"Today the New York Times printed a full-page ad telling Hillary Clinton she has to reject her adviser Sidney Blumenthal and his allegedly anti-semitic son Max, because of Max Blumenthal’s tremendous book on Israel’s militant rightwing political culture, Goliath. The ad on page A7 was paid for by Shmuley Boteach, who has gotten tons of money from Sheldon Adelson. It concludes that Clinton is asking friends of Israel to count on her support for the always-vulnerable Jewish State. If she won’t dissociate herself from her discredited advisor Sid Blumenthal and his rabid, Israel-hating son Max how can we?" Mondoweiss
Here you have a perfect example of the efforts of Revisionist Zionist Jabotinskyites to suppress dissent from their extremist views and control the narrative of the larger world's discussion of Israeli policies and politics.
In the interest of full disclosure – I wrote a jacket blurb for "Goliath." It is a fine book. I recommend it highly.
Tell me, pilgrims, how is it that Sidney Blumenthal has been "discredited?" He is discredited for having given his friend HC advice? Was he responsible for the way she and her staff chose to disseminate that advice? He did not work at the State Department. They did. pl
Boteach is a piece of work indeed- this isn’t the first time he has put an ad in the NYT criticizing those he deems unhelpful to Israel and the settlements- previously against Susan Rice. He once ran for Congress aas an R from NJ- and lost. He also was the ‘spiritual adviser’ to Michael Jackson- whatever that meant. He was given a lifetime ban by the Lubavitchers for his book “Kosher Jesus.” A celebrity clergyman, so not sure what weight his ad will carry.
Again a sign of what the “newspaper of record” has become.
Sheesh..I’d actually consider donating to HRC if I thought Max was an advisor. Sigh.
The Grey Lady has truly become Pravada on the Hudson . Adelsen with all of his Macau gambling money is a clear and present danger to the These Umited Styates and our Way of Life. A pox on all of those geniuses that say Corporations are people & that Citizen’s United is a good decision from SCOTUS .
Probably ought get my bifocals checked meant “These United States ”
if I may pick this apart:
“A pox on all of those geniuses that say Corporations are people …”
Over here, to the extend I am familiar with law, it seems to make sense, at least in the larger legal structure framework. Someone has to be responsible? There are related paragraphs. Admittedly I have no idea about the history neither here in Germany or on a comparative level. But I would assume matters are related on that level.
The question is, to what extend the respective corporation’s” ultimate deciders, considered legally, have to pay the price, is a different matter versus the ordinary employees.
I would like to disentangle this from “Citizen United” versus the US. Legally you take what you can, to make your political point. Citizen united is not a ordinary corporation, but a “conservative non-profit organization”. A non-profit is only one item in the larger legal structure, no doubt not only over here.
But yes, as you know, I am only a curious nitwit. 😉
Just so you know in the United States itis the State governments that authoriz3e the creation of corporations, not the federal government. The real party at interest in forming the corporation never required to be disclosed. And the “citizens” have one accounting system for securities regulation and stock list and another for tax purposes. Never the Twain Shall Meet.
Disclosure: My Vacation Lane Group, Inc. created under a little known provision of Virginia law and a non-profit, but not exempt for any purposes from federal, state, or local taxes.
But a huge portion of the U.S. GDP protected from taxes by formal tax exempt status including political super-PACs.
The add is a clever ploy to increase Hillary’s support within the opposition to Israeli firsters circle of voters and the US population at large, who are less familiar with detailed MENA matters….
Yes, there few businesses as profitable to the managers as “not for profit” businesses. Ask the two men who were just fired as CEO and COO of Wounded Warrior. And in Virginia the officers of a non-profit can not be held liable unless malfeasance can be proved. pl
I don’t believe that for a minute. It is what it seems. pl
“He was given a lifetime ban by the Lubavitchers for his book “Kosher Jesus.””
That is good to know. A Sephardi friend from Jerusalem said of all the chasidim he respected the Lubavitchers because they had day jobs.
He is also a best buddy of Ihor Kolomoyskyi who happened to be the civil aviation authority when a commercial airliner was tragically lost over a country’s conflict zone. Also threw a celebration dinner when Fawning Entourage Fangirl Sammy was coronated … err confirmed to her UN post. Pieces to a dark puzzle seem to be coming together.
There is nothing more eye opening to westerners than reading an Israeli paper for the first time. I imagine it would be even more so for Americans considering how badly Israelis despise Americans.
Israel’s problem these days is picking the right horse. And their inability to pick the right horse comes from their incredible stupidity in discovering their best interest. Why?
In part it may arise from the fact that Israel is a theocracy. There was an “extremely heart wrenching” story in the Times recently about a gay Iranian man who fled to Israel on account of his sexual orientation, an article that was undoubtedly written and published on account of its propaganda value. Well, this individual must also have been a stupid, gay Iranian man, because gays have essentially no rights whatsoever in Israel. They are openly condemned by the the leadership of Likud, and do not stand a chance of having equal protection under the law.
There is no separation of church and state in Israel, and that simply is not compatible with the traditions and laws of the United States, no matter what Cruz and Rubio say.
If I may ‘come out’ with an old-fashioned British prejudice. Sometimes we were inclined to think that Americans took over from the Germans a propensity to be unduly impressed by PhDs – and also were excessively inclined to think that an ability to make money was normally correlated with other aptitudes.
(Almost all of this is in the past now – these days we are just as impressed by imbecile billionaires as you are.)
However, the sheer stupidity of American Zionists still baffles me.
The suggestion that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism has to entail one of two assertions.
It can be taken to mean that all or most of those who criticise Israel do so because they hate Jews. As applied to Britain, this is quite palpable nonsense. Actually, a lot of the people of regard Netanyahu as appalling are the children of those who were appalled by Kristallnacht. This is metaphorically so in some cases, literally so in mine.
The only possible alternative interpretation is that the statement is definitionally true. What this implies is that – as Michael Oren among so many others contends – that Jews are a ‘people’ having a common ‘destiny’ and ‘story’.
But if this is the case, then some of the things said by old-fashioned British anti-Semites were right. Clearly, nobody who is a Jew in Oren’s sense can expect to be seen as unequivocally loyal to any other country.
In this sense, of course, the true, authentic, Jews are the likes of Netanyahu, Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, Robert Kagan, Jeffrey Goldberg, David Brooks … or indeed Rabbi Boteach.
How can any rational ‘goy’ not think that such people have far too much power, and abuse it?
Fanatics all look alike. Hard to tell them apart.
There is a useful parallel with the Irish. When my grandfather was growing up, the Irish were referred to as “Turks” and actively discriminated against. When Al Smith lost to Herbert Hoover in 1928, the joke was that he sent a telegram to the Pope, “Unpack”.
Of course, that changed. My grandfather voted for JFK. I believe it still helps to be Irish in many walks of life, walks of life in which the Irish may very well have too much power.
And the parallel runs deeper. American Irish took up the cause of the IRA. Collected money for them, etc. The twenty-six counties were Israel, and the six counties the Arab world. All on account of religion.
I don’t begrudge the Irish their success in the United States, but supporting murderers and despots overseas on religious grounds is well beyond the pale. The difference between the Irish and the Jews is the extent to which Israel seems to believe that it should control American Foreign Policy.
There is an AIPAC Policy conference going on in DC at the Convention center this Sunday until Tuesday
All the usual suspects will be attending or speaking:
I understand the presence of some canucks, especially John Baird who is more loyal to Israel than Canada , that of Tony Clement for Conservative leadership bid as well as Helen Lariviere who may want to replace Mulclair if he gets booted out in Edmonton in a few weeks, but I am surprised to see some Europeans, Australians even Africans . The Web is really expanding.
Until jews in America start repudiating the Likudniks they will continue to have the lock on the perception that they truly represent the Jewish cause whatever that may be.
For some time the Likudniks through AIPAC and other organizations as well as the big money from folks like Sheldon Adelson and others have controlled the narrative in our media and politics. The fact that Netanyahu could thumb his nose at the President and given a rapturous welcome by Congress says it all.
Now, we have Trump going to address the AIPAC conference. Let’s see what he says. Would he reinforce what he said at the last debate or fawn all over them? We know what Rubio and Cruz and Hillary have said. You know its a given that any successful mainstream American politician must swear fealty to Israel to be considered a serious candidate. That shows how deep the capture is. To Bernie’s credit he will not speak at the AIPAC conference. But….he will get a pass since he’s not expected to win the Democrat nomination.
The Blumenthals have done everything they could to repudiate the Likudniks… pl
During the last few days, I have started to think that the Department of Justice will not seek a criminal charge against Hillary Clinton for her e-mail activity, regardless of whether some Zionists would like to stop her campaign. The main reason is that president Obama has recently been asking political donors to contribute to her race for the nomination of the Democratic Party–
Obama is a person who, with a somewhat murky background, was promoted and brought along by political operators and donors, and fairly quickly became the president. During the 2008 election campaign in the fall, when the financial system’s problems blew up, Obama openly said about the awful TARP bailout legislation, “This bill must pass”. Despite obvious criminal fraud all over the place, not one executive of a large bank or financial company has been charged with a crime by the Obama administration since it began in 2009. I expect that none will be. Financial companies are large contributors to Hillary’s campaign.
It is my opinion that when it comes to Democratic Party politics, Obama will do what he is told to do. Since Bill Clinton signed into law the legal changes that allowed financial and media company mergers, and repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, the repeal of which allowed a lot of money-making misconduct to occur, the financial operators will want Hillary to remain in the presidential race. Obama has not disappointed the bank and financial frauders, and their desires will override those of any persons opposing Hillary because of her suspected attitudes about Israel–
“A curious nit-wit…”
Seen so many times you make this statement.
My conclusion: You think that we are intellectually inferior to you.
Mussolini actually tried to create a parliamentary system in which “corporations could be heard. It failed miserably.
Until Protestant Christians are truly and thoroughly are disabused of their funny notions about Ancient Israel and their own relationship with it nothing will change.
We are not, in my opinion, not even at the beginning of that beginning.
In the meantime, there is a multi-religious war that is being waged.
It is not just the Likdudniks – a new phenomenon in any case – but the bulk of Jews who intensely and emotionally identify with the State of Israel.
Alfred Lilienthal was opposing that crowd long before the Likud – starting in 1950.
But this – however new – religion of Shoah cannot be combatted by any rational or emotional argument.
Like the Jihadists of ISIS, its failure would have to be established on the field of battle; in my opinion.
Max is at an AIPAC protest today and he put out a lot of info, videos, etc. on Twitter and also at the Real News website.
Nit pick away from afar if you must – corporations are not people & campaign funding from unregulated sources for unlimited amount is a clear & present danger to our elections in These United States ..
This is the other side of the coin. It would be possible to believe that just as the anti-Syrian alliance (because that’s what they are, a group that wants Syria to cease to exist) is going down to defeat, that the “leadership” of the Republican Party is going down to defeat as well. Symmetry.
“Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh bucked the GOP establishment Sunday and declared there is “a much bigger upside than downside” to Donald Trump winning the Republican presidential nomination.
“I think with the case of Trump, there’s a much bigger upside than downside,” Mr. Limbaugh said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”
The praise from the king of conservative talk radio came as the Republican establishment launched a massive offensive to derail the front-runner, including a scathing denouncement of Mr. Trump last week from 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
Mr. Limbaugh said that despite the outrage GOP leaders have directed at Mr. Trump, the billionaire businessman and reality TV star had assembled the broad coalition of voters that the Republican establishment has long sought.
“There is something remarkable happening here,” Mr. Limbaugh said. “For the longest time the Republican Party has told us that they can’t win with just Republican votes. And that’s why they support amnesty, that’s why they support Democrats on many of their issues to go out and get Hispanics or other minorities. And guess who’s doing it? Donald Trump is doing it.”
“He has put together a coalition that is exactly what the Republican Party says it needs to win. And yet, look what they are doing, they are trying to get Trump out of the race because they are not in charge of it,” he said.”
“… he will get a pass since he’s not expected to win the Democrat nomination.”
Or maybe he gets a pass because he is jewish and lived on a Kibbutz when he was young. They already know where his loyalty lies.
Or maybe doesn’t feel that it’s necessary since he doesn’t WANT to win. Maybe he is a ‘sheepdog’ as described by Black Agenda Report soon after he announced his candidacy – leading young idealists into the Democratic Party and away from a third party.
Sanders SAYS that the race is close if you count delegates won by voting but the media don’t cover him anymore because they count total delegates (including Super-delegates). This greatly advantages Hillary. So where are the protests against MSM? Instead, protesters direct their rage against Trump.
And how is it that ‘populist’ Sanders allows Hillary to paint herself as the ‘fighter’ (“I’ve been fighting for >insert demographic/cause< my whole life", she says)? Sanders talks about his differences with Hillary but he never makes her character an issue. As a Democratic Party partisan and "friend to many of the top Democrats (Obama, Hillary, Schumer, etc.), he just won't go there. The contrast with Trump is striking (not to say that Sanders should be as caustic).
“They already know where his loyalty lies.” I suppose you explain his abstention from an AIPAC convention speech as part of the plot? pl
Thanks for pointing that out. The “corporations aren’t people” meme has great superficial appeal, but there are very serious implications of limiting constitutional protections to individuals. It would essentially mean that such protections are surrendered whenever there is a group that gathers for any chartered purpose, be it economic, service, or political. If somebody wanted to use government power against political opponents or business competitors, there would be very little recourse.
For a different point of view than kowtowing at AIPAC, the real news network hosts video of a conference on Israel’s Influence, the following link is to Larry Wilkerson’s talk, but there are about a dozen talks.
“Sometimes we were inclined to think that Americans took over from the Germans a propensity to be unduly impressed by PhDs”
That is an incorrect observation. In many German regions it was considered braggy to have a Dr. before your name in the telephone book. 🙂
If you really want to get the most prestige out of a PhD visit Austria. 🙂
“The suggestion that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism has to entail one of two assertions”
Irrespective of these assertions, this conflation has proven to be quite effective on a tactical level as a tool for harassing and silencing those who dare to counter the narrative the Zionists have carefully crafted in MSM. The coordinated assault on the BDS movement is but the latest example. The utilization of this false equivalency has been used as justification by most western governments to pass legislation severely restricting or, as in the case of France, actually criminalizing the BDS movement.
In the U.S. this suppression is especially intense at the university level and has reached levels that can only be described as hysterical.. Recently “the New York State Senate has voted to slash $485 million in funding to senior colleges in the City University of New York system to “send a message” that not done enough to fight campus anti-Semitism.”. On the west coast Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her husband have been putting intense pressure on the University of California to formally ban various forms of Israel criticism and anti-Israel activism. as a way of fighting anti-semitism.
( Just out of curiosity, how would you characterize Feinstein in light of this action. She does not seem to be overtly Zionist, yet if her actions are representative of Jewish-Americans then the whole Zionism/jewish equivalency is quite murky indeed.)
By the way what is happening on your side of the pond. Over the weekend the Guardian has published numerous articles regarding anti-Semitism, from Blair’s benefactor, Lord Levy to op-eds by Freeland and Cohen (who actually titled his article: “Why I’m becoming a Jew and why you should, too”). Is this simply an all-out assault on Corbyn or is this part of some wider strategy involving the anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism theme.
Well, that is how it is with prejudices, Ulenspiegel. No?
Austria seemed a bit extreme with titles, I have to admit, from our own limited perspective. On the other hand I have no idea about it today. I always wondered how it could have been related to the: “Wiener Schmäh”… to not follow other meanderings …
For whatever reason, it reminds me of a former neighbor, an elder lady apparently suffering from Alzheimer in her latest days around here. Before I took care something happened, admittedly. Everyone addressed her with “Dr.”, Phd, for non Germans, although strictly it was only her husband who had been the local dentist around here long before I moved in. 😉
Concerning our dear David, I never like Oxfordian English. 😉
“That’s why I believe we must take our alliance to the next level. I hope a new 10-year defense memorandum of understanding is concluded as soon as possible to meet Israel’s security needs far into the future.
CLINTON: That will also send a clear message to Israel’s enemies that the United States and Israel stand together united.
It’s also why, as president, I will make a firm commitment to ensure Israel maintains its qualitative military edge.”
SoS Clinton at AIPAC:
Thanks for the laugh.
The triumphal march at AIPAC today as Trump, Clinton, Ryan, and Trump fawn and kiss the Zionist ring clearly proves there will never be peace in the Middle East and that the U.S. will be forever attacked and hated as the blood enemy of the great majority of those who inhabit the region. The clear consensus of all who will be in power in the U.S. for years to come sends a clear message to Israel’s enemies that the United States and Israel stand together united in the destruction of those who follow Islam. The dedication of Jerusalem as the “eternal” capitol of the “Jewish State” confirms that the U.S. will never support peace, only extermination and exile of the Palestinians to expand a Jewish State without bounds. In their boundless enthusiasm to court the Zionists, our candidates in both parties have declared war eternal. It is completely ironic that those who suffered the Holocaust would blindly seek to impose another extermination on the Palestinian people in their midst and that the American People would cheer in approval. Unless it can figure out how it can grant some grace and justice to its minority within its polity and make accommodation with its neighbors, Israel is simply doomed in the long run.
None of this will end well.
It is quite difficult to get a ‘handle’ on what precisely is happening, because key attitudes – and in particular key changes in attitudes – are commonly only very imperfectly articulated.
But, to take a ‘sighting shot’.
1. The responses of Jonathan Freedland, Nick Cohen, and Lord Levy illustrate to my mind an element of panic. In part, this arises out of a realisation that the ‘secular cult of the Shoah’ – to use Babak Makkinejad’s phrase – is, as it were, becoming ‘Sovietised’. (When Commissar Foxman denounces you, you quake in your shoes because your job prospects, hopes of a political career etc, may suffer – the moral force of the accusation has largely been dissipated by its promiscuous overuse.)
2. As has become clear to me, the sense is deeply ingrained in many Zionists that there is some deep well of utterly irrational Judeophobia in the ‘goyim’, waiting to re-emerge. Clearly, in some of the nastier sections of the Left – and elsewhere – anti-Zionism can tip over into very unpleasant forms of traditional anti-Semitism. So in part the weakening force of the ‘cult of the Shoah’ does simply allow ‘skeletons in the cupboard’ to reappear.
3. However, in thinking this is the most significant change, Zionists are choosing to live in a fool’s paradise. Last month, a piece entitled ‘The left’s problem with Jews has a long and miserable history’ by the historian Simon Schama was published in the FT.
‘Growing up in London in the shadow of world war two my pals and I talked about who might be the bad guys, should evil come our way. We agreed the Jew-haters would not wear brown shirts and jackboots but would probably be like people on the bus. It is not the golf club nose-holders we have to worry about now; it is those who, in their indignation at the sufferings visited on the Palestinians, and their indifference to almost-daily stabbings in the streets of Israel, have discovered the excitement of saying the unspeakable, making hay with history, so Israel is the new reich, and a military attack on Gaza indistinguishable from the industrially processed incineration of millions.’
(See https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4791ez/the_lefts_problem_with_jews_has_a_long_and/ .)
4. Actually, in Britain in the ‘Fifties and ‘Sixties practically everybody travelled ‘on the bus’ – I still do very frequently. So what Schama has actually told me is that he and his ‘pals’ went around assuming that normal ‘goys’ like myself could not really be trusted, but might at some point rediscover their inner Nazi and come for them.
But if this is what he and Jews like him really think about the ‘people on the bus’, then these would be rather naïve to trust them, would they not?
5. So Schama has actually characterised himself as suffering from what a very different kind of Jew, Gilad Atzmon, calls ‘Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder’. In his account, the Book of Esther is a representative text. In Schama’s terms, it is a story of how anticipations that ‘evil’ will come from ‘Jew-haters’ cause Jews to seek to manipulate those ‘goyim’ who hold power in Jewish interests.
(See http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/purim-special-from-esther-to-aipac-by-gilad-atzmon.html .)
Put simply, Atzmon – who is Israeli by birth – argues that such a conception of Jewish identify of its nature could never provide the basis for a viable Israeli identity, and is inherently likely to turn its fears of anti-Semitism into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
6. For most of my life, I would have regarded the kind of views expressed by Atzmon as delusional. However, events since the turn of the century have been progressively changing my view.
I think it was ‘Croesus’ who linked to an essay published last month in ‘Commentary’ magazine by the Israeli scholar Yoram Hazony on the Book of Esther, which was entitled ‘Mordecai’s Challenge: An Essay on War, Leadership, and Purim’.
Its analysis of text concludes:
‘Men are killed because they had been planning to murder the Jews, and as a preemption against future threats. The fact that this is understood by the Jews to be the sole motive raises their warfare to a level of purity much higher than that of Haman, and higher too than that which had been practiced by their forebears in the time of Saul.
‘It is for this reason that rabbinic tradition refers to Mordecai as ”the righteous”: because in successfully raising Jewish military action to a higher level of purity relative to the fearsome acts required by the politics and warfare of his place and time, he provided the kind of political leadership for which the Jews should hope in every generation.’
(See https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/mordecais-challenge-essay-war-leadership-purim/ .)
7. I think by this point, Atzmon might well be inclined to say – ‘I rest my case.’
Indeed, I do not think I have seen another text which brings out so well the undertones of a deeply corrupt – indeed antinomian – crusade in what Zionism has become. It is also a profoundly stupid text, in that the kind of graduate-school Machiavellianism it expounds quite patently will not provide a secure basis for the long-term survival of a Jewish settler state in the Middle East.
(Whether anything could is, of course, a relevant question. But that is one of the dangers: the apocalyptic mentality not uncommonly found in Zionists may reflect an underlying awareness that their enterprise is doomed to fail.)
8. A problem with Machiavellianism is that it can end up making one the object of distrust, and even on occasion excessive or unjustified distrust – as indeed that great devotee of ‘The Prince’, Joseph Stalin, found.
Obviously, the ‘people on the bus’ in Britain do not read ‘Commentary’. But a real problem which people like Jonathan Freedland, Nick Cohen, Lord Levy, and Simon Schama face is that – after the foreign policy catastrophes of the past years – people have been beginning to look at them and ask whether they belong to a ‘people’ whose interests and concerns are different from that of the British ‘people’.
9. And this need have nothing at all to do with any kind of traditional anti-Semitism. Indeed, it can not uncommonly be found among people – like myself – who have had close Jewish friends and colleagues all our lives, and are intensely aware of the immense debt which British society owes to Jewish refugees from the disasters of twentieth-century history.
“A pox on all of those geniuses that say Corporations are people & that Citizen’s United is a good decision from SCOTUS.”
First, I agree with Alba Etie on Citizen United. Does it help to say: sorry, alba?
But it also reminds me of a series of matters I have no clue about, (but still babble?) but should strictly know more about to form a solid judgement.
And yes, there is much more, I miss knowledge to form a solid judgment on, then matters I actually may be able to within limits. Among them is: limited knowledge in economics, limited knowledge in law. Both ours, the EU’s and others, e.g. US law. No doubt interest though. Thus: curious nitwit. 😉
In a nutshell, top-of-head-wise:
International: NGO’s seem to come under attack as potential government agents recently, mainly maybe in countries that have some type of political troubles with the NGO’s “national” home. They may well partly be. On the other hand the basic idea of an NGO seems to be some type of civilian interest articulation and its articulation in matters concerning the supporting group.
National: the basically rather unbiased legal structure, no doubt allows groups to change politics to your own advantage.
Again, I am no lawyer, how are you gonna handle this both nationally and on an international level.
Should we start to all monitor NGO’s or should there be some type of basic framework we can agree on, e.g. on the UN level?
NGO’s and Russia? Restrictions in the Iran? Existing?
I agree, this special group shows it on national ground versus the usual international ground where it so far caught my attention.
See my comment to Babak.
You wrote a back cover blurb for “Goliath”? OK, I’m buying it.