone.

Republicans are only killers? Thats what defines them? You do sound like Soros.

Bogus issue anyhow.  Even if Soros did fund MJR's efforts, I wouldn't mind his praising Soros.  Indeed, I'd have to assume they have a meeting of the minds and are out to encourage its expression.  It's not as if we're accusing MJR of kicking a government contract back in return. 

I wouldn't even mind if MJR praised a friend's book, as long as he acknowledges the fact. Has The Journal never favorably reviewed a book by a contributor?

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I envy his money?

I was not talking about class struggle. I was referring to the phony stories he tells about how Republicans have victimized him, how he is just this innocent guy and he starts his speeches with how he is unfairly demonized and how it makes his anger drive him.

When one of the richest men in America implies that he would pay any price if someone would guarantee that we are rid of George Bush, there is always some nut that will take that kind of offer seriously. I find it humorous how your materialism makes you turn this into a class struggle about what you characterize as rich jews. Where did you get that?

To answer your specific question, do I have concerns for that money? I only have a problem when he uses his power to make sure less and less people have anything near the same economic or political opportunities as he has had.

I consider it troubling that a man who escaped Nazis by aiding them, in turn denying the real victims from having the "opportunity" to be free.

He comes west and uses the capitalist system to become rich and uses his money to destroy free market systems so no one else can have the "opportunity" to have a better life like he did.

His money is stored offshore where he can avoid American taxes, but wants working class americans to pay higher taxes.

He makes comparisons of our war and President and the Nazis while he blames American culture for the attacks against us. He even blames a resurgent Anti-Semitism on the Jews and pushes for a solution to anti-semitism based on an apologetic destruction of our culture,...while he sits on a pile of money.

I don't care how rich someone is. I do care if someone is doing everything they can to deny average people the opportunity to live free.

He has advantages that very few have and thats fine, but when he starts to cry because people make true statements about his actions and his life and claims he suffers worse than anyone, that is offensive.

Your mention of "money tossing". Again, he is a leader for making more rules and controls limiting the abilities for people of moderate means in America to support their political positions, but he has created financial mechanisms where he can get around it. Again, he restricts "opportunity" for others and then cries as a victim.

He claims to base his life on fallibilism, which argues that everything he says could be wrong and that we would be doing him a favor to challenge him, but when anyone says anything, especially factual statements he sceams that he is the most put upon and unfairly injured.

I only use his off-shore money as an example of his monumental mega-chutzpah. Your introducing him as the "liberal" Jewish Billionaire versus Republican Jewish Billionaires, is your stereotype, not mine. I have enough complaints about non-jewish elitist limosine liberals to make you feel better.

Wasn't the Soviet Union one of the earliest and most outspoken supporters of Israel? Just asking.

Go read the entire excerpt on CBS. This is not the only time he has shrugged off his responsibility during the Holocaust. He has a disturbing view of morality. He mocks George Bush's statement that countries who provide safe haven or profit from terrorists, are either with us or againt us. Bush knew many governments would defend their inaction by complaining that it would be painful or dangerous to stand up to the terrorists. Bush was letting them know, if you tolerate evil, there comes a point where you become an accomplice.

This seems to hit a soft spot for Soros, considering his indifference to the suffering of the victims of the holocaust as he became an accomplice to mass murder.

Here is an excerpt:

Here is a partial transcript from an interview done by Steve Kroft for CBS' 60 Minutes George Soros on December 20, 1998:

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that's–that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't–you don't see the connection. But it was–it created no–no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was–well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets–that if I weren't there–of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would–would–would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

---------end transcript------

Lies? What do you mean by Swiftboat campaign,..don't you mean a "borking" campaign?

Smears are based on lies and baseless accusations like yours. These are his words. That is what is sick about him, is he saw fascism and communism up close and wants to emulate them.

"...What surprises me is how measured and collected he remains in the face of the disgusting dezinformatsiya peddled against him..."

Are you kidding? This guy is rolling around on the ground kicking and screaming in a fetal position everytime he gets a microphone.

You have no clue what fascisim is, because you are a cheerleader for it.

Whenever you decide you want to enlighten us on the "lies" that you are seeing here, let me know. These are his words. If they don't make you feel uncomfortable, I don't know what else to tell you.

Soros hasn't contributed any money to any American Jewish peace lobbies. He met with some leaders of the peace movements to explore ways to move the peace process forward by funding either an alliance or a new group to lobby for peace, which afterall, is in Israel's best interest. So far, nothing has been decided and Soros hasn't contributed to IPF or any other group. If only people would check the sources of news articles and compare them to other reports - it would make it so much easier to find the truth, which is why were here, isn't it?

The policy of AIPAC, that their position is to support whatever political party is in power in Israel and be guided by that party has not been a very good strategy for AIPAC. It certainly has destroyed any kind of objective independence and moral authority they might have had - their concern is not the state of Israel, but whatever political party happens to be in power, whether it is good for Israel or not.

The fact that they articulated that position demonstrates that their leadership has become so arrogant as to no longer care what the public or their members think. I really doubt that many American Jews are true believers in the evangelical movement and see them as on their side and I dare say most American Jews would have been appalled at what happened at that conference when Hagee spoke.

MJ, I don't fault Soros for surviving the holocaust, I fault him for his characterization of his work with the Nazis as no big deal, nothing worthy of concern or second thought or guilt. He compares his exploitation of Jewish property to Financial markets where he was supplying a service, filling demand.

That's a screwed up mind. If you want me to feel sympathy because the holocaust has made him mentally ill, then please say so, but how can it be, in this particular specific case, be the height of anti-semitism.

Calling something the Height of anti-semitism like this minimizes the horror of real anti-semitism.

Genocide is the height of anti-semitism. Hezbollah leaders voicing serious plans to snuff every Jew and soon to have the nukes to do it, that is the height of anti-semitism. Adolf Hitler trying to snuff every living Jew, that is the height of anti-semitism.

Voicing concern over a young man who recalls his work with the Nazis as filling a demand and having no regrets, that is not the height of anti-semitism.

Davai has plenty of horrible anti-semitic rants, characterizing this as his worst would be an exageration and counterproductive on a number of different levels.

"If all these groups are so small how do they have so much power over U.S. policy?"

Yeah! Bush and his 'crazy' neocons -- look how small they are and how much power they have... I scratch my head about that one everyday.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Samuel Johnson.

MJ--do me a favor. Please do not respond to trolls like Daniel and TJ. Daniel is pretty damn illiterate (I don't care if he's a foreigner. He is posting on a blog in English) and is a nasty little bigot. TJ is a smart guy but is a real rightwinger an Republican.
Don't respond to them. It demeans you to acknowledge them. Especially the guy who can't write English.

I've always found it to be the first refuge...

I agree about Daniel. He makes no sense. But TJ is civil and sometimes I like what he says. I just disagree with him.
Daniel is a nasty piece of work.

Hassan­ Nasrallah, Hezbollah says:

"...The Jews invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities...Anyone who reads the Koran and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history... Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment.

"...If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.

... If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide...."

How is that for a start?

Save us the trouble of going after them worldwide? They already have gone after Jews worldwide in the Mideast and also places like the embassy in Argentina.

I'm afraid I don't know who Hagi is. Are you trying to argue that Hezbollah and their benefactor Iran do not advocate the physical wiping from the face of the earth Israel and world Jihad?

Are you aware that their charter not only advocates the death of Jews, it also describes how it plans to forcibly convert all Christians.

This plan of world take over is Jihad. Hezbollah is supported by the anti-war groups that you saw on TV this weekend, unless you were busy watching Re. Hagi.

TJ.

Unless you provide links, I'm not interested in commenting on quotes without documentation.

Please show source(s) for your contention that Hezbollah will soon have nukes.

PS. I have no idea who "Hagi" is either.

MJ.

"Davai__watch out with the lies or you are out of here.....Lying about TPM regulars (i.e. those of us who post under our own names) will get you banned permanently."

Is this an official TPM policy? Are you claiming that commentors have the clout to demand individual posters be banned while the rest of the rabble have to guess at what kinds of behavior are deemed unacceptable?

Daniel Greenbaum isn't illiterate and he isn't a nasty little bigot. On other topics he is always pretty civil. This is an extremely emotional issue for most people and if the conversation gets out of hand as it usually does try to have some compassion for the other guy.

Are Jews sensitive and defensive about this issue? Well, wouldn't you be? You're trying to gang up on the guy, and I hate that - it's bully behavior. I don't agree with anything Greenbaum or King have to say, but I tell them directly and I don't make shitty comments about them to others.

Never mind.

Link away but please confine your cites to those authors (preferably Israeli) who have actual professional expertise in the areas they write about and who are not clients of Benador and Associates.

Are you saying that Iran is "Hagi"?

Well, a little recognition of how emotional and passionate people get about this subject wouldn't hurt - the threads on this issue ALWAYS get out of control.

LEL66, Daniel G, etc., have shown us how they really operate.

There seems to be a trend in the last few days among the pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian super-hawks who post here, toward a "FULL EMERGENCY" mode, with all internal safeguards shut down.

Hence the "with us or agin' us," the spurious accusations of anti-Semitism, the outright lies about matters of record, and the increasingly vicious tone, all displayed in their discussions of the Palestinian problem.

Do they know something we don't?

"as long as he acknowledges the fact"
Correct.

Just because someone is illiterate, it doesn't necessarily mean they are a troll...

I was able to get into a state (non-religious) university, and even earn my degree (political science & psychology), however, I know there are times when I come across as totally illiterate. Often my grammar sucks and my proof reading skills suck even more... But, I would like to believe I can still construct an intelligent, logical standpoint or argument, and not have to rely on repetitive emotional arguments that have no factual or referenced material to back them up.

You don't come across as illiterate at all. The more upset people get, the more apt they are to make errors. That's true of all of us.

"Full disclosure is very important"
Yes I agree.
We just have honest disagreement with MJ.
He thinks that asking for full disclosure is an act of being
"holocaust deniers or anti-semites."
I have a different opinion.

Daniel, you raise the issue that:

...AIPAC must have very few members and thus how do people think it has all the power attributed to it.

Most important of all, AIPAC distributes money. Lots of it. [emphasis mine] It does this not as an organization -- despite its name, AIPAC is not a political action committee -- but through its members. The scale of their giving can be glimpsed at the Web site of the Federal Election Commission (www.fec.gov), where contributions are listed by individual. Between 1997 and 2001, the 46 members of AIPAC's board together gave well in excess of $3 million, or more than $70,000 apiece. At least seven gave more than $100,000, and one -- David Steiner, a New Jersey real-estate developer -- gave more than $1 million. (Much of this funding goes to political parties and other "soft money" recipients who are not subject to federal election donation limits.) And that's just the board. Many of AIPAC's 60,000 members contribute funds as well, in sums ranging from a hundred dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Much of this money is distributed through a network of pro-Israel PACs. Often, when an individual candidate is favored, these PACs will organize multiple fundraisers in different parts of the country... ...This giving packs all the more punch because of the lack of a counterweight by pro-Arab and pro-Muslim PACs. As a result of such lopsided giving, says William Quandt, a member of the National Security Council in the Nixon and Carter administrations, "Seventy to 80 percent of all members of Congress will go along with whatever they think AIPAC wants."

The above is from an excellent article by Michael Massing, published in 2002 on The American Prospect website (since then, soft money donations have been prohibited, but it's clear that AIPAC still is able to direct donations to the candidates). The article also points out that AIPAC's policy positions are not determined by the membership itself, but by only a relatively few persons within the organization. (It also goes into some detail about how the organization operates - a fascinating article.)

So, here we have a situation where the membership of AIPAC is only a tiny percentage of the American-Jewish population, and it's policies are being set by only a handful of the members. One other thing to consider is that AIPAC claims to represent American Jewish opinion, so in the absence of any alternative Jewish-American voice, Congress may be more inclined to go along.

I think the article answers your question quite effectively.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Here are some people from this weekends festivities showing support for our troops while they protest Israel among other things.

I'm not an expert but I think it's beyond question that the activities of AIPAC in the US are at the best divisive and at the worst sinister. For example, the recent AIPAC espionage scandal doesn't seem to have engendered many warm fuzzies for them. Given their history, Mr. Soros's criticism of AIPAC seems pretty mild.

Howard if your reference to first Manasas and the girls in buggies trying to outrace the troops back to town is supposed to be a parallel to what you perceive as modern day naivete about the cost of war, I would have to disagree on a few points. (assuming that this is your point)

First of all, this war was expected to be much bloodier and much deadlier than it has turned out to be. Joe Wilson, Larry Johnson's VIPS group and many of the anti-war bunch before the war were opposed to the Iraq war because of predicted hundreds of thousands of deaths. There was also the warning of baghdad devolving into street fighting that would be like stalingrad costing us 50,000 or more, and Afghanistan we heard was the graveyard of armies since Alexander and the mighty soviets. This was on the TV every night. The first sand storm during the invasion became Quagmire, Quagmire, Quagmire.

I hear Democrats every day, saying catchphrases like, "it can't get any worse", "this is the worst disaster in history". Anyone that pretends like those statements are anything but political talking points is in need of a book on military history. They also say things like, "this is the most dangerous place he could have put us and the worst thing to do to put us in the middle of the two halves of the Islamic faith as they try to kill each other". If it is the "worst" it could ever be, and the "most dangerous" place ever, look at how we have done. After Carter allowed the Iranian revolution to take hold and then he invited Saddam to invade Iran, the region has been a bloodbath that has spilled over into 5 other neighboring countries. The Iranians are still in Lebanon and controlling Assad. Starting in 1991, we had weakened Saddam, and in 4 years of hot war we have annual average combat deaths in the hundreds not thousands or tens of thousands as the Joe Wilsons and MSM predicted.

So I wouldn't say the civilians went into this with an overly rosy picture like some of the Washington socialites of 1861. The similarities are fairly common in all wars, the Generals adapting to fight a new war and stop fighting the last war. The uncomfortable realization after the first year that this is going to take a while. Regardless of their impressions or ours today, they nearly gave up and we are grateful that the ones that did not give up stayed the course once they found strategies that worked.

I disagree with your characterization of the effigy being a politician. I think it is disrespectful and inappropriate to burn Clinton, Carter or Bush in effigy. A president should not be burned, but it is a definite category intended for the first amendment and at the very least it is a clear and succinct message about to whom and what you are trying to say. In this case it is a soldier in uniform with a skeleton mask. Whatever the intent of the burner, it is crossing a line. If the person burning the soldier had used an african american maniken with fatigues, he may not have intended to illicit feelings of hurt and images of lynchings, but if black folks came and stopped the burning on those grounds, no one would defend the burner on the grounds he had good intentions.

More active duty soldiers than not would be hurt by this image. This is callous disregard for their feelings. It is negligence. If you are arguing that our soldiers are tough guys that can handle it, they are tough guys, but they are already carrying a heavy burden, why increase it needlessly. The soldiers I know would shake their heads if they saw this.

I will try to imagine it your way and think maybe it is burning a symbol of militarism. Maybe the fatigues and skull are symbols of military and death caused by militarism, but then to burn it? That shows anger at a policy without sympathy for the soldier. The coffins are lame but at least they are feigning sympathy. I think this was done in poor taste and regardless of how tough our GIs are we owe them better than that.

I don't see you disagreeing with the people in the picture or disassociating yourself from them. It might be effective because the left has a tradition of cheering on their most radical elements and then distancing themselves from them when someone points out how freakishly nutjob they really are. You know, they way more reasonable liberals distance themselves from you, John, when you start blathering incoherently.