Hey Davai. What was your kid's SAT score again? You need to post more on your kids' high scores.

MJ,

OT: I thought you weren't going to disappear your posts anymore. So what happened to your "Jews-only highways" piece?

I'm entirely confused. This post is about a couple of former politicos apparently raising money to support, well, themselves. Very interesting stuff.

But, uh, what in the heck is everyone else talking about? Not a single comment in this thread makes any sense to me at all.

Maybe I'm just being dense but I'm on this site all of the time and I suddenly feel like I came here from another planet.

When I come back to check on this post, somebody will probably answer it with a guacamole recipe.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Like any upstanding Republican, Chavez dislikes government, until it comes time to loot it, directly or indirectly.

Didn't mean to criticize anybody personally bslev. I think we all need to help keep MJ's discussion on track, though. I don't even get involved in a lot of them anymore (particularly if Israel is an issue) and that's kind of too bad.

Always taking Guac recipes, though!

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Mark, I don't know if you saw my comment directed to you in the deleted "apartheid road" thread, but I suggest to you that in view of your unwarranted extrapolation of what "EVERYBODY" in Israel thinks, that you visit Benei Beraq to see what the "Ultra-Orthodox" (Haredim) and Hevron, Beit El and Ofra to see what the "crazy settlers" are really like, instead of basing your opinion on biased newspaper sources.

Wssn't Ms. Chavez disqualified from a cabinet post in 2001 for non-payment of nanny taxes, a la Zoe Baird? Hey, whatever else is going on, make sure they pay their taxes!

Don't like the term "neocon"? How about "neofascist"?

Are you sure? Sounds like you are so I'll change original. My apologies.

If it's any consolation, she does not believe a single thing she says.

I wonder. Is it better when these people believe this crap or when they just say it. Should one like a Huckabee, who is a true believer, better than a Santorum or a Romney who are fakes.

I kind of like the Huckabee model. Same reason I like Kucinich.

The initial posts have to do with the relationship between antisemitism and the fact that no one has bothered to tell us the religious preferences of other corrupt politicians.

AIPAC is not Republican or Democratic. I think that only a few people at the convention booed Pelosi.
It is hardline on Israel. That means it will support politicians of either party who share that view. But it is not a Republican organization. My guess is that right now its members are split between Clinton and Giuliani, viewing both as hardline and more likely to take a militant stance vis a vis Iran.
It's not a Dem/GOP thing. They are a single issue group and would support anyone who endorses their positions on Israel, Iran, and the region.
I think they are usually wrong but I do not think their motivations are partisan.

But notice, so far nobody took a bait from MJ,
people stay away from antisemitic comments, even so MJ gave them a bait.

Actually, he said that some right-wing Orthodox Jews in New Jersey lack a sense of connectedness to America at large. He was talking about a tiny fringe of right-wing Jews like yourself.
Two, I'm sure Josh didn't take MJ's comments down. I'm sure MJ did because he can't stand having his comments stunk up by the illiterate racist blatherings of you and Bar Kocha.
He has said in the past that he won't keep posts up that are stunk up by the likes of you. MJ and most TPM people cant stand the stench of racial hate that emanates from you.

MJ mentions Huckabee as a true believer in the neocon cause, but I'm really beginning to wonder if there's a damn one of them left in any kind of leadership role. It seems like they're all shills. Grover Norquist sold his soul to Abramoff and no one seems to care. He's still out there trying to set the GOP agenda on behalf of the highest bidder.

I always knew there were a few who were just mouthing the right sounds but lately it seems like all of the bastards are faking it.

AIPAC is not Republican or Democratic. .....
It is hardline on Israel. That means it will support politicians of either party who share that view.

Ah. So US interests take a back seat.
Glad thats cleared up.

I agree with you as to the reasons the thread was removed. Your comments about "rootless cosmopolitans" and the need for the "proletarian masses" to "ferret out Jews hiding under non-Jewish names" are the best zingers I have ever seen here. I am envious! I wish I had thought of them.

Why isn't anyone saying that the Irish/American society, some of them sent money to Sinn Fein, outs America second?

I see we are witnessing a return of Millard Fillmore's Nativist "American" or "Know-Nothing Party".
I move that MJ be put in charge of the party's panel that will ascertain which American Jews are "loyal Americans" in his eyes, and which are "ethnic nationalists" (i.e. support AIPAC) and will have their right to vote rescinded.

Nothing like the good old days!

A troll complains:

Bar K writes: "To Mr Don K--I have come to realize that your viewpoint is far away from mine, so I would appreciate it if you would either not rate my comments at all, or give them a low rating, because I am interested in gauging the reaction of those who are active in this group to what I write. I don't understand why you give me and others "5" ratings all the time."

I'll tell you the reaction of TPM regulars to your posts. All but 2 or 3 think you are a racist crackpot and don't belong here.

Can't we stick to the topic of bitch-slapping Chavez & Gersten? Those two so deserve it, and it's fun.

You are right. Chavez and Gersten do indeed deserve it.

Unfortunately, the site pests Bar K and Davai use TPM as their personal racism disseminator.

But engaging with trolls is dumb. So we should stay on topic.

Bar_Kochba132,

If you are interested in gauging the individual reactions of others to your posts, you can see them by clicking on the "see individual ratings" link.

It's one thing to criticize, it's another thing to disagree, but this is just the same damned thing over and over - and it's abuse.

"I see a lot about what is good for Israel but very little about what is good for America"

Sure, They say openly
"America's Pro-Israel Lobby"
They don't hide it.
But did you find that anything that they advocate is unreasonable or wrong for America?
Did they lie, mislead?

I'm sorry but this is antisemitics:

"It turns out that one Linda Chavez, the rightwinger whose bread-and-butter is using her Hispanic last name to bash Latinos and "illegals" "
"Both were pretty standard Jewish neocons, "
It was totally uncalled for.

As well as his claims in the previous post that American Jews lack connection to US.

1) It's not anti-semitic. When Chavez was up for a cabinet post, it came out that although she pretends to be a Hispanic Catholic, she is actually
a Jew, who was married to Aipac's political director. She denied she was Jewish until a rabbi came forward who converted her. The relevance is her lying about who she is and what drives her. MJ is right to point out that she is a total fake.

She is as Latina as Norman Podhoretz!

deleted

So why you are telling this here?
What the article in WP has to do with Chavez being Hispanic Catholic or Hispanic Jew? What that article has to do with AIPAC?

Yep, especially medium distance. I never figured out why my high school insisted on doing 600 yards rather than a more traditional 440 or 880, or even something metric.

Y'know, Davai, I once had someone walk up to me and say "I think you're a bastard."

"Yes, that's probably true."

"What, you're a bastard?"

"No, I said it was probably true that you thought I was a bastard. I've never met you before, but you probably weren't lying about what you thought. On the other hand, I am more impressed with my senior cat, Mr. Clark's, knowledge of Bolivian history than yours of my parentage."

From my perspective, Davai, your identity is tied up in being a victim, or, perhaps more precisely, whenever you are questioned, you change the subject, just as you did here, not answering but throwing back a distracting question. Whatever is questioned, you justify your position not because it is ethical, but because others are just as bad.

Actually, you're rather amusing, although it does make me guilty to laugh at your insecurities and general charm.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"you change the subject, just as you did here"

What you are talking about?

"Whatever is questioned, you justify your position not because it is ethical, but because others are just as bad."

Yes, I want Israel to be judged by the same standards the rest of the world is judged.

Ask the Wash Post why they thought it was relevant to put it in.
I suppose MJ included it because he knew Chavez when her husband was Aipac's political director or whatever it was.
The point is that Chavez goes around bashing affirmative action, then gets jobs by claiming to be Latina, while she is in fact a white Jew from the suburbs and a neocon.
In other words, a fake. Not an authentic paranoid like Davai.

"Ask the Wash Post why they thought it was relevant to put it in."
They didn't put it in.

"The point is that Chavez goes around bashing affirmative action, then gets jobs by claiming to be Latina"

What's Latina? Why she is not Latina?

I shall speak for myself.

I don't believe that either bar kochba or davai is a racist and I see a gang mentality permeating this and other threads that makes me very uncomfortable, and even more sad.

I see lots of hate on this and other threads, and it comes from many sources.

" But I do have pity on paranoid Jews who still think it is 1942 and that we are all about to be shipped to Auschwitz"
It's totally straw man argument.
"Well, I don't hate anybody"

You do hate American Jews who don't agree with you. You charge them with lack of patriotism and lack of connection to own country.
Yoo hate Israeli people who don't accept your views.
You are bitter hateful person.
I remember hate you expressed when you thought that TNR was caught in lies. It was so small and pathetic.

OK, you are right,
Still what's Latina, and why she is not Latina

What you said reminds me of an article I read last year about someone (pro-Israel) decided to attend an orientation meeting for volunteers for the International Solidarity Movement (the pro-Palestinian organization that sends Europeans and Americans to serve as human shields and to confront Israeli security forces) to see what it is like. The director told the initiates that "when you go among the Palestinians you will hear things like "the Jews are the enemy", "the Jews have to be eradicated" and the such, but what they REALLY mean is "the Zionists". No doubt the director is a mind-reader.
We always hear the argument that one can be "strongly" critical of Israel and yet not be an antisemite. However, how is one able to discern what the critic is really thinking? Thus you, MJ, have opted to use your pen and blog to make sure that you are on the safe side. After all, you yourself have stated that "single issue ethnocentric Jewish voters" who "don't care about America" are endangering you. What if a non-Jew thinks the same and "mistakenly", knowing your Jewish identity, and without knowing your views, AUTOMATICALLY puts you in that category? That is why you have to prove yourself over and over and over, again, just to be on the safe side.

Please.

Linda Chavez was nominated as Secretary of Labor? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

YEAH RIGHT!

Who in their right mind would nominate her as Sec of Labor? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Next you'll be trying to tell me Elaine Chou was nominted for the same post.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Flood? That unfortunately reminds me of a poll that suggested that a significant number of Americans believed Noah's wife was Joan of Ark.

Truth may be stranger than polls. About a week ago, I was driving in what Maryland calls the Cumberland Gap, but what looked more like the Himalayas. As we ground down one slope (I am not an experienced truck driver, but luckily my friend was driving), we passed a church, outside of which was a skeletal steel frame, identified by a sign indicating it was an Ark under construction. Locals told us it had been in that state for 30 years or so.

Perhaps the lack of progress on the ark was due to a shortage of arc welders.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Jews are white -- Sephardim, Mizrachim, Falashim, whatever.  You must appreciate the narrative, davai.  Namely, all Jews are white by default, since Jews are against the Brown People of Palestine.

But you sure are having a swell time with the ratings. Anyway, I'm sure the discussion being sidetracked has absolutely nothing to do with MJ's habit of tossing his posts down the TPMmemory_hole when the discussions get too weird for comfort.

I'm still curious why MJ post attract so many
Jew-haters, and not posts of others left wing TMP contributers?

What if a Black is converted to Judaism, Is he she is no longer Black, but automatically Jewish neocon?

Thanks to MJ we are having very interesting discussion.
With progressive like MJ, who need reactionaries?

That can be dangerous. Some colleagues and I introduced one distinguished member of the Internet community to Ethiopian food, with abundant tej. He couldn't get enough of the food after everyone else was stuffed.

Plenty of stews were on the table, but the injera pile had been refreshed several times. Unfortunately, the staff thought we were finished, and brought extra napkins, some in warm water.

A man trying to eat a linen napkin full of kitfo is not a pleasant sight.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Lenny Bruce, How to Talk Dirty and Influence People; Playboy Press, softcover edition, 1972, p.6:

In the literate sense -- as literate as Yiddish can be since it is not a formal language -- "goyish" means "gentile."  But that's not the way I mean to use it.

To me, if you live in New York or any other big city, you are Jewish.  It doesn't matter even if you're Catholic; if you live in New York you're Jewish.  If you live in Butte, Montana, you're going to be goyish even if you're Jewish.

Evaporated milk is goyish even if the Jews invented it.  Chocolate is Jewish and fudge is goyish.  Spam is goyish and rye bread is Jewish.

Negroes are all Jews.  Italians are all Jews.  Irishmen who have rejected their religion are Jews.

Howard, you're on a roll:

""No, I said it was probably true that you thought I was a bastard. I've never met you before, but you probably weren't lying about what you thought. On the other hand, I am more impressed with my senior cat, Mr. Clark's, knowledge of Bolivian history than yours of my parentage."

"Flood? That unfortunately reminds me of a poll that suggested that a significant number of Americans believed Noah's wife was Joan of Ark."

"Perhaps the lack of progress on the ark was due to a shortage of arc welders."

or architects. :-)

Zionista said:

What a shame that calling someone an antisemite is covered by the same speech clause of the First Amendment, huh.

I don't think its a shame but we should be sure the charge is true. But who decides that? Maybe we should organize a committee
to decide what posts/people are anti semitic?

Hey, I think The Iraq Survey Group is free.

Not as much fun as Dan K, though.

Don't knock Bolivia. Any landlocked country that has a navy, complete with admirals, gets points for creativity.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Listen, I lost track of that thread on Israeli apartheid roads. But I just want to know one thing. When I said that the entire demographic imbalance of the region is due to the excessive chastity of Israeli girls, who won't do their part to address these issues (I'd settle for a phone number), did anyone like Davai come up with any examples to prove me wrong.
And does she have a sister?

JohnW1141,

I don't think its a shame but we should be sure the charge is true. But who decides that? Maybe we should organize a committee
to decide what posts/people are anti semitic?

Maybe the charges of treason, backstabbing and dual-loyalty don't bother you, but perhaps you could expand your investigative committee's mandate beyond only those freely spoken charges of antisemitism.  I'm just sayin'....

In all fairness, I started out in the USDOL after law school during the 80s, and I will say that there is simply no way to compare the committed, albeit GOP labor secretaries from that time (William Brock, Ann McLaughlin and even Libby Dole after I had left)with the downright anti-labor orientation of Bush's DOL under Secretary Chou.

I was in the DOL Solicitor's Office back then and we had a terrific guy appointed by the Reagan folks to head that office, George Salem. Incidentally, I believe Salem may have been the highest ranking Palestinian-American presidential appointee at that time. Whenever Salem visited the New York regional office where I worked he expressed nothing but support for the various enforcement efforts we, the non-political appointees, were engaged in.

Those were the days. Times have changed indeed. This is not your parents' DOL.

Asshole.

Not really, He is a typical admirer of MJ.
MJ doesn't have problems with people like this jerk

I wouldn't call him typical davai, although he is an example of what apparently is kosher around these here parts.

This Mooser guy is a smarmy little bastard who, if I recall from his comments in the post that MJ deleted, made sure to announce to the world that he was, in fact, Jewish, as if that somehow legitimized his filthy mouth.

The anonymity of the worldwide web is like manna from heaven for assholes like Mooser.
He is a lucky man in that sense.

Respectfully destor, bullshit.

4. Believed his mother was a virgin.
5. Went into his father's business.

...there are more, aren't there?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

"Apparently, you think it's more important to diss MJ than it is to convince neutral people that it's in the geopolitical interest of the US, in today's world, to maintain a strong relationship with Israel."

I'm not sure that I can add much to this discussion.
But, I can try to shame MJ stop being openly antisemitic. I don't think what he is saying about Jews with whom he disagree should be acceptable on a respectable website such as TPM.

We sure are a touchy people. And on that note, please refer to me as "Zionista." "Zion" makes me look like a reggae artist, and that's just too much for me to live up to. Thanks in advance.

Howard,

I do want to see more evidence that a close relationship with Israel, regardless of political or emotional ties, is to the net security advantage of the United States.

Israel is another socio-political democracy in the world community, with a genuine electorate, an independent judiciary, a system of checks and balances in its government (one that is perhaps more healthy than ours at the moment), and a dynamic culture and economy.  What is the liability of one more ally like that in the world?  Or, put another way, what is the benefit of having one less ally like that in the world?

Zionista.

"We sure are a touchy people. And on that note, please refer to me as "Zionista." "Zion" makes me look like a reggae artist, and that's just too much for me to live up to. Thanks in advance."

By the rivers of Babylon......

Given a past blog of yours and your "sensitivity", I'd come to think of you as a tranny. However, no self-respecting tranny would ever suggest substituing green peas for avocado in a guacamole recipe.

YUCK! GAACK! BLETCH!

" Davai use TPM as their personal racism disseminator."

I hope that you've noticed charges of racism or apparteid on this website.

Thanks.

Well, It's unexpected to read this, however,some of his recent comments are not acceptable.

"I've never found MJ to be antisemitic in any form,"
In the previous post he made a comment that American Jews don't have connection to own country (US).
This is a typical claim made by antisemites over last 2000 years agains Jews.
If this is not antisemitism, what is ?
In this post he used term Jewish neocon, for no paricular reason.

This language would not be acceptable today about any racial, religious or ethnical group.

Artappraiser:

I assume I am one of the "newbies" to which you refer. I have, in fact, reviewed MJ's post you quote from, and I believe I did so because you had referred to it in another one of your comments.

It is a startling post from my perspective, because I cannot imagine that MJ would write anything close to what he wrote back then at this point. In fact, that is the kind of language that I believe MJ would rightfully challenge today, and I believe he would do so aggressively. So I'm not sure what to make of the change from this year to last; he's been around the block in this area.

I am not proud of the manner in which the Middle East discussions have proceeded at the TPM Cafe. Maybe the old-timers did it better. My comments, and the comments of many folks on here are from the heart in a very emotional area where--unlike virtually any other area in the political realm-- there is no consensus and sharp division on the "left".

Sometimes the heart moves more rapidly than the head does and resulting comments will be flawed. I am not, and have not been, constrained to recognize both substantive error and overzelousness on my part in these discussions.

Thank you for sharing your observations.

Oh no. I was about to post the following to get MJ to go off on this (it's incredible). But now he has taken a vow of silence. My bet is that he'll have to respond to this nauseating bit of news!

AIPAC's Kohr sixth most powerful?
mail E-mail News Brief
mail Tell the Editors

Published: 08/14/2007

The exective director of AIPAC is Washington's sixth most powerful person, according to GQ magazine.

Howard Kohr tied with three other lobbyists -- for retired Americans, gun owners and the pharmaceutical industry -- on the list of 50 most powerful people in the capital. At 51, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's top professional was the youngest person named.

"In 2006, the four interest groups they command spoke for 40 million members and thirty-two drug companies, racked up $43 million in lobbying expenses, and threw their considerable weight around to keep a slew of unpopular laws on the books and uphold the status quo," the men's magazine said in making its selection, which says it based the list on conversations with "think tankers, congressional aides and political journalists." Topping the list is Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state.

Kohr and the other lobbyists are the first on the list not employed by the government. They are ahead of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the front-running Democratic presidential candidate, at No. 8 and Tim Russert, who hosts the influential NBC talk show "Meet the Press," at No. 14.

"Thanks to the influence their groups wield that’s both detectable (money given to campaigns) and subtle (the personal relationships built with committee members of both parties), don’t expect any big changes to our Israel or prescription-drug policies in coming years," GQ wrote. AIPAC declined comment.

LOL...what a shame.  Every post MJ makes, the supporters of the Israeli political far right make calls of antisemitism to stifle debate and discourse.  It kinda reminds me of Bush and his supporters who stifle criticism or debate of George Bush's policies by calling the people who question or criticize "terrorist sympathizers".  Yep...it is a cryin' shame.  MJ makes some great posts worthy of serious discussion and there are people who don't want it discussed and only try to silence it.

The Jewish citizens of Israel are not required to get exit visas. There are large Jewish populations in other countries that are not threatened by the existence or non-existence of Israel

Unless one calls for the destruction of Jews worldwide, my preferred technical term for the extension of a lack of intense support for a self-described "Jewish state" to being "anti-semitism" is...hmmm...bullshit sounds about right.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Thanks, Libertine.

I'll still be doing my weekly column, IPF Friday, which now goes to 50,000 subscribers (not so many, considering it's free!).

If you or anyone wants it, just go to www.israelpolicyforum.org and subscribe. It goes to every Member of Congress, key staffers, all the embassies and is reprinted widely in the Middle East.

So I'll get to say my piece without, at the same time, giving a venue on the web to bigotry and name-calling.

Don't forget, in every post he called people he disagree racists, right wingers to stifle debate and discourse. It kinda reminds me of Bush and his supporters who stifle criticism or debate of George Bush's policies by calling the people who question or criticize "terrorist sympathizers". Yep...it is a cryin' shame.

A partial list:

Cease all US military supply to Israel until full responsibility is taken for unauthorized use of US-sold weapons against civilians, and Israel destroys or returns all US M26 rockets under international supervision.

Cease all US military supply to Israel until all civilians are removed from settlements in the occupied territories. Replacing them with IDF security forces, under military discipline, as part of an eventual multilateral solution to the rocket attack problem, is acceptable. I haven't the slightest problem with counterfiring, using appropriate and accurate lethal weapons, on sites from which rockets are fired into Israel.

Consider discontinuing joint military R&D unless Israel publicly disavows third-country sales without US approval.

Discontinue, until a determination is made that there is no propaganda value to enemies of the United States, all port visits of US military vessels to Israel.

End censorship of satellite imagery of Israel from US companies, as long as imagery of equivalent resolution is available from other countries.

If Israel will declare its nuclear arsenal, the US will support the modification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to allow its ratification, as declaratory powers, by India, Pakistan, and Israel. The US will also agree to provide Israel with additional hardening technology for its land-based missile silos.

Will things be better as a result? I don't know. They won't be worse for the US. Poor defenseless Israel will have to struggle along with its existing military superiority to any plausible enemy or combination of enemies.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

How much you wanna bet Mark? :-)

It goes to every Member of Congress, key staffers, all the embassies and is reprinted widely in the Middle East.

Great start MJ. But, then again, weren't you around the halls of Congress when someone named Tip spoke about all politics being local?  Just a thought, and I would be more than happy to give you and/or IPF a hand up here.

"Will things be better as a result? I don't know

How about all out war that Hisbolla, Syria, Iran start?
What if Israel lose?
What if Israel win?

"They won't be worse for the US"
You are an optimist but you forgot about
Murphy's law .

Will Israel start close military cooperation and development of advance weapon with China and or India in order to survive?

How about all out war that Hisbolla, Syria, Iran start? What if Israel lose? What if Israel win?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard,
You try very hard to change subject.
I claim that MJ statement that (many) American Jews lack connection to own country is antisemitic. This is clear case. Instead you are trying hard to substitude this case with other cases that are not so simple.
You don't have to comment on MJ statement if you don't want.
But I'm bored at watching your avoidance game.

"To answer either of your outcomes, however, whether or not Israel "wins", with no definition of victory or defeat, is not in the critical national security interest of the United States."

Just bacause I don't write down definition it doesn't mean that understanding of possible immplications of changes you advocate is not in the critical national security interest of the United States.

It looks to me that we both can't add much to such discussion.

Howard,

Hitler wanted the physical annihilation of all Jews everywhere. That is clear anti-Semitism. Lack of support of Israel as a Jewish state is not.

Is this really now our standard?  No opinions, concepts, ideas or characterizations rise to the level of antisemtism until they reach advocation of genocide.  We do not extend this latitude to other manifestaions of discrmination and bigotry, so why limit the notions and implications of antisemitism in this way?

Opposition to Israeli policies is not antisemitism in and of itself.  However, the point at which the lack of support for Israel as a Jewish state reaches ideological rejection arguably reaches a level of antisemitism.  For example, the ongoing rejectionism of Jewish national legitimacy by the supporters and member nations of the Arab League.  Arab peoples are not the only peoples native to the Middle East region, but the only regional multinational institution limits the recognition of national rights only to Arab peoples.  This circumstance is a most arguable case of discrimination against entire peoples and their rightful place in the region, and, on the matter of Jewish national rights in particular, is therefore a legitimate example of antisemitism which does not necessarily rise to the level of genocide.

JohnW1141,

Everytime MJ writes a column here I get this
visual of a Joshua like creature blowing the Shofar calling all the loonies to arms.

Careful now.  It's not hard to notice that you often follow the rest of us here yourself.

A friend told me I lack a connection to my ancestral Germany, he is obviously antiTeutonic.

I constantly find value in new insights into the proverb, "never judge another until you have walked a mile in his moccasins." This always had much truth, but someone pointed out that if you still have a negative judgment on that person, you now are a mile away and he has to chase you while barefoot.

As far as I can tell, you and I do not share the same level of belief in the inherent right of a self-identified "people" to have a nation-state of its own. If there is such a right, it is not unique to Jews, which, depending on the genetic, geographic, theological, or cultural criteria used, are not necessarily as homogeneous as other peoples making a similar claim. Several comments attributed to Clemenceau tend to frame my thinking:

If an argument is truly general, it holds in other than one specific case. Let us try others, although I may, to make a point more clear, make some slight adjustments to geographic, political, or, for want of a better term, opposition names.

We do not extend this latitude to other manifestaions of discrmination and bigotry, so why limit the notions and implications of antisemitism in this way?

But we apparently do extend this latitude, as in the following examples:

However, the point at which the lack of support for the Transvaal as a Afrikaner state reaches ideological rejection arguably reaches a level of anti-Afrikanerism. For example, the ongoing rejectionism of Afrikaner national legitimacy by the supporters and member nations of the African Union. Afrikaner peoples are not the only peoples native to the South African region, but the only regional multinational institution limits the recognition of national rights only to peoples who trace their origins back a millenium or more in Africa, ignoring Olduvai Gorge for the example. This circumstance is a most arguable case of discrimination against entire peoples and their rightful place in the region, and, on the matter of Afrikaner national rights in particular, is therefore a legitimate example of anti-Afrikanerism which does not necessarily rise to the level of genocide.

However, the point at which the lack of support for Chechniya as a Chechen state reaches ideological rejection arguably reaches a level of anti-Chechenism. For example, the ongoing rejectionism of Chechen national legitimacy by the supporters and member nations of the the Great Russian remnants of the CIS. Chechen peoples are not the only peoples native to the Middle East region, but the culture limits the recognition of national rights only to Slavic peoples. This circumstance is a most arguable case of discrimination against entire peoples and their rightful place in the region, and, on the matter of Chechen national rights in particular, is therefore a legitimate example of antiChechenism which does not necessarily rise to the level of genocide.

However, the point at which the lack of support for the Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy as an Iroquois state reaches ideological rejection arguably reaches a level of antiIroquisism. For example, the ongoing rejectionism of Iroquois national legitimacy by the dominant polity of the United States. Iroquois peoples are not the only peoples native to their region of North America, but the only regional multinational institutions limits the recognition of national rights only to peoples who can trace a political path back to British colonialism, acceptance of it, and the USAian rebellion against it. This circumstance is a most arguable case of discrimination against entire peoples and their rightful place in the region, and, on the matter of Jewish national rights in particular, is therefore a legitimate example of antisemitism which does not necessarily rise to the level of genocide.

I could go on for the Basque, the Tamils, the Ibo, and any number of self-identified people, with at least some rationale for that identification. Nevertheless, while I do not see the world as ready for a single world government, nationalism has its problems, especially, as in the Balkans, it is more a tribalism than a nationalism that recognizes at least some modern political concepts.

So, I'm afraid that my standard is such that the lack of support for a national identity, based on what I'll broadly call ethnic exceptionalism, does not represent a sweeping prejudice against such an identity.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Just bacause I don't write down definition it doesn't mean that understanding of possible immplications of changes you advocate is not in the critical national security interest of the United States.

It looks to me that we both can't add much to such discussion.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard,

Zionista raised the question of the importance of the US being affiliated with one more, or one less, Western-style democracy, separating this from more military and propaganda effort.

The following response is adapted from another posted cross-thread (above):

Yes, "western-style" democracy is not for everyone.  But if you break it down, we are discussing much more than a comparison-contrast between western and non-western civilization.  Again, a genuine electorate, an independent judiciary, a system of checks and balances maintaining division of powers, a free press, a dynamic economy and culture are all vital components of a healthy society that deserves the support of, and alliance with, any nation that presumes to emanate human potential.  Maybe I'm just a corny old liberal, but I like to believe that the US is still that kind of nation (most of the time).

I believe and submit that the US is regarded as the patron of the "racist Zionist entity" by nations that otherwise feel seriously threatened by the establishment of non-Arab or non-Muslim national rights in the Middle East region, and to that extent the US alliance with Israel ought to be regarded a liability to its statecraft, is an odiously cynical principle to live by.  No, this is not the 1930s, but it is nonetheless disappointing how much the principle resembles that of Lindburgh and Ford (and Prescott Bush, lest we forget) from that time when our alliance with Britain and France were similar liabilities.

If you listen to some of the Rapturists, however, they seem sad that Armageddon and the Kingdom of Christ seems sho near, yet sho far.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

JohnW1141,

How do you determine who is following who?

What difference does it make?

Apropos of the 1930s, one of my professors of international relations described diplomacy as the art of getting the French to be the ally of your enemy. In the interest of full disclosure, a different professor defined it as the art of saying "nice doggie" until you find a big rock.

I'm not sure which historic liabilities you have in mind. Anglo-French in the Middle East? Some of those go back roughly to the turn of the 20th century, when the Royal Navy committed to oil rather than coal fuel for its warships. At that point, previously ignored Ottoman remnants became strategic.

Statecraft usually deals with the pragmatic, possible, and indeed perceived, rather than the ideal. There are great moments when humanitarian and geopolitical goals come together. Someone in the US military had a sense of history when the name was given to the campaign award for the Berlin Airlift: Medal for Humane Action. I was pleased to see one of its pilots, COL (ret) Gail Halvorsen, is still around and talking to people. He was the first "candy bomber" that parachuted toys and treats along the approach to the Berlin airports, and those random acts of kindness are still remembered.

I do not, by any means, suggest that US-Israeli relations are the only reason for Islamic radicalism toward the US. Going back to 1953, there are probably dissertations still to be written not about how the US mishandled relations with Iran, but about the random right things done in that history. Your point about liabilities through British and French relations are well taken, and the general ignoring of anticolonialist sentiment. The British had more practice at cynical relations, and it's well, when thinking of the Balfour Declaration, to remember the Sykes-Picot and McMahon-Hussein negotiations.

Nevertheless, if it comes to cynicism over ideals, in dealing with real nations with very different mindsets, give me intelligent cynicism.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard,

If one accepts the PNAC philosophy, one fairly quickly discovers one of its core elements is the imposition of what it considers US values on the countries of the Middle East, by whatever force necessary. We have seen the success of this in Iraq.

I am not one who accepts the PNAC philosophy (such as it is).  Meanwhile, Israel is not a place where imposition of democratic values is necessary.  Neither do I believe that democratic values need to be imposed upon the emergent Palestine, so much as I would agree that democracy can and ought to be nurtured there by third parties that genuinely hold to democratic values and the role of an efficient government to sustain them.  In other words, PNAC and the Iran-Contra comeback crew hardly qualify as such.

No, of course democratic values are not effectively imposed at gunpoint.  That nations can lead by example takes risk, but wise risk management ought to be a primary function of government in general, and foreign policy in particular.  Consider what US leadership under President Clinton came very close to accomplishing by nurturing the Oslo peace process: Israel was on the verge of solutions to its conflict with the Palestinians; a peace settlement was achieved between Israel and Jordan; Syria was spiraling closer to negotiations with Israel; and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin traveled to the Gulf states to establish normalized relations.  We can argue over how much progress was likely to occur given the circumstances that followed.  But the progress that was achieved, and the momentum that was unfortunately halted, came about by sustaining the US alliance with Israel and subsequent regional outreach.  I submit and maintain that it is unnecessary to abandon existing alliances to cultivate and establish further alliances -- even from among traditional adversaries.

Consider the following: I think we can agree that serious aid to Israel did not commence until the 1973 war. That is to say, that in 1948, Israel purchased its arms from the Soviet bloc nations and principally Czechoslovakia, and then gradually turned to France through the 1967 war.

But, Howard, do nations abandon commitments to other nations under such cirumstances? Sometimes, of course. But is it always wise to do this?

Aren't there real and long-term costs to approaching diplomacy in such a manner? In short, is America's word a valuable commodity in the international arena? I think so.

Now, does this mean that the U.S. shouldn't come down hard on Israel when Israel doesn't honor its commitments?

But that is different than simply saying to a sovereign nation: "Thanks for standing with us when we needed you, but we don't need you anymore".

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I've been meaning to troll-rate you for a long time Madison1776 (by the way Madison, to my knowledge, was a junior legislator in Virginia in 1776 coming up with the Virginia charter perhaps, but he wasn't in Philadelphia with the big guns at the time).

You have done nothing but foment hate, levy charges of racism at others, and in your best moments you have pointed out who is Jewish on this or that stage and who is not.

Here's a challenge: go through your posts from the last three months, or as long as it takes you, and I challenge you to point out a single post on the Middle East that can properly be characterized by an objective observer as being a contribution to productive discourse.

Madison, I think you have poisoned the discourse on here as much as anyone, and the only reason I kept my mouth shut is because, until last night, I was trying to keep some toothpaste in the tube around here. But the toothpaste is out of the tube now and man am I glad that we are hopefully turning a page.

Howard:

You are juggling quite a few issues at the same time and it is very impressive. I hope you know that it is because: (1) you're recognized for your expertise in many areas; and (2) you have earned the genuine trust of so many contributors on TPM, and the trust I have for you is no exception.

Thanks for your comprehensive reply. Zionista I think makes a fair distinction between abandoning an ally outright and what we did and not do vis-a-vis France in Indochina in the 1950s.

Beyond that, I think you are acknowledging that there are costs associated with breaking faith with an ally, but you are also pointing out that there are costs associated with not breaking faith. I agree, and I am not convinced that the United States earns anything long-term by simply abandoning its relationship with Israel. I think the world is a helluva lot more complicated than that, and I think that the American relationship with the Muslim world does not simply evolve around Israel (and abandoning Israel would, I submit, make that reality clear and unambiguous). Moreover, there are also signs that at least some Arab nations are beginning to see an advantage to having a strong Israel present in the volatile Middle East (not something you're going to see on a billboard but I think it's less than prudent to presume that the facts on the ground are not in a constant flux).
You also express skepticism sbout America's failure in the past to "punish" Israel for its transgressions, and I remain troubled, as you do, by Israel's apparent use of certain weaponry in Lebanon last year (by the way, for what it's worth, some might find it "deliciously ironic" that my oldest daughter is currently interning with Amnesty International--just thought I'd throw that in for a chuckle).

But I think you agree that the principal (of using the stick in lieu of the carrot on Israel) remains a viable option, and whatever we have not done to Israel in the past does not preclude us from taking more forceful action in the future.

Thanks again Howard.

And now, I have to get back to work, but I am certainly willing to continue this later, provied: (1) I finish work and get back to my apartment at a decent hour and (2) my working spouse is willing to watch me peck away at the computer instead of helping with diapers, etc. In short, it might be awhile before I get back! :-)

Bruce

It would be silly to break all relationships. Sometimes through the intermediary of international bodies, especially technical ones such as the World Health Organization, there manages to be some level of cooperation with perceived rogues such as North Korea. As North Korea demonstrates more international cooperation in general, it gets carrots, which, for the record, I use as a color accent when I make daikon kimchee.

Nevertheless, there is a substantial difference between breaking all relations, and being a principal arms supplier as well as dependable UNSC veto. I agree that thoughtful Middle Eastern states have had varying levels, usually not publicized, of interaction with Israel. It's interesting to note how the missiles of Iran-Contra got to Iran.

I happen to believe that cooperation between Turkey and Israel is beneficial for the region, and in the US interest such that the situation is seen as more multilateral, especially involving a Muslim-majority country that is not Arab. Of course, the interactions among Turkey, Israel, Kurdistan, and the US get...interesting, and you can throw Iran into that stew.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard,

have you been hanging out with Bill Maher recently? :-)

"yet sho far." :-)

Howard,

The point that there really isn't a Palestine with which anyone can have a meaningful alliance is taken.

While you take it, you might also note the use of the predicate "nurture" that I put there for a reason.  Don't get too far ahead of yourself, Howard.

OK, maybe we have misunderstanding.
MJ was talking about US not Israel as "own country"

No, I can't explain it in a way that will tell you what you want to hear. Further, I can't explain things such that it meets your definition of having Israel treated by what you consider the standards applied to other countries, as long as only the least restrictive and most favored will be applied to Israel.

I am also unable, in good conscience, to say things should be done, but not be able to describe them. When challenged, I find it difficult to divert the conversation with an irrelevant question.

Perhaps it's a matter that I cannot explain the consequences of proposed policy at the level of being free from risk, and lacking complex detail, that you seem to prefer.

What really, I suspect, annoys you most is that I have no particular interest in railing about MJ, but prefer to deal with matters of substance. Spider Robinson once observed that if a burglar is one who commits burglary, than God must be an iron. Yes, that whooshing sound was the irony gauge sailing over your head, perhaps rather like Mary Poppins sailing over the rooftops of London. Bringing Ms. Poppins into this context, however, does tend to take the joy out of one of my favorite Rodriques cartoons, in which two urchins point up at her and observe they can see up her skirt.

In this case, it may be your intellectual slip that is showing.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Wow, So many words of bulshit,
Sp much for
"prefer to deal with matters of substance"

Thank you for interesting discussion.
You've tried the best you can.
Keep your day job.

OK, then lets gang up on Howard.

Hey that's a shot, ain't it? :-)

Even if davai et al are, for whatever reason, the focus of the ire directed at commenters by even the loftiest representatives of the TPM 400, blaming far right Israel supporters for the breakdown of discourse on these threads paints an incomplete and inaccurate picture of what has taken place, and serves NO good purpose.

I respectively disagree bslev.  I have followed MJ's posts here from day #1.  Time and time again I have seen efforts to take every thread off topic by the people who disagree with his, and anyone who agrees with him, POV.  The way that these threads are taken off topic is usually by leveling charges of antisemitism.  Have there been antisemitic people here?  Yep there sure have but that isn't the case as much anymore.  But the charges are still constantly leveled.  And I have been accused of it in the past too...and all I ever want to see on the subject is a safe and secure State of Israel that does not have to worry about terrorist attacks.  But since I criticize Israel's actions I have been branded (at times and only by some) with TPMCafe's Scarlet "A".

Do my comments here serve a useful purpose?  Maybe, then again, maybe not...but it is the way I see it.  But I have a right to give my opinion on what I have seen just as much as you have the right to give yours.  And unlike you I will not give you a low rating in disagreement.

Libertine,
Can give an example and context in which you were
accused of antisemitism?

In my case, MJ wrote without any explanations:
" Davai use TPM as their personal racism disseminator."
Notice he is not some crazy anonomous blogger, he is moderator and official TMP contributor.

Libertine:

Yours is a very gracious reply and I wish I could say that there is room for agreement. I feel very strongly about what I see as a conventional wisdom around here that places the blame for the state of discourse on the I-P conflict on those with more right-wing views than other folks with equally strong views. I don't see it that way at all, and I think it's an unfair assessment of things. Obviously you do, and I frankly don't think it serves any purpose to "compare notes" so to speak (because I think folks are sick of this debate). You of course are welcome to share with me, if you wish, any actual examples where you have been unfairly labelled with the "A" word. You don't have to do that; I accept your representation that that has happened to you, and I would never condone that.

I will say this. I appreciate your explanation and I hear you about the low rating, which I have removed now without reservation. I use "1"s sparingly, much more in the past day or so frankly than almost ever, and your continued discussion with me frankly leaves me without any basis for saying that you have not been productive. To the contrary, I believe that this has been a very productive exchange, and I thank you.

Bruce

P.S. Sorry for the initial sloppiness. Just got in trouble for spending time on the computer instead of doing what I was supposed to be doing.

Howard,
"for all your ad hominems "
Well, You are really funny man accusing me of
ad hominems.

"you have yet to accuse me of anti-semitism"
You haven't written anything that it's clear case of antisemitism.
Moreover, there are different standards for the
official contibuter of TPM and a bullshit blogger like you.

I'm sorry Howard,
I can't respond to your bullshit anymore. Bye now

Fair enough, Libertine.  We all have a right to our opinion, but also a responsibility to support that opinion when challenged in public discourse.

And sorry about the "whining" crack.  It wasn't aimed entirely at yourself, but moreso at the overall groupthink tendency to maintain that only charges of antisemitism are capable of stifling debate while adversarial positions should sustain accusations of dual loyalty and treason and characterizations as rightwing neocon in the interest of "civil discourse."

Actually, Davai, you haven't made informative responses to anyone in some time, whether or not you categorize the point as scatological. While I must admit that our recent exchange brings back unpleasant childhood memories of tormenting ants in an anthill, a point was to be established: you primarily want to argue, and you have a vendetta against MJ.

While I don't often employ television cliches in discussion, I respond to your statement with "You are the weakest link. Good-Bye." Admittedly, you have said before you will depart, but, much as there is annual variation in the influenza virus, you return.

I look forward to getting back to some honestly fascinating and informative discussions, in which the participants may disagree, but in a context of courtesy and respect, and a recognition that all will learn. Zionista and Bslev, I especially thank you for recent exchanges, and John, for the straight lines. :-)

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard: "THERE IS A GOD!"

I want to apologize to you davai if you think my comments were specifically about you.  They were more general observation of how we got here.  And the tone was set early on and it cannot be blamed on any one person.

I have made many hundreds if not over 1,000 posts here.  I know comments have been made to me but I am not predisposed at this point to spend the hours it would take to find those examples.  But as I said to Zionista the unfair comments cut both ways.   And for some who like confrontation and occasional personal attacks which lead to heated arguments the discussions are great.  For others it isn't...

I did want to make clear that I was in no way singling you out though.