Barack Obama’s Israel Bond

In an attempt to squelch rumors that he is pro-Palestinian, or god forbid Muslim, Barack Obama made it clear in the final Democratic Presidential debate on Tuesday that he is anything but. After being prodded by NBC’s Tim Russert on the issue, Obama said he has long been a “stalwart friend of Israel’s,” believing the country to be one of the United States’ “most important allies in the region,” and even going as far as to call the security of Israel “sacrosanct.”

The hallowed confirmation that he would maintain the US’s lopsided support for Israel came the same day seven Palestinians were killed by Israeli air strikes in Gaza. Since “peace negotiations” resumed in November, Israeli military forces have reportedly killed over 200 Palestinians.

Speaking to a group of 100 pro-Israel supporters in Cleveland this week, Obama assured the crowd that as president he would keep Iran in the crosshairs to protect Israeli interests.

“Now the gravest threat … to Israel today, I believe, is from Iran. There the radical regime continues to pursue its capacity to build a nuclear weapon and continues to support terrorism across the region,” he explained. “Threats of Israel’s destruction can not be dismissed as rhetoric. The threat from Iran is real and my goal as president would be to eliminate that threat.”

After reiterating that he’d end the war in Iraq first, Obama then promised he would turn his attention to the country’s neighbor. “My approach to Iran will be aggressive diplomacy: I will not take any military options off the table.”

In fairness, Obama did mention something few Democrats in Washington dare to utter, “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.”

After pointing out the obvious, however, Obama praised Israel’s most recent invasion of Lebanon, the pro-Israel tilt on Capital Hill, and his quest for Israel to remain a Jewish State.

“[Any] negotiated peace between Israelis and the Palestinians is going to have to involve the Palestinians relinquishing the right of return as it has been understood in the past,” he averred. “And that doesn’t mean that that there may not be conversations about compensation issues.”

How gracious, but what does Obama plan to do with the over 1.4 million non-Jewish Arabs that live in the country? Continue to treat them like second-class citizens or just boot them out? Obama has called Israel a “democracy,” but as the former editor of the Harvard Law Review you’d think he would know what the term actually means. Sure Israeli Arabs can vote, but they can’t hold office if they are democratic secularists who want civil rights for all of the country’s citizens. They have no constitutional protections (Israel has no formal constitution) and can only own land in certain locales as a consequence of unfair laws that grant special treatment to Jewish residents.

Simply put, as Jimmy Carter took so much heat for rightly observing, Israel is an apartheid-ridden country where the Arab population is not exactly welcomed with open arms.

Barack Obama won’t confront this reality, nor will he end Israel’s violent incursions into the occupied territories or halt the US military threats toward Iran. The Obama campaign may pledge to bring “hope” and “change” to the White House, but when it comes to what the Democratic frontrunner calls our “special relationship” with Israel, that promise is an out-and-out lie.

Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland, published by AK Press in June 2008. Check out the Red State Rebels site. Read other articles by Joshua.

65 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Shep said on February 29th, 2008 at 6:33am #

    The truth is that no matter who is (s)selected president, no pressure will be exerted on Israel to reverse its genocidal acts against Palestinians. All of the leading candidates have pledged their featly to Israel and, indeed, may all be controlled by Jewish money sources. Whatever Obama has to say on the subject is really immaterial to what he might do as president — which is nothing.

  2. D.R. Munro said on February 29th, 2008 at 7:57am #

    That is a very valid point, Shep.

    Israel seems untouchable, in terms of the United States doing anything but supporting Zionist agendas for the next . . . nevermind, until one or the other ceases to exist.

  3. jaime said on February 29th, 2008 at 9:43am #

    “How gracious, but what does Obama plan to do with the over 1.4 million non-Jewish Arabs that live in the country? Continue to treat them like second-class citizens or just boot them out?”

    The Arab citizens of Israel aren’t chained or denied travel.
    They’re free to leave. But they don’t. That’s because they have better quality lives, higher birthrates and lower mortality in Israel than they would in other Arabs countries.

    True there are problems with discrimination issues. But that happens in every country.

    But you knew that, Mr. Editor.

  4. Jim said on February 29th, 2008 at 10:14am #

    maybe take a look at the declassified docs during moshe dyan’s tenure, you’ll quickly change your tune jamie, the agenda “treat them like dogs” ineffect pushing the arabs out. for you to even broach the subject of the effiency of the israeli gov in providing basic resources to its citizens is sickening in the face of the racist war being waged by the israelis since the inception of the state of israel.

  5. Thomas Mc said on February 29th, 2008 at 10:58am #

    Obama has declared his allegiance to a foreign state, the very definition of treason.

  6. heike said on February 29th, 2008 at 12:52pm #

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Moshe_Dayan

    Jim: what is your source for the alleged Dayan remark? Anything more reliable and original than Noam Chomsky? Please refer to the above.

  7. Ray Ralph said on February 29th, 2008 at 2:55pm #

    Hey heike, Let’s also hope for a source doesn’t have such an obvious pro-Zionist bias as the writer on wikiquote.org. I’m surprised you could keep a straight face when you ask us to refer to wikiquote.org. Perhaps you couldn’t.

  8. heike said on February 29th, 2008 at 3:31pm #

    I’m just trying to check the validity of the quote, Ray. If you can adduce an unbiased source, please do so.

  9. jaime said on February 29th, 2008 at 3:41pm #

    Better pack a lunch, Heike. I have a feeling you’ll be waiting a LOOONG time for the substantiation.

    It’s been like 7 days since I asked our buddy Jim R. to locate the following ignorant remark that he quoted from the “Talmud.”

    All we know is he’s left town for parts unknown with no forwarding address.

    Jim R. said on February 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm #

    Why does the Talmud profess that the Jews are the only people to have souls and are of God..”

  10. Ray Ralph said on February 29th, 2008 at 4:46pm #

    If Jaime had to leave town for parts unknown every time he tells a fib or makes an ignorant statement he’d be far away from access to any computer (someplace like the island of Tarawa in the South Pacific) and the readers of DV would get a much needed break from his interminable Zionist drivel.

  11. Ray Ralph said on February 29th, 2008 at 4:54pm #

    heike, Whether or not Moshe Dayan made that exact statement (or whether or not Chomsky inadvertently misquoted him) is not of that much interest to me. Deeds speak much louder than words. Whatever Dayan may have said, his deeds speak for themselves. He was a man of war and violence. Many people, innocent people among them, died because of his policies and actions. Who cares about his words? Such concern only distracts us from the terribleness of what he did and of the horrors associated with the Zionist enterprise..

  12. heike said on February 29th, 2008 at 5:29pm #

    Sorry Ray, you can’t wiggle out of that one. You can’t prove that Dayan said that he was “quoted” as saying. One of the problems of “dialogue” in this issue is that people make up “quotes” from their own fantasies, and use them to demonize their political enemies. If you make a statement that someone did or said something, you have to stand behind it, If you make it up out of thin air, you are an intellectual fraud. I could find a number of people who are probably your heroes and put “man of war and violence” on them as well.

  13. Deadbeat said on February 29th, 2008 at 5:49pm #

    What Washington politician is not supportive of Israel? There hasn’t been one that I can think of who spoke out against the U.S. support of Israel — not even Ron Paul. It would have been newsworthy if Obama came out and supported Palestinian right — a position he once held when he met with the likes of Edward Said.

    Clearly this is a topic that needs to be discussed but the left hasn’t been honest here especially after they demobilized the anti-war movement to threw their lot with the Democrats. Yet Chomsky and his followers believe that the pro-Israeli lobby some “mere” pressure group and denies the affects on Zionism upon U.S. politics and culture.

  14. Deadbeat said on February 29th, 2008 at 5:51pm #

    treat tthem like dogs

  15. Ray Ralph said on February 29th, 2008 at 7:36pm #

    Have you taken leave of your senses, heike? I’m not wiggling out of anything. I never claimed that Dayan said anything. I questioned your use of a biased pro-Zionist piece in wikiquote.org to back up your still unproven assertion that he didn’t say it. Go back and read my original post again. Nowhere do I claim Dayan said anything. I said that his bloody and murderous deeds spoke louder than any words. Why do you intentionally and willfully ignore and misrepresent my meaning? Reading is fundamental, heike. Did you fail the first grade reading class? The lengths to which you Zionist trolls will consistently go in order to obfuscate issues and prevent rational discussion is unbelievable. Go stand in the corner, dunce!!!

  16. John Hatch said on February 29th, 2008 at 7:39pm #

    Dayan did say vicious things against all Palestinians, and he did follow them up with actions, as did Begin, Sharon, Olmert, and a lot of others. How odd that people so terrorized by the Nazis would end up behaving worse. I guess whole nations can go insane, and this is another case in point. Sad.

  17. Max Shields said on February 29th, 2008 at 8:13pm #

    Obama is spineless. Not just because of Israel, but because what he has demonstrated both in the Senate and on the campaign trail. That there are enough people out there who refuse to think and look under the covers and see what is plain and clear, the hype machine is on overdrive.

    He is what we use to call a wishy-washy liberal. This is not the white liberal who marched in Mississippi and literally put his/her life on the line. We would call that an activist progressive today. No, wishy-washy is the tepid liberal; and in Obama’s case the politically now-you-see-now-don’t liberal.

    Matt Gonzalez does a pretty fair job of laying most of it out there in Counterpunch. http://www.counterpunch.org/

    There will be incredible frustration on the part of some self-delusioned progressives and even more so from African Americans who think Obama has the essential courage to bring about real change. It is hard to look at what is before us, and think a little high-spirited talk will get us out of this corner. Man we’re in for one helluva ride!

    Max

  18. Shabnam said on February 29th, 2008 at 8:45pm #

    Deadbeat: well said, thank you.
    Those who supported Ron Paul they never showed Ron Paul is anti Zionist. Ron Paul is not stupid to go against the “Zionist Lobby” while he is trying to get their votes. No one does. No candidate can go anywhere if they dare to criticize the influence of the “Zionist Lobby” on American foreign policy and this should shame all Americans, not only Obama, who have not been able to demand from the decision making elites to stop double standard foreign policy regarding Israel.
    Ron Paul said:” We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists.” He the same as George Bush and Israeli calls the Palestinian TERRORIST. He has not called to stop funding the Israeli terror machine, because he believes “Muslims hates us regardless of our aids to Israel” similar to the position of Zionofascists.
    Obama can not afford to say things out of limits. He is running for the
    presidency. His job, at this point is to be elected, not to criticize the “Zionist lobby.” This responsibility lies on the “left” to expose and to discuss this issue openly but unfortunately have not done it widely yet although some from the policy making elites and few individuals from the left have started the process in their own way. We should put pressure on Obama when he is elected president.
    There is no choice. We have, apparently, McCain vs. Obama. McCain the Neocon’s candidate must be defeated. We have to prevent their plan reach fruition in November meaning election of McCain who wants to stay in Iraq for the next hundred years and bomb Iran for Joe Lieberman and William Kristol. A third party candidate can not do a damn thing except as an obstacle against Obama. The only group who benefits from the third party candidate is the Neocon and their supporters who will appreciate it.

  19. Max Shields said on February 29th, 2008 at 8:53pm #

    Shabnam,
    Look at the link to the Matt Gonzalez article on Counterpunch.

    Obama is telling you exactly who he is and what he’ll be like as president – but you gotta listen.

  20. Max Shields said on February 29th, 2008 at 8:58pm #

    You have a choice. Nader and Gonzalez. It’s an alternative to evil vs lesser evil. The Repubs and Dems have been in power before neo-cons ever existed. Obama is Joe Lieberman’s protege.

    The link to Counterpunch, it’s fact based: http://www.counterpunch.org/

  21. Ray Ralph said on February 29th, 2008 at 11:05pm #

    The self-nominated ticket of Nader and Gonzalez is not the only choice as Max Shields would have us believe. The Green Party, which is still in existence despite Nader’s arrogant and undemocratic rejection of it, will democratically nominate its own presidential candidate, probably Cynthia McKinney. Many of us “progressives,” especially those of us who believe in and support grassroots democracy, will choose McKinney, not Nader. Ralph is hardly the only choice (or the best choice) or the only alternative to Obama or McCain. Vote Green!

  22. Jim said on March 1st, 2008 at 1:29am #

    this has turned into the typical bs, pro israeli bullying, and loudmouthing to try to talk over the subject. professor chomsky’s work speaks for itself and needs to validation from any of you it is just a clear rational well rounded voice in the midst of a lot of hissing

  23. Deadbeat said on March 1st, 2008 at 2:09am #

    I do believe that Shabnam and I are on the same page and detect a bit of hypocrisy by Joshua Frank who was encouraging progressive to support Ron Paul. Paul like every Washington politician supports Israel unconditionally so what is newsworthy about Obama genuflection to Israel? There is none that’s what is so obvious.

    Rather than singling Obama out for his support for Israel what would make more sense is to understand why he abandoned his former position of supporting Palestinian rights. Obviously he wouldn’t be Senator of Illinois if he maintain that position and was force to have to repudiate and disavow Louis Farrakhan to please white-boy Tim Russert of MSNBC.

    Yeah we know Obama has reprehensible position and I agree with Max that Matt Gonzales article does a much better job of deconstructing the Obama facade. However this article by Frank can be said of Hillary Clinton and John McCain and all of the former Presidential candidates including Dennis Kucinich who was clearly trying to divert the attention away from Zionism by his promotion of the “War for Oil” canard.

    This article by Frank falls in the category of dishonest left-wing diversionary tactics to shift the focus away from confronting the influence of Zionism upon U.S. culture, society and politics.

  24. maryb said on March 1st, 2008 at 6:33am #

    This discussion about who said what and when is interesting but purely academic for the people of Gaza who overnight endured more IDF shelling and attacks from the air. The death toll over three nights is 66 including 2 babies and many children. This is a post I have just put on another site which gives a first hand account of the carnage. Bush’s Roadmap to Peace is littered with bloodied corpses now.

    The reference to Prosor is the unlimited airtime the BBC, our national broadcaster, gave to the Israeli Ambassador to the UK. Their Deputy Defence Minister is trying to prove he can rival anything Dayan did.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Fear in Gaza – From ‘our own correspondent’
    Posted by maryb on March 1, 2008, 11:06 am, in reply to “Double standards – IDF in Palestine and Gaza”

    Some actuality from a friend in Gaza to counter Mr Prosor’s propaganda yesterday. See the effects of the illegal and devastating IDF weaponry being used on a civilian population.

    If you investigate the CCW treaty 1980 (Certain Conventional Weapons Convention) you will find lists of inhumane weapons that are outlawed under the Geneva and other conventions.
    This is available on the UN website at:
    http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/4F0DEF093B4860B4C1257180004B1B30?

    Mohammed has had his own share of grief – his young brother was killed by 7 IDF bullets, his mother’s leg broken when their house was demolished and much else.

    Dear *****
    I had a long day, an awful day, taking photos and writing from on the ground in Gaza City and northern Gaza . I met with two children who survived Wednesday’s Jabalyia soccer bombing: the other 4 kids were, as you likely know, killed. One of the children I saw had no flesh on their legs, had burns all over their bodies from the tank’s shelling. This was one of the scariest things I have seen yet, and I have seen a lot more than that.

    I asked one boy to give me details of what happened that Thursday afternoon. The 9 year old boy cried while he told that he’d seen the decapitated head of his cousin strewn far from his body, arms and legs, far away from where they were all playing soccer. His mother added that there wasn’t any electricity when her son was admitted to the hospital.

    He was crying as he told the story, his tears hurting him even more than his psychological pain, as he has burns in his eyes. His mother uncovered his wounded leg where I could only see bones without flesh in places. I could not understand how he managed to lay down conscious, but knew it was a consciousness full of pain and anguish. I felt this pain in my own heart and head.

    As I talked to this child’s mother, she said that she’d had to evacuate her children, as it’s no longer safe to be in that area where the children had been playing. The kids ranged from 6 to 14 years old. The two who survived said they had all been playing soccer in front of the door of their house in Jabalyia when the Israeli missile hit them.

    I finally came back home some hours ago, after waiting a long time to find transportation. But, eventually managing to make it back to Rafah, I collapsed for a nap for an hour. My sleep was disrupted: I awoke scared by the bombing of F-16s (I learned later on). I ran from my bed through our dark house, and seeing no one from my family inside, I ran without shoes into the street. People were out in the street, young men running. I didn’t understand, didn’t know what I was doing other than that I was running but didn’t know to where. Most people’s windows were down, shutters closed, as it is freezing cold at moment.

    I was glad not to be injured by shattered glass and debris on the streets. I made it back home to write this on my laptop. But I’ve decided going back to sleep is not a good idea, no matter how exhausted I am. If I have to die (not my wish) , I want to be awake, so I know I’m dying, and by whom. Not asleep.

    Mohammed

    “The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look at it without doing anything.”
    Albert Einstein

  25. Max Shields said on March 1st, 2008 at 8:20am #

    Ray Ralph,

    Sorry for the confusion. I didn’t mean to say that Nader and Gonzalez are the only choice. I’m disappointed that Nader has taken his marbles and gone off to run as,what appears to be, a man above it all.

    But what’s more disconcerting is that Gonzalez is a real up and comer and he’s moved from the Green Party to run with Nader. He’s going to get some real exposure during this race with Nader who will steal the light from the Greens. Nader says there’s “room” for more progressives. Yea sure. His fame gets him on talk shows but no further. McKinney, who I like, won’t even get that far. There is no differentiation in message between Nader and the Green Party on the Presidential run.

    I think Nader has made the perfect case for why a progressive alternative is particularly compelling this cycle; but by splitting it, he confuses and dilutes the power of a unified progressive voice. I didn’t think Nader was a spoiler in 2000, but I’m starting to wonder about his motives. If he wants to build a coalition between progressive independents, progressive libertarians, socialists and Greens, than I think he’s got a good case. Otherwise….

    As far as Obama. He’s backed off of anything that might even give him a semblance of progressivism. The black progressive movement knows it. He’s Bill Clintoning Bill/Hillary Clinton and the Clintons hate it; but too many folks are being duped into thinking this is NEW or CHANGE. It aint. It’s the same marketing game put out there over the last several decades refined and repackaged with a racial dimension.

    Before talking about Kucinich and Obama let’s run down the Middle East votes and stands. For starters, Kucinich was one of the only non-Arab Representatives not to support the resolution for Israel during the Lebanon war of 2006. That’s backbone!!! He went to Lebanon and wrote and conveyed the gastly war against humanity that the Israeli military uleashed on civilians. That’s political courage!!!! And where was Barrack Obama?

    Sure the media drummed out Kucinich but that’s no reason to do it here. Let’s keep it real.

  26. Shabnam said on March 1st, 2008 at 9:21am #

    Maryb:
    Not only Mohammed should be concerned about war crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians… .but also those people around the world, especially those who have the power and the knowledge to expose crimes of the Zionists and Imperialists against humanity. Israel is celebrating its apartheid state at 60 on the stolen land of Palestine with cooperation of its “writers” who have been invited by the Jewish Lobby, Zarkozy, to France to give their phony history of the past 60 years. Israel is sending 40 writers of which only one so far has refused to be part of this circus to sell the apartheid state and to cover up for the massacre of Palestinians. He, Aharon Shabtai, said in an interview:
    “I do not know what left means when their representatives do not cut any relation with Israel. I think that many people are afraid of being accused of being “anti-Semitic”. Now, the history of the Holocaust is completely falsified. There is a Holocaust industry, privatised by the Israeli propaganda; it is something disgusting.”

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article155504.html

  27. jaime said on March 1st, 2008 at 9:44am #

    In case anybody missed it… Shabnam has just called for the extinction not just of Israel but of all Jewish people (or anyone thought of as Jewish) around the world.

    Oh, sorry, I forgot….and he’s done so in the name of peace, and the struggle for social justice, because he knows that most DV readers are naive enough to swallow this whole.

    For anyone else here who is weeping for the people of Gaza….don’t weep for long.

    Regime change in process.

  28. hp said on March 1st, 2008 at 10:05am #

    The incredible shrinking hollocau$t numbers. There’s no business like $hoah business.
    How long to go in the USA before I’m arrested and prosecuted for pointing out the 6 million is inane?
    A six year old could do it.
    Plaque at Auschwitz used to say 4.0 million died here. Now it says 1.5 million died here.
    Here we go, it ain’t rocket science or high philosophy.
    4.0 – 2.5 = 1.5
    That’s 2.5 million right off the top. a miracle!
    It may take time but eventually, as the truth and facts squeeze out between the cracks, the incredible shrinking numbers will finally be revealed. Here’s a peek at the future.. (74,000)

  29. Shabnam said on March 1st, 2008 at 11:42am #

    Jaime:
    As a conscientious writer such as Aharon Shabtai, said:
    “It is difficult to find the right words to express such an absurdity. The plight of the Palestinians is even much worse than the plight of the Blacks in South Africa.” And
    “In such a situation, when such crimes are committed every day by Israel against the Palestinians, anybody who does not cut any link with the Israeli government -this is a matter of fact- is collaborating and doing propaganda for Israel.”

    And then we are told Israel is a democracy through their writing and speeches, and we are presented with this kind of propaganda in name of history of the past 60 years, then it is phony.
    The apartheid state has killed more than 61 people; majorities civilian with a five months baby among them, for the past 4 days in Ghaza of which are 26 people last light alone. This unjustified action took the life of an Israeli student as well.

  30. Deadbeat said on March 1st, 2008 at 11:53am #

    My apologies I didn’t carefully read Shabnam’s post. Part of what he is saying we are in alignment but on the other part I have a great deal of empathy and don’t necessarily disagree with his sentiment. He is right that McCain MUST lose at all cost. McCain only cares about militarism and is clearly a racist who would love to set the decimation of all Arabs and Muslim and embraces the Zionist project.

    However Nader’s run is vital if at best to force and hold Obama accountable in the issues. Obama has rhetorically made citizen action a major part of his campaign and has demanded accountability from his supporters. A Nader run is one way to hold Obama accountable. There has been a tendency by Democrats to run leftward during the primary and shift rightward. A Nader candidacy clearly keep Obama honest therefore Nader should not be seen as a spoiler but an antidote to those forces who would try to pull Obama to the right.

    Case in point was the effect that Edwards had on the candidates. Nader can have a similar effect. This year the Democrats should win in a landslide especially the way Obama has approach the campaign. He’s is running a 50 state campaign. Both Clinton and McCain approach was the same old tired Red/Blue state approach that turned off the electorate and kept the elections close. You can see that the Republicans assumed this approach because they believed that Hillary Clinton was going to be the nominee. And Clinton assumed the same as she believed that she was going to wrap up the nomination by Super Tuesday and didn’t plan for a 50-state campaign.

    Obama, clearly is the best of the three. What I hope that comes out of Nader’s run is emergence of a new third party. The Green Party has no traction and it appears that the party will not be able to recover from its collapse in 2004.

  31. Max Shields said on March 1st, 2008 at 11:59am #

    In what documented fact based way is Obama the best of the 3?

  32. Shabnam said on March 1st, 2008 at 12:41pm #

    No one said Obama is the best of the 3. I think, since there is no option available and we have presented, probably, with McCain vs. Obama, then, it is better to prevent the Neocon’s plan by defeating McCain, the warmonger. Nader will not earn more than 2% if he is lucky and if he gets more is going to be at Obama’s expense. Nader’s criticism of the establishment’s policy, especially the Middle East may affect Obama’s speeches on foreign and domestic policy. I do not believe Synthia McKinney competes against an African American. There is no document to shows Obama is better than others, in fact he has gone extra miles to present himself the man AIPAC can trust because he is determined to become a president at any COST. To satisfy AIPAC is a necessity. It is the progressive forces’ responsibility to go after him to exert pressure on him.

  33. Ray Ralph said on March 1st, 2008 at 1:01pm #

    I’m glad MaryB and Shabnam have called our attention to the fact that the apartheid state of Israel has wantonly murdered 66 Palestinians (including 2 babies) in the last few days. Where is the appropriate expression of outrage from the news media and the American people? Neither Hillary nor Obama will express outrage (even if either one of them does feel it privately) and Israel’s bloody shoah against the Palestinians will continue supported and paid for by American tax $$$$.

  34. Deadbeat said on March 1st, 2008 at 6:07pm #

    Between Obama, Clinton, and McCain, among these “options” Obama is the “better” of the three. Perhaps I mis-wrote my remarks to convey my point. I don’t support either of the three but following Shabnam’s point regarding McCain, I empathize and understand reason behind the “Obama” option.

    I guess the documented reason why Obama is the “better” of the three is the way the media is using the Louis Farrakhan canard to attack him. Tim Russert opened this can of worms during the “debate” by FALSELY claiming that Farrakhan referred to Judaism as a “gutter religion”. That is untrue and was rather slanderous. That was “misquote” was published by the New York Press in 1984 (twenty four years ago) and continues to date. It does however reveals the way Zionism effect U.S. culture and politics.

  35. Myles Hoenig said on March 1st, 2008 at 6:52pm #

    Max,
    You’re always right on point and I especially agree that we should be behind McKinney, rather than splitting the already fractious left. As it stands, the GP is the only viable party that represents a leftist point of view. Independent candidates might as well (like Nader) but they don’t have the ballot line like a political party does. It is unfortunate that the Greens lost so much in 04 but that’s the past.
    I would like you to check your fact on Kucinich. I was under the impression that even Kucinich supported the invasion of Lebanon. That’s when I completely rejected him as little different from the rest. He did redeem himself later in my eyes when he announced that he wasn’t going to be endorsing any democrat but it’s still early. Let’s see if he survives his primary (likely) and see what he does at the Convention. I still don’t trust him not to fold like he did in 04.

    Myles
    (GP in Maryland)

  36. Max Shields said on March 1st, 2008 at 7:50pm #

    Myles Hoenig,
    We are in total agreement on the GP. If McKinney is the candidate, she’ll have my support. I must admit that I wish Gonzalez was back in the Green fold – longer term, I suspect he’ll be back and have gained some national recognition through this errant run.

    As far as Kucinich, first, I was responding to another poster who likens Kucinich’s consistent record in consistently supporting the rights of Palestinians. (We can argue about right of return vs two-state, but that’s a separate argument). He did not vote for that resolution and presented a resolution to force the administration to stop the bombing of Lebanon when the US allowed the bully to persist. Kucinich was strongly highlighted in regular reports on American Arab News. And what was Obama doing?

    Again the issue I was addressing was Obama and his total lack of spine. Gonzalez has done a good job of documenting that lack of political courage. It could be said that the reason Obama has played it “safe” is because he’s a new kid on the block. But then why would someone who claims to be the conduit for change (tall order) shy away from almost every opportunity to demonstrate the strength of his “convictions”. That’s the point.

    In the end, Kucinich is out of the picture, McCain is a significant underdog, Hillary looks close to being out of it (we’ll see), that leaves the prospective President to be Barruck Obama. We all know about the war-hawks McCain and Hillary, it is only Obama who creates the aura of difference – what real documented difference is there? – NONE.

    Short-term, Nader has given the GP (I include myself) consternation because of his Independent run dilutes the progressive voice, but in the longer run we may have a Gonzalez as a future candidate because of the exposure he’ll gain and I think young candidates like him are the future of GP.

  37. Max Shields said on March 1st, 2008 at 8:09pm #

    Deadbeat,
    So, because Farrakhan endorsed Obama you take that as reason to make him the best of the 3. Has Farrakhan ever endorsed a white candidate for President? Just curious.

    Also, how did Mr. quick on his feet and couragous Obama respond when faced with the question?

    By the way, I think Jesse Jackson may have received Farrakhan endorsement. I don’t think he rejected it.

  38. Deadbeat said on March 1st, 2008 at 10:04pm #

    So, because Farrakhan endorsed Obama you take that as reason to make him the best of the 3.

    Actually Max since you asked for some “documented” evidence to support by assertion that Obama was the “better” of the three (Obama, Clinton & McCain) that was the only documented evidence that I could come up with. However you distorted your own request and my response. The documented evidence is NOT that Farrakhan supported Obama but the WHITE press using that support to ATTACK Obama as EVIDENCE of how ZIONISM effect American politics.

    Let’s stay on point Max and please don’t pull a Tim Russert here of misrepresenting what’s actually stated.

    Has Farrakhan ever endorsed a white candidate for President? Just curious.

    Bobby Kennedy in 1968.

    Also, how did Mr. quick on his feet and courageous Obama respond when faced with the question?

    I agree it wasn’t very courageous but the fact that Tim Russert ASKED the question of an undocumented slanderous remark that was NEVER made from 24 years ago just indicates the insecurity of the Zionist media. That makes Obama better than the known Zionism of both Clinton and McCain.

    By the way, I think Jesse Jackson may have received Farrakhan endorsement. I don’t think he rejected it.

    And he suffered the same indignation from the media in both 1984 and 1988. However since the incident occurred in 1984 it was more appropriate for him to face that question. That question was clearly inappropriate in 2008 but it is clearly revealing of the anxiety that exist in the press and the effects of Zionism in the media.

  39. Max Shields said on March 1st, 2008 at 10:47pm #

    “Actually Max since you asked for some “documented” evidence to support by assertion that Obama was the “better” of the three (Obama, Clinton & McCain) that was the only documented evidence that I could come up with. However you distorted your own request and my response. The documented evidence is NOT that Farrakhan supported Obama but the WHITE press using that support to ATTACK Obama as EVIDENCE of how ZIONISM effect American politics.”

    I definitely get (and agree) about your overarching point that the mainstream press is fixated on making sure that these candidates have Israel securely tatooed on there rears. But again, that makes Obama best of the 3?

    Farrakhan was the leader of the NOI in 1968? Did he even go by the name Farrakhan in 1968?

    None of these candidates are any good. When bombs are dropped and children and civilians die it won’t matter one iota that it was President McCain or Obama that made the call.

    And that’s the fight progressives should never capitulate to by thinking there’s a real choice among the 3.

  40. Deadbeat said on March 1st, 2008 at 11:39pm #

    Max, let’s be clear about my position. I do not support any of the mainstream candidates especially now with Nader in the race.

    And that’s the fight progressives should never capitulate to by thinking there’s a real choice among the 3.

    Look Max I agree with you. You don’t have to convince me there is no choice but let’s also be real as well. Unless you can convince “progressives” not to vote for the Democrat this year of the three major candidates Obama is the “better” of the three.

    The key factor to watch is drift in Obama’s position after the primaries. Once he secures the nomination does he drift to the right or will he maintain his rather lame “centrist” position. For 2008 that may be just enough for him to win because of the desire for “change” among the electorate. They know Hillary is bad and McCain is awful and are placing their hopes (falsely) onto the Obama’s blank slate.

    Should Obama drift to the right he may piss off enough voters whereby you’ll be able to draw them toward Nader or Obama may be forced to move leftward because of Nader’s firmness on the issues.

    Regarding Farrakhan, I don’t know what his relative position was within the NOI in 1968. Most likely Elijah Mohammad was running the NOI in 1968. But in the 1960′s I do believe that NOI did see the Kennedy’s as allies. But again the focus on Farrakhan is a ruse and says more about the media and their uncertainty about Obama faithfulness to Israel and his “blackness” than it does about Farrakhan. This was an interesting aspect missing in Joshua Frank’s analysis.

    In summary and to be very honest, I don’t know what “progressive” or the “left” should do. I know what they SHOULD HAVE DONE during the last eight years but they failed miserable and I am deeply disappointed that the left could not honestly deal with the war in Iraq and did not throw their support for Nader in 2004. IMO the left help to create the void that is now being skillfully and gainfully filled by Obama and IMO the left really needs to take a good look at itself in the mirror.

  41. maha said on March 2nd, 2008 at 1:00am #

    Baruch (real name?) Obama pro Palestinian? Not even a child would fall for that. It is just incredible how these Zio-fascist candidates are debated here on DV, and then you have the two immoral reality-challenged clowns who debate a quote by a Nazi. Perhaps you’d like this quote: “No Dogs or Arabs”, which used to be displayed all over Britain in 60′s on the large jewish owned chain store M&S. Or perhaps these quotes from Nelson Mandela (in a letter to the Nazi Friedman) might help Jaime the clown:

    “The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not just an issue of military occupation and Israel is not a country that was established “normally” and happened to occupy another country in 1967. Palestinians are not struggling for a “state” but for freedom, liberation and equality…
    In the last few years, and especially during the reign of the Labour Party, Israel showed that it was not even willing to return what it occupied in 1967; that settlements remain, Jerusalem would be under exclusive Israeli sovereignty, and Palestinians would not have an independent state, but would be under Israeli economic domination with Israeli control of borders, land, air, water and sea.
    Israel was not thinking of a “state” but of “separation”. The value of separation is measured in terms of the ability of Israel to keep the Jewish state Jewish, and not to have a Palestinian minority that could have the opportunity to become a majority at some time in the future. If this takes place, it would force Israel to either become a secular democratic or bi-national state, or to turn into a state of apartheid not only de facto, but also de jure.
    Thomas, if you follow the polls in Israel for the last 30 or 40 years, you clearly find a vulgar racism that includes a third of the population who openly declare themselves to be racist. This racism is of the nature of “I hate Arabs” and “I wish Arabs would be dead”. If you also follow the judicial system in Israel you will see there is discrimination against Palestinians, and if you further consider the 1967 occupied territories you will find there are already two judicial systems in operation that represent two different approaches to human life: one for Palestinian life and the other for Jewish life. Additionally there are two different approaches to property and to land. Palestinian property is not recognised as private property because it can be confiscated…
    The Palestinian state cannot be the by-product of the Jewish state, just in order to keep the Jewish purity of Israel. Israel’s racial discrimination is daily life of most Palestinians. Since Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Jews are able to accrue special rights which non-Jews cannot do. Palestinian Arabs have no place in a “Jewish” state.
    Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.”

    Baruch Obama states any peace must involve the 7.8 displaced Palestinians relinquishing their Right of Return — anyone who believes Obama is worthy of support should give up their home and possessions and go and live in Gaza under the Israeli Holocaust. Who does Baruch, the SOB, think he is?

    The attitude of people on DV of all places is so disgusting as to remind me of Zio-fascists Tony Blair and Ann Clwyd in the run up to the Iraq invasion telling everyone how much Iraqis want to be bombed and sacrificed by the West to “save” them from Saddam (the British government’s long time golden boy).

  42. maha said on March 2nd, 2008 at 1:02am #

    Baruch (real name?) Obama pro Palestinian? Not even a child would fall for that. It is just incredible how these Zio-fascist candidates are debated here on DV, and then you have the two immoral reality-challenged clowns who debate a quote by a Nazi. Perhaps you’d like this quote: “No Dogs or Arabs”, which used to be displayed all over Britain in 60′s on the large jewish owned chain store M&S. Or perhaps these quotes from Nelson Mandela (in a letter to the Nazi Friedman) might help Jaime the clown:

    “The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not just an issue of military occupation and Israel is not a country that was established “normally” and happened to occupy another country in 1967. Palestinians are not struggling for a “state” but for freedom, liberation and equality…
    In the last few years, and especially during the reign of the Labour Party, Israel showed that it was not even willing to return what it occupied in 1967; that settlements remain, Jerusalem would be under exclusive Israeli sovereignty, and Palestinians would not have an independent state, but would be under Israeli economic domination with Israeli control of borders, land, air, water and sea.
    Israel was not thinking of a “state” but of “separation”. The value of separation is measured in terms of the ability of Israel to keep the Jewish state Jewish, and not to have a Palestinian minority that could have the opportunity to become a majority at some time in the future. If this takes place, it would force Israel to either become a secular democratic or bi-national state, or to turn into a state of apartheid not only de facto, but also de jure.
    Thomas, if you follow the polls in Israel for the last 30 or 40 years, you clearly find a vulgar racism that includes a third of the population who openly declare themselves to be racist. This racism is of the nature of “I hate Arabs” and “I wish Arabs would be dead”. If you also follow the judicial system in Israel you will see there is discrimination against Palestinians, and if you further consider the 1967 occupied territories you will find there are already two judicial systems in operation that represent two different approaches to human life: one for Palestinian life and the other for Jewish life. Additionally there are two different approaches to property and to land. Palestinian property is not recognised as private property because it can be confiscated…
    The Palestinian state cannot be the by-product of the Jewish state, just in order to keep the Jewish purity of Israel. Israel’s racial discrimination is daily life of most Palestinians. Since Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Jews are able to accrue special rights which non-Jews cannot do. Palestinian Arabs have no place in a “Jewish” state.
    Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.”

    Baruch Obama states any peace must involve the 7.8 million displaced Palestinians relinquishing their Right of Return — anyone who believes Obama is worthy of support should give up their home and possessions and go and live in Gaza under the Israeli Holocaust. Who does Baruch, the SOB, think he is?

    The attitude of people on DV of all places is so disgusting as to remind me of Zio-fascists Tony Blair and Ann Clwyd in the run up to the Iraq invasion telling everyone how much Iraqis want to be bombed and sacrificed by the West to “save” them from Saddam (the British government’s long time golden boy).

  43. Max Shields said on March 2nd, 2008 at 6:37am #

    Deadbeat,
    Thanks for the clarification.

    I know there are people called or who refer to themselves as progressives. Obama has been called a progressives, for god sake the whole Democractic Party has been referred to as the progressive party!!

    Coopting of words, labels, is common and is at the crux of political campaigns. Obama is case in point. I don’t buy the idea that rhetoric on the campaign trail to win votes (and only if it will get the pol votes of interest mind you) amounts to substantitive policy.

    Regardless what anyone thinks of John Edwards (particularly historically), his position on NAFTA, Workers’ rights, state of the poor and growing poverty, corporate greed and more, was unequivocal. There was no hesitation. He had made this a personal mission. I would liken that to what Bobby Kennedy did in 1968. Kennedy’s history was certainly not linear with regard to his political positions. But his voice became an unshakeable voice for minorities, the poor and disenfranchised in a singular way. It was raw and authentic. IMO, Edwards actually came close to that.

    Obama may grab onto this or that to bring in the base, but his message is really all over the place, as his interest is more with garnishing Repubs and conservative Independents than anything approaching progressive authenticity. That’s what makes his politics non-populist and more along the lines of a Bill Clinton triangualation calculation. If you go back and listen to Clinton’s campaigns for President his narrative was identical, as was is broad centrist reach. That’s ironic given Obama’s opponent.

    While we agree, I just think that principled progressives (not the every-man/no-man, wishy-washy kind) should take Obama based on his campaign rhetoric in its entirety as well as his voting record and his stands (or lack thereof) when he had an opportunity. Those are the telling signs, as best we can discern. He is a defender of empire and will be responsible for USA military interventionism – inherited and otherwise – and the consequences of that policy which rains terror on the ground.

    Should Obama become President and demonstrate otherwise, I will not deny him his due. But so far he is no Bobby Kennedy. He’s not even the best of John Edwards, and he’s certainly no Kucinich or Ralph Nader.

    I realize that you pretty much concur.

    Cheers
    Max

  44. hp said on March 2nd, 2008 at 10:34am #

    Farrakhan is one of the most brutally honest people in America. Period.

  45. Max Shields said on March 2nd, 2008 at 11:28am #

    maha “Baruch Obama states any peace must involve the 7.8 million displaced Palestinians relinquishing their Right of Return — anyone who believes Obama is worthy of support should give up their home and possessions and go and live in Gaza under the Israeli Holocaust. Who does Baruch, the SOB, think he is?”

    This (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=15130) is a big problem. Without ROR there is no peace in that region; regardless of whether there is a two state or one state resolve.

  46. JE said on March 2nd, 2008 at 11:39am #

    “True there are problems with discrimination issues. But that happens in every country.”

    You mean like a majority of Jews agreeing with the description of Arab-Israelis as being “Unclean” and a majority of Jews admitting they wouldn’t live in the same building as an Arab-Israeli? Yes this is very typical of discriminatory views. BTW, discrimination is telling unlike things apart…this is more like prejudice and racism…

  47. Max Shields said on March 2nd, 2008 at 12:41pm #

    You want to know why Obama is still in the race and Kucinich is not? Because of this kind of backbone talk:

    Kucinich at the Arab American Institute
    “So my plan would be to achieve that, and to work towards that. And I think the United States can help to foster that. The United States can help to foster a negotiating structure, where we get both parties to agree on the sharing of water rights, because water rights can be the basis of further conflict, and they can also be the basis of further cooperation. And we must use our influence in construction a negotiating climate, where we can move towards getting the parties to agree to share water rights. So, too, we must move forward to create a circumstance where the parties will understand that the security of one depends on the security of the other, and there must be mutual agreements to provide security. And as we foster that kind of climate for negotiations, we can then enable the parties to come to those decisions which truly Israelis and Palestinians must be able to resolve on their own, and that we cannot force a decision on these matters of borders and right of return. I think we can create a climate to cause the parties to resolve those issues.”

    Kucinich understands how neogtiation works and that the US role is one of supporting the process not dictating the terms. And then (Kucinich):

    “There’s a few other things the United States can and must do, and we must do them now. We must use our considerable influence with Israel to ask Israel to stop building walls, ask Israel to tear down the walls, ask Israel to not participate in the building of any new settlements, because we have to recognize that in order to achieve peace we must stop anything that smacks of isolation, or of creating conditions which will make it that much more difficult to achieve a peaceful agreement. We must come from a place where we understand that we’re all brothers and sisters, and when our brothers are killing each other, I believe it’s for us to try to create circumstances where we can help heal both, so that both may live together and exist peacefully.”

    I would not expect a US President to say he wants to dismantle the state of Israel. I do expect the kind of stand that Kucinich made in the Congressional Chambers.

  48. hp said on March 2nd, 2008 at 1:22pm #

    They’ve been ‘negotiating’ for decades now.

  49. hp said on March 2nd, 2008 at 1:27pm #

    They’ve been ‘negotiating’ for decades now.
    What a stand. I’m getting goosebumps.
    Ask Israel this, ask Israel that.
    Agree to share water.
    Create a climate to cause the parties to resolve those issues.
    What are we, six years old?
    Cookies and milk for everyone!

  50. Max Shields said on March 2nd, 2008 at 1:35pm #

    hp and what the hell have YOU been doing?

  51. Max Shields said on March 2nd, 2008 at 1:40pm #

    Oh, yea, hp…you’re going to vote for Obama in protest.

    There hasn’t been any negotiation in over 7 years and even then it’s not been in good faith. Kucinich is looking for the at. Or do you suggest the US invade? Necons like you just love to do that.

    Oh that’s right you’re not a necon just a head up his/her arse blogger.

  52. dan e said on March 2nd, 2008 at 3:57pm #

    Okay, everybody settle down?

    LOL — look who’s talking, Mr Intemperate himself:)

    Maha, I want to thank you for injecting a sense of reality into the discussion. & you can say that again, too.

    Re “jaimey”: recommend everybody, when you see his name just keep on scrollin’. You can’t debate with these idiots, waste of time. Save your sawdust* for people who are somewhat open to reason.

    * “Kay Twasses? Watcha doin’?”

    “I’m thinking”.

    “Thought I smelled sawdust burning!”

    Okay, all seriousness aside… We are considering presidential politics in the US of A & the current crop of “mainstream” canditutes, along with three/four names seen as Out of the Mainstream: Nader, Kucinich, Gonzalez, McKinney.
    At 73, everyday I realize anew how vast is the realm of Stuff I Don’t Understand. Example: today was watching on C-Span, interview w/one Dr. McWhorter of Jersey City (make him a neighbor of Glen Ford;), who at the age of 42 has wrote 12 bks, speaks Ingles, German, French, Spanish, reads newspapers in Russian, can get around in Itagliano, Portuguese, is starting to learn Pei-hua (which he called “Mandarin”).
    Of course he’s full of shit, thinks there’s no racism involved in current Ethnic Cleansing of New Orleans, Katrina an Act of God etc. But “sheeyit” as it says on the subtitles to Seven Samurai, I have a son older than this guy. How did he accomplish all this in that time? He also has pretty good grasp of Jazz, Euro music, knows Hiphop well enough to dispute Rap critics. Which to me is more Terra Incognita.

    But I also am absolutely positively sure that I now know a cpl things I once didn’t understand at all. Among same are Dumbocrat-Rethuglican presidential politics & candidates.

    It’s really simple: nobody gets any serious consideration, donations, airtime, favorable coverage unless they have been thoroughly vetted by the Capitalist Imperal Ruling Class and found 100% reliable.

    The differently-nuanced positions espoused have absolutely nothing to do with what they may or may not do once in office. Such mouthings have to do with Marketing, not with policy.

    They are careful to provide a candidate packaged to appeal to every significant Market Niche. Thus we saw the inclusion of Mr Kucinich in 2004, and again early on this time around. It seems he revealed himself to be somewhat less reliable than thought, so he has been dropped like a hot spud.
    Seems they anticipated this might happen, so they included a backup, Sen. Gravel. It seems his services are becoming superfluous too, given the momentum generated by Obamarama.

    Obama: for lefties, radicals, “progressives”, he’s the big problem. Antiwar, pro-Singlepayer, anti-Mass Incarceration activists/voters arent going to be attracted to McCain or that git-tar picken’ Kleagle Manque, wassisname, Hucklebuck? Artillery Hillery is wearing thinner & thinner even with Liberal Feminists. But Obama keeps picking up steam.
    Obamania is everywhere in the ‘Hood, all the bookstores, galleries, coffee places, barbershops. beauty parlors. The only visible Black American activists in this town are committed Democrats, “Progressive/PDA” & the more traditional kind. All the local Progressive Professors I know of are PDA/DSA supporters/members.

    On the plus side, Obamism, or as one friend puts it, “Obamismalism”, has been & is being subjected to a great deal of high quality Deconstruction, from Bruce Dixon, Margaret Kimberley & Glen Ford in Blk Agenda Rprt, to Josh Frank, Alex Cockburn, Pam Martens in CounterPunch. to PSL & Richard Becker, to former GP candidate/now Cynthia endorser Jared Ball, to Matt Gonzalez and others.

    So at this pt, I see the main task on the Obama Front to be one of delivering such deconstructivating information to the grassroots ghetto people, the kind of people who formed the base of the Panther Party? Most I think tend to be swept along in the tide of Obamania sweeping down from the pulpits, the NAACP, Blk Demo. officeholders, bread-buttering “community leaders” etc — but there is a stratum of those who don’t buy anything that wears a suit or a new car. No way to estimate how substantial is this “rejectionist” stratum or strain at present, but get out there, pass out some litature & get some feedback.

    I plan do some that, Congregaten spot right round corner from my pad, using C McKinney fliers. Problem: no pitcher on these GP-produced items. Preponderance of color lite Green. But sthg else, w/a pitcher the candidate is needed ASAP. & some younger peeps to do the runnen round.
    However IMO my own main assignment at the moment is to help fellow radicalistic folks sort out the choices to be made between the various non-Duopoly candidates: Nader, McKinney, Gonzalez, PSL’s Gloria La Riva, CA P&F’s Stewart Alexander. Are there any others?

    Before we tackle that, we’d better get clear on why we’re involving ourselves in supporting a candidate who is, shall we say, not an odds-on favorite to win the whole thing in November? At best a long-long-longshot, & even that requires so much Suspension of Disbelief… Okay, let me be candid: why support a candidate who isn’t going to win? Who has the proverbial snowball’s chance — or less — of actually being elected?
    At this pt I think I’ll take a Pause for the Cause, run this up the DV flagpole, see if any monkeys wrap tails around it?

    Before I go, props to Max, DB, hp for advancing the discussn, & more props to Bro. Maha (which means Great, in Buddhissism;)

    OK, I’m
    Aot!

  53. Mike McNiven said on March 3rd, 2008 at 4:02am #

    It seems that “suddenly” the “instructions” from Tehran is that Obama must be supported regardless of what happens to the Palestinians! Well, the Left disagrees with that criminal capitalist position:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/beattie01052008.html

    Also, for those who understand that imperialisim is as lethal as war, Nader and McKinney represent the existence of options :
    http://www.counterpunch.org/christison03012008.html

  54. joe rose said on March 3rd, 2008 at 5:15am #

    jaime

    There are two kind of persons that can be seen expresing the kind of opinions you express:
    1. The evil kind of people
    2. The terminally ignorant kind of people
    Combinations are allowed.

    are you 1 or 2, jaime?

    Joe

  55. Shabnam said on March 3rd, 2008 at 7:52am #

    The Zionist “left” group who are mainly Trotskyite, McNiven, are engaged in regime change, like Wolfowitz, Horowitz, Hitchens, Makyia and the rest who waged a Zionist war to bring regime change in Iraq, now they pose as supporters of Iranians equipped with a phony slogan “no Imperialist war, no theocracy in Iran” to wage another Zionist war to eliminate strong countries in the region through partition, like Iraq into tribe of Kurd and Shiites, for the benefit of Israel. McNiven and his group, the Trotskyite “Hands off the Iranian people” who have repeatedly let Israel off the hook by going after Hezbollah to divert attention away from Israel, like in the US, have criticized and attacked the British left who supported human rights of Hezbollah against Israel crimes, and therefore, they were thrown out of the coalition against the war, is attacking those who want to defeat the neocons’ plan, McCain vs. Obama, to prevent McCain to be elected president since he is willing to wage more wars including bombing Iran to honor Lieberman’s desire to destroy Iran and to stay in Iraq for the next hundred years. He is so ignorant that doesn’t know Iran views all the candidates as pro Israel and against Iran. He is so ignorant that does not know many among Iranian community and Arab community are supporting Obama since the “democracy” has failed AGAIN to provide a leader whose words and actions are truly his or hers and not influence by the fifth columnists, the Zionist tribe. He is so ignorant that do not know, Nader for the past few elections received around 2 percent. How are you going to defeat the neocon’s plan? It is better to work much harder this time so you can provide a leader who can defeat the influence of Zionism on American foreign policy.

  56. Chris Crass said on March 3rd, 2008 at 11:17am #

    Lao Tzi sez:
    “Time to rectify the language.”

  57. hp said on March 3rd, 2008 at 11:58am #

    Max,
    I plead the 5th.

  58. Mulga Mumblebrain said on March 3rd, 2008 at 2:58pm #

    Good God jaime, feeling a visceral distaste for creatures such as your loathsome, sabre-rattling but staying safe in your steambath self, has nothing to do with gays or Jews as a whole. You are, in my opinion, a bad advertisement for both categories. Hitler was a German, but a revulsion towards a Hitler does not infer revulsion towards all Germans. Indeed all the gays I’ve known have been humane, accepting, anti-racist, humanitarians, in other words, your polar opposite. Even amongst Jews, where at the moment there is a plethora of nasty, belligerent, cruel racists, you stand out, in my opinion, as a particularly execrable specimen.

  59. jaime said on March 3rd, 2008 at 3:06pm #

    Thanks Mulga,
    So can I give our your name as a character reference?

  60. Deadbeat said on March 3rd, 2008 at 8:10pm #

    Max,

    I just wanted to say that I agree with your conclusions and observed that we are just getting to the same page from varying directions and experiences.

    Kudos to you as well,
    Deadbeat

  61. Zachary Davidson said on March 4th, 2008 at 1:27pm #

    Congratulations to you all for providing a forum of constructive political discussion. It is refreshing to encounter perspectives that are informed,
    rational and insightful especially amidst current geo-political affairs.

    I wish to supply an excerpt from a project that I am working on publishing on Zionism and Israeli Palestinian affairs.

    “In terms of Israel’s presently and historically blatant disregard for Palestinian lives, there goes with this disregard an understanding amongst the financiers of Palestinian violence that whatsoever may be deemed the most profitable actualization of violence, there the industry will follow. Many of these financial interests are carried out and arranged by protected, elite individuals who maintain the systematic perpetration of violence against Palestinians for purposes related to the achievement of an idealized, pure utopic state of like types; for these elite Zionists, the exercise of power against people(s) who are the embodied barrier preventing the realization of this potential state of like types is an exercise in divine supplication. Thus, the disregard for Palestinian life, is part and parcel to their possibilistic infatuation with a divine reality that is subliminally, eternally relegated to the realm of the Eschaton. To realize Zion, an end of times must be realized as well. This is largely why those in the highest positions of power have a vested interest in utilizing their instruments of influence for the attainment of
    ‘that which is not yet’; power only begets the fixation of more power until there is no longer the lusting need for the use of power. In an economic age where power correlates to profit, and war and genocide against the embodied barrier is not only a necessary measure for the attainment of Zion, but war and genocide itself continues to supply profit for the envisagement of the End of Days, then violence, genocide and systematic oppression become testaments of ritualistic, divinely ordained sanctity in the few eyes who sustain the Zionist vision.”

    I trust you all will supply feedback.

  62. jaime said on March 4th, 2008 at 4:08pm #

    So, I take it that you don’t think that the Israelis should defend themselves against the Hamas’ rockets and attacks against their civilian population?

    What are they supposed to do? March into the sea?

  63. Mulga Mumblebrain said on March 4th, 2008 at 7:22pm #

    They are supposed to follow international law, jaime, as prescribed in the Geneva Conventions, in innumerable General Assembly Resolutions and not a few Security Council Resolutions, and in judgments of the International Court of Justice, for example the finding, by 14 out of 15 justices, that the concentration camp wall imprisoning the Palestinians in smaller and smaller ghettoes, is illegal, and behave with common decency. They must withdraw from the Occupied Territories, cease sending death-squads into Palestinians homes, slaughtering those who dare resist their brutal, racist occupation, not infrequently killing innocents through reckless negligence and deep racist indifference to the lives of non-Jews, who as Rabbi Kook the Elder reminded us, have a lower soul than Jews, closer to that of animals. The Israelis must cease stealing land, torturing, humiliating, denigrating and dehumanising Palestinians. Then they may have a chance of living in peace, if their victims are tremendously forgiving. I myself would prefer a Nuremberg style series of trials to judge the Israeli leadership for crimes against humanity, but I fear they will escape, as did their dear friends and allies in apartheid South Africa. Perhaps a Truth and Reconciliation Commission will have to do.

  64. Mike McNiven said on March 5th, 2008 at 2:01am #

    Thank you Mr.Frank for the article!

    The following , also, is for those who care about the Palestinians in this 2008 selection!

    “Obama: I’m a ‘stalwart friend’ of Israel, its security is ‘sacrosanct’ :
    Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Tuesday stressed his “stalwart” support for Israel and his ties to American Jews, during a presidential debate with rival candidate Hillary Clinton.
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958748.html

  65. Mike A. said on November 24th, 2008 at 9:32pm #

    When you say “…same day seven Palestinians were killed by Israeli air strikes in Gaza.” you meant to say “…same day seven terrorists who earlier had launched missiles at innocent civilians…” and when you say “…Israeli military forces have reportedly killed over 200 Palestinians.” you meant to say “…Israeli military forces have reportedly killed over 200 terrorists who hide Qassam missile launchers in Gaza schoolyards…”

    Right?