President Obama wants us to argue about the special relationship

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/president-special-relationship

In the last few days, something remarkable has taken place in American politics. The president of the United States has made a point of taking on the special relationship with Israel and the Israel lobby in his effort to defend the Iran deal, and supporters of the special relationship have struck back hard, accusing him of anti-Semitism. Elliott Abrams, Lee Smith and Tablet magazine for starters.

What’s remarkable is that mainstream supporters of the deal have left the president to do this heavy lifting on his own. They have largely ignored his pointed comments: that the Democrats are under pressure from big donors to oppose the Iran Deal, that the same moneyed groups pushed the Iraq war, that it would be an abrogation of his constitutional duty if he sided with Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu, and that Netanyahu’s intervention in American politics is unprecedented.

The exceptions are Eli Clifton working hard to expose AIPAC as warmongers at Lobelog, and David Bromwich attacking the Congress-people who are Netanyahu’s “marionettes” at Huffington Post.

But generally the liberal press has been embarrassed by Obama’s comments or tried to wish them away. The New York Times put AIPAC on its front page the other day, but allowed David Makovsky, an ardent supporter of Israel, to say that some of Obama’s statements are “dangerous.” David Rothkopf, the editor of Foreign Policy, is supporting the deal, but he has said on twitter that the emphasis on the Israel lobby is disturbing to him.

I remember a king of comedy that was always quoting stats on PBO and the Democrats siding with Israel: that s/he stood behind the POTUS.

Well, the poor old piker has grown silent of late. I guess his political obedience leans elsewhere on this.

[oberliner]

1. The Philip Weiss vanity blog posts continue unabated

It's like he's got someone at DU on his payroll.

[grossproffit]

2. Full time, too.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. It looks like the party is over for the few left over splainers.

There was a time when this group would ring with the "Obama stand behinds Israel" chorus.

It was almost comical in the knee-jerky way in which it was cast around in I/P: a worn and faded talisman by bitter elders.

Not so much anymore though.

Most of the vaudevillians that spun for Israel have dried up and blown away. Well, almost all of them.


So where do you stand on the Iran treaty, ober?

Are you with the POTUS on this deal or do you march to the beat of a different drum?

[oberliner]

4. Obama stands behind Israel

President Obama has repeatedly reiterated his absolute commitment to Israel's security.

In fact, the Iran deal was reached with Israel's security in mind.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. My question was...

So where do you stand on the Iran treaty, ober?

Are you with the POTUS on this deal or do you march to the beat of a different drum?

And incidentally you wrote that Obama has Israel's security inmind, but what is painfully clear is thst both Israel and AIPAC are working against this president.

So where do you stand: with Israel or PBO?

[shira]

5. Nah, it's that the level of discourse here in I/P is now total & complete shit...

It's bad enough the Israel-sucks crowd continues to post hate incitement on a liberal board. One vile article after the next from really bigoted websites...

It's another thing when, rather than having civil debate about the issues, the Israel-haters respond primarily with amateurish snark & insults, accusations of "Zionist" dual-loyalty, warmongering, support of fascists, support of Nazi/Apartheid/Colonial policy....followed up by outright goading in order to provoke a response that can then be alerted on.

Hell, if there's a way to alert on this post - it'll be alerted on too. I'm sure the wheels are spinning to find some way to alert & successfully hide this post.

I think many people would come back to I/P if all that stupid shit ended and was replaced by more serious debate & discussion.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. Ultimately, shira, you are the author of your own hides.

So instead of dog whistle 'bigots under my bed' protests how about you answer this simple question.

So where do you stand on the Iran treaty?

Are you with the POTUS on this deal or do you march to the beat of a different drum?

[shira]

9. "...instead of dog whistle 'bigots under my bed protests'...."

And you wonder why the 'splainers aren't here anymore?

===================

I think it's a bad deal, but Israel should support it. Help out with suggestions on keeping Iran accountable to the deal. So I'm for it at this point.

Doesn't matter anyway.

The Saudi led (Sunni) coalition that's fighting (Shiite) Iran in Yemen will focus on Iran next. End of problem.

[6chars]

10. You are an insightful woman.

[shira]

6. Besides being a hate site, there's a reason Mondoweiss' articles are....

...understood to be unintelligent, crude propaganda.

In this article, Phil Weiss wants Americans to question Jewish power, money, & influence. As well as dual-loyalty. These are centuries-old anti-semitic canards that can be found within hoaxes like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But this is what Weiss wants. Of course we know from history how this "discussion" of Jewish power has always been good for Jewish communities in Europe & throughout the Mideast. So let's have more of it!



Weiss writes of himself:

Myself, I became an anti-Zionist in recent years because my liberal American values impelled me to demand that Palestinians living under Israeli rule should have the right to vote for their government.

Palestinians already vote for their government in areas A, B, and C of the W.Bank. They have the right to vote (if Hamas grants it) in Gaza as well. And this is why Weiss became an anti-zionist? What a moron.

Weiss goes on to write:

I find that belief really tribal and oldfashioned; but it led Oren, an American-Israeli, to rush his book out this spring so that he could appeal to American Jews to work against the Iran Deal. The same thing Netanyahu did last week by having a special speech for Jews. The Israel lobby is necessary Jewish power for these rightwing Zionists. And by the way, Oren also believes that the Jewish “homeland” extends to the biblical lands of the West Bank.

Michael Oren is not Rightwing. At worst, he's Centrist. Of course, anyone not from the Stalinist hard Left these days is considered Rightwing by Mondoweiss & other like-minded anti-Zionists.

But liberal Zionists are also not helping Obama out. They are uncomfortable with his daring. Why? Some are genuinely fearful that a full-on discussion of the Zionist lobby or the neoconservatives is a discussion of Jewish power; and there will be a rise in anti-Semitism if people start talking about who is trying to block the deal and why.

Who? 2/3 of the American people are against the deal. But it's only the Jews?

"Why" is never discussed. As in, Israelis who have to live with this deal. They simply don't trust an Iran that has been at war with Israel for a while now (through Hezbollah and Hamas). It's not just threats of destroying Israel. Iran acts on those threats & Israelis know Iran will use $50 to $150 Billion dollars in sanctions relief to keep attacking Israel.

This is never factored in at vanity sites like Mondoweiss.

More important, liberal Zionists (don't) want to maintain the Zionist lobby in D.C., but reconstitute it. They want to see AIPAC broken so the lobby becomes an anti-occupation lobby that will get the U.S. to pressure Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and create a Palestinian state, or entity, or Bantustan. But liberal Zionists want the lobby around so that America will continue to support Israel, something Americans won’t do without Jewish pressure.

This is nonsense. American support for Israel is at all-time highs today (close to 70%). And yet Americans won't support Israel without AIPAC? Ridiculous. AIPAC doesn't exist without all this support.

Liberal Zionists don’t want American Jewish diversity because they don’t want a conversation that includes non- and anti-Zionists. Imagine you suddenly had a bunch of Jews who had legitimacy in Washington saying, We don’t need a Jewish state. That could destroy the American establishment consensus in favor of the special relationship.

Why would Jews want "diversity" like this? The only way there won't be a Jewish state is by war. Jews in Israel aren't going anywhere & they sure as hell don't trust Hamas to run a future Palestine where Jews are the minority and at the mercy of butchers like Ismael Haniyeh and Khaled Meshaal (heads of Hamas) who would massacre the Jews if given the means & opportunity.

If the American conversation were truly diverse, you would have a real discussion of Hamas’s roots in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine: and Max Blumenthal would be debating Senator Brian Schatz about Hamas on MSNBC. Blumenthal spent weeks in Gaza last year and he writes in The 51 Day War that Hamas militants are the resistance that we saw in “anti-colonial struggles throughout history, from Vietnam to Algeria to South Africa.”

Hamas is anti-colonial resistance. Unreal. And this is what is needed in America?

Yes, sacrificing their own people and children as human shields while shooting rockets at Jews due to pure malice and hate (the Hamas charter calls for the killing of all Jews) constitutes anti-colonial resistance. Yes, Hamas just wants their own state and peace with the Jews.

WTF?

This is Mondoweiss showing their support for Hamas "Resistance" against the Jews. Support for terrorism. Classy.

If the conversation were truly diverse, you’d hear other challenges to the special relationship, and not only from Jews: realists saying that having Iran back in the community of nations is good for the entire Middle East;

Yes, Iran is good for the Middle East. Their Imperialist gains in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon withstanding.

The whole article is garbage.

[geek tragedy]

11. Michael Oren is no longer considered a centrist.

After he bashed US Jews who put the US ahead of Israel and said Obama's foreign policy was driven by his Muslim upbringing.

He's a wingnut clown who repudiated his American-ness in order to become a full-time Israeli.

[King_David]

13. As one who supports Obama and his Iran deal, I must say your post is distasteful...

who repudiated his American-ness

He is now no longer guilty of dual loyalties but now uni-Loyalties?



As a proud supporter of Obama with a distaste for Oren let me tell you your post here is definitely not consistent with Democratic values and particularly disappointing it came from you whom most people including myself respect.

[geek tragedy]

14. He was an American who renounced his American citizenship.

He made a choice and has trouble understanding the mindset of those who would not make the same choice.